I was going to make some quip about Sarah Palin here, but really, I guess I just did. :)

So, it went through the Commons, after some wheeler-dealing, and now has to get through the Lords.

At the risk of sounding like someone writing to The Times, I am appalled and disgusted that it’s got this far. There is no justification for holding members of the public for so long. A week sounds about right to me, any more than that is simply wrong. Whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty”?

Right now, I’m ashamed that I ever voted Labour, and I never will do again.

Excellent news! The Commons has voted in support of research on hybrid embryos. Needless to say, the uninformed are up in arms about the “army of Frankesteins” about to be unleashed, but I think everyone who understands the issues knows this is the right outcome.

So, the votes on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill are taking place over the next couple of days, with the big one – hybrid embryos – happening today.

The BBC has summarised the key points on both sides of the debate:

What are the arguments in favour of this process?

Scientists who advocate the work say the cells would allow them to study how genetic defects, which cause diseases such as Parkinson’s, develop.

They also say that stem cells’ ability to develop into different tissues mean it could be possible to use cells formed in this process to cure diseases.

Using animal eggs would enable scientists to overcome the problem that human eggs are in short supply.

What are the arguments against?

Opponents say it is tampering with nature, and is unethical.

On the one hand we have a set of reasoned arguments detailing specific predicted health benefits for thousands of people, and on the other we have “eewwww!”.

I really wish people would stop conflating their own squeamishness with their ethical position; it clouds important issues, like this, where the ethical position is surely the one that saves lives.

This is excellent news. I’ve always voted Liberal Democrat anyway (well except that time I helped vote Tony Blair into power¹,) but now there’s another reason to do so. Their new party leader, Nick Clegg, has come out in a radio interview and confirmed himself as an atheist. “Do you believe in God?” was the question, and “no” was the answer.

The show’s quick fire interview format forces short, unequivocal answers like that, so we shouldn’t read too much into the brevity of the answer, but it’s reassuring to note that he hasn’t gone back on the position when questioned about it afterwards. Unfortunately, he has said that he has enormous respect for religion (which must, surely, be a lie to soothe the religious voters – how can he respect such a vast, byzantine social construct, with all of it’s rules and regulations and restrictions of liberty and downright wackiness, when he doesn’t accept the one fundamental assertion they use to justify the whole sorry mess?) and, more worryingly, that since his wife is a Catholic, their children will be raised as Catholics. I don’t understand how anyone free from the mind-virus of religion could willingly allow their own children to be infected with it.

But never mind; I can draw some comfort from that fact that if my vote ever leads to a landslide victory again (which is, admittedly, a very long shot with the Lib Dems,) that I won’t be handing power to someone who’s so far from my mindset that he’s actually afraid the country at large will think him a nutter if he’s honest about his degree of religiosity.

[^1]: I was a student, and only just old enough to vote when the 1997 general election came around. I can vividly remember sitting around with all my friends as the results came in, all of us buzzing with excitement as the Labour landslide became apparent. We’d obviously all voted for them, because students tend to vote left and because after chafing under 18 years of Tory rule, we just knew that a Labour victory would change the country for the better. When we saw those results come in, we really felt that our generation had made the difference, that we’d done what our parents never could; we’d kicked out the corrupt, right-wing, authoritarian Tories and given power to a more honest, democratic alternative. We felt like we’d changed the world, and that it was a change for good. Ironic, really.

1. I was a student, and only just old enough to vote when the 1997 general election came around. I can vividly remember sitting around with all my friends as the results came in, all of us buzzing with excitement as the Labour landslide became apparent. We’d obviously all voted for them, because students tend to vote left and because after chafing under 18 years of Tory rule, we just knew that a Labour victory would change the country for the better. When we saw those results come in, we really felt that our generation had made the difference, that we’d done what our parents never could; we’d kicked out the corrupt, right-wing, authoritarian Tories and given power to a more honest, democratic alternative. We felt like we’d changed the world, and that it was a change for good. Ironic, really. [↩]

Why is it whenever I read the name Halliburton it’s never because of some great philanthropic work they’ve done, or because of their contributions to charity. You never see anyone coming onto the news and thanking Halliburton for sorting their life out, do you? No; it’s always something like this.

I honestly don’t know what to say. It’s a good job my faith in basic human decency is more or less unshakable.

Thanks to Denialism for the link.

Apologies for the lack of updates recently; I’ve been busy enjoying a veritable cornucopia of symptoms for the past couple of weeks, and haven’t really been up to writing about much, even though there’s been plenty going on:

• The Texas Education Agency has fired Chris Comer, a staff member of nine years, for sending an email announcing a talk by a Barbara Forrest, a prominent critic of ID. The internet has been buzzing, and Forrest herself has written on how this proves her point that ID, rather than being a scientific position, is an attempt to force the religious right’s agenda into the classroom (and the public consciousness) through power-politics and outright bullying. Just remember kids; it’s the Darwinists who have a shady global conspiracy to suppress the opposition and get people fired just for supporting ID.

• The British government has given up all pretense at seeking consensus and is forcing through legislation that will increase the time “suspected terrorists” can be held without charge. If you’re a UK citizen, you can register your displeasure by signing this petition. Please take the time; this is a hugely important issue that bears directly on our most important human rights.

• Some poor teacher was arrested, tried, jailed and then deported for calling a Teddy Bear Muhammad. Local people took exception to the fact that she wasn’t executed and took to the streets in protest. Governments the world over seem not to notice that whenever a group of people go batshit insane and start demanding innocent people are beheaded for some utterly trivial slight to their culture, those people always seem to be Muslim. The British public seems not to notice that the laws Gillian Gibbons were arrested under bear a striking resemblance to the laws our government put in place a few years back with the express purpose of arresting Muslims for making utterly trivial slights against our culture.

That’s probably enough for tonight. I should be back to a more reasonable posting-schedule now, so if I think of anything else I missed, I’ll sneak it into a future post.

The Telegraph has an interesting article about how Tony Blair didn’t feel free to express his religion in public for fear of being seen as a “nutter”:

Mr Blair complained that he had been unable to follow the example of US politicians, such as President
George W. Bush, in being open about his faith because people in Britain regarded religion with suspicion.

“It’s difficult if you talk about religious faith in our political system,” Mr Blair said. “If you are in the
American political system or others then you can talk about religious faith and people say ‘yes,
that’s fair enough’ and it is something they respond to quite naturally.

“You talk about it in our system and, frankly, people do think you’re a nutter. I mean … you may go
off and sit in the corner and … commune with the man upstairs and then come back and say ‘right, I’ve
been told the answer and that’s it’.”

Well, fair enough. I can see why you’d want to avoid people thinking you made hugely important decisions about national security and international policy based on messages from ceilingcat God. I mean, that really would be insane.

The recent ordeal (which I’ve blogged about here and here,) of a young woman who was sentenced to state-sponsored brutality after being gang-raped is just one example of the shocking barbarity of the Saudi regime. It is unacceptable that the UK counts any nation with such a poor human-rights record as an ally, so please take a couple of minutes to sign this petition urging our government to sever friendly ties with Saudi Arabia until such a time as they join us in the 21st Century.

The actual text you’ll be putting your name to is:

The government have rolled out the Red carpet to the Saudi Royal Family yet the government of Saudi Arabia is an autocratic regime with an appalling human rights record. Executions, flogging and amputations are imposed and carried out with disregard for the most basic international fair trial standards. ‘Offences’ include being gay or being a woman unaccompanied by a man or driving a car. Yet with utter hypocrisy the UK government condemns similar regimes such as Burma and has very minimal ties with countries like Libya. The UK has turned a blind eye to this for its own selfish economic interests to the extent that we will break international law on corruption to avoid upsetting the Saudi Royal Family. As a consequence of this relationship we are perceived as supporters and backers of this repressive regime. We have seen the consequences of these injustices on the security of our country. It is now the opportunity to restore Britain’s dignity and end this stain on our country’s reputation.

Last year I blogged about a Saudi woman who’d been gang raped, and then charged by the authorities for being in the same car as a male friend who was not her husband (before the rape.) Initially, she was sentenced to 90 lashes (yes, corporal punishment.) She appealed that sentence (as well as the lenient sentences handed down on the rape gang.) Well, the appeal court has increased all the sentences. Not only have the rapists had their sentenced increased (as they should,) but so has their victim.

200 lashes and two years in prison for meeting a male friend. It’s backwards, it’s barbaric, and it’s a violation of her human rights. And our government tacitly supports it because the bigoted despots in charge are our allies and supply us with oil.