Blog

Some insights into the methods and concepts of our Scientology neighbors. Let me introduce you to the E-meter. I found this from a link in a Slashdot story about Scientology being granted access to eBay’s database.

Extract: The Year of Living Biblically

One of the more interesting notions I’ve run across in the recent past. Spending a year running around London in robes trying to live according to biblically state principles is an interesting use of one’s time, of what value I’m unsure. Anyway, the excerpt is compelling if a bit strange (he talks about stoning adulterers and Sabbath breakers with pebbles since tossing larger rocks is rather unsavory to him). An interesting read, though I don’t know if I’m inclined to spring for the book.

Australians unite, almost, on Aboriginal apology

It’s sad how little of this I’ve heard in the US media. It is a critical moment in world history, and in the global movement for aboriginal peoples.

‘Mobile, coffee don’t cause cancer’

Brendan Stewart, a professor at the University of New South Wales, has released a study that refutes the idea that cell phones, coffee, and deodorants cause cancer. It also damns tobacco as the worst carcinogen, stating it worse than asbestos.

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".

I feel a bit negligent that I just noticed this dust up over that really started last week. I’ve had a great deal of respect for Archbishop Rowan Williams, and certainly don’t envy the fault lines he needs to navigate in the current state of the Anglican Communion.  What I find most compelling in his statement is the idea of multiple tiers of “the law”.  This debate really seems to be concerning the limits of the state. Should a non-governmental agency have the ability to offer up some type of judicial action, or is that only reserved for state sanctioned courts? Personally, I see the state in charge of minimally necessary social laws (private property rights, what-have-you), perhaps leaving room for some other level of social governance. However, for these entities, people should be able to engage and disengage at will. In other words, if someone converts from Islam, they would no longer be subject to the Sharia court’s jurisdiction. I guess this could be viewed as a secondary social compact. Anyway, with this, just because someone might be able to disentangle themselves from this court doesn’t mean that they would be free of recrimination for violating the covenant they engaged in, whether ostracization or something else. The state would just provide limits on the level of punishment. Interesting ideas, really. This is just what rattles off my fingers at the basic, first read. I’d be interested in hearing what others have to say, of course.