Techdirt is reporting odd goings-ons with .mobi. .mobi is about one of the most pointless things ever. I think the "m." convention is pretty good (m.gmail.com, m.technorati.com etc.) 
Dave is switching the servers around later. Tomorrow, I'll change my various domains over to the new server. I need to rationalise my OPML output.
The cost of education school? It's a lot more than £1,335.12. That's because state education is not "free" - it's just a hidden cost.
Mullen's mushy mangling of science 
If one were giving a speech to a libertarian organisation, what would one say? Perhaps one would argue against the extension of ever more intrusions on our civil liberties in the name of security? Or perhaps argue against the erosion of property rights that decisions like Kelo v. New London have brought about? Or even the thuggery of anti-drug efforts - homes torn apart and families shattered because of the paternalistic policies of most Western governments? Perhaps the thousands of little government-induced nuisances in ordinary life?
Those are the sort of things that libertarians should get really irate about. The fact that the government can bust in to your house in the middle of the night, armed with an M-16 in order to remove a gram of pot is something to be angry about. But, evidently, those are not the concerns of Rev. Dr. Peter Mullen, who, last month, gave the speech at the banquet of the Freedom Association (PDF transcript).
Here, Rev. Mullen, tells us that Darwinism - along with Marxism and Freudianism - sits as the root cause of our political malaise. I am no fan of either Marx or Freud, but when it comes to Darwin, isn't he being just a little silly? No, he's being a lot silly.
He asserts that Richard Dawkins holds a view - no, a "doctrine" - "that we are at the mercy of our genetic make-up", and that, along with Marxism and Freudianism, these theories "are a blatant war on individual freedom and the human personality".
Funny that, because I distinctly remember Dawkins writing about this a number of times, such as in the second chapter of The Extended Phenotype where he states that "[t]he belief that genes are somehow super-deterministic, in comparsion with envrionmental causes, is a myth of extraordinary tenacity, and it can give rise to real emotional distress" (1999, p. 11).
The "humbug pseud", Professor Dawkins, has dismissed the allegations levelled against him by Rev. Mullen at least three times, all three before Rev. Mullen gave his speech. He then joins the ever-growing list of clergymen who have an extraordinary capability to attach to Dawkins words which he has never uttered and positions he has never held. One in fact has to wonder whether Rev. Mullen has actually read any Dawkins at all - considering how Dawkins has published articles with titles like "The Myth of Genetic Determinism" and said things like "The effect of genes on bodies and behaviour is like the effect of cigarette smoke on lungs. If you smoke heavily, you increase the statistical odds that you'll get lung cancer. You won't infallibly give yourself lung cancer" (A Devil's Chaplain, p. 125).
What Professor Dawkins has stated about determinism would be seen by any competent biologist or geneticist as simple scientific fact, and it does not matter whether that person is a Blairite, a Thatcherite, a Marxist or a Randian, or any other political ideology. It is quite sensible science. Indeed, that is why the geneticist and author, Matt Ridley, has said much the same thing: "In Europe most people think that the discovery of genes that influence human behaviour must inevitably lead to a sort of behavioural apartheid in which the genetically disfavoured are abandoned to their fate... a belief in genetic determinism has been accompanied by a renewed determination to find remedial education that works". Ridley - for clergyman and those not in the know (excuse the repetition) - is of a fairly right-of-centre political opinion, writing for the Economist, for instance - a fact that has been used against him in his endorsement of Bjørn Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist.
The second problem with Rev Mullen's speech is that he imbibes all three of his allegedly demonic theories as being ethically normative. This is probably true with Marxism (I have not read enough Marx to confirm or disconfirm it), probably false with Freudianism (although some of Freud's successors no doubt found something to waffle on about in their lengthy tomes - Lacan, Guattari et al. - unfortunately, I am not blessed with the patience to find anything comprehensible in the work of these undoubtedly great thinkers). But when it comes to Darwinism - or rather, evolutionary biology - it is patently silly.
That is not to say that evolutionary biology does not have ethical attachments. Both the right and the left have tried to claim Darwin for themselves - sometimes sensibly and somtimes with disastarous effects - Herbert Spencer, the Eugenicists and, more recently, people like Peter Singer and Michael Ruse. None of this has any connection with the truth of evolution, because evolutionary biology doesn't try and say "this is good", it simply says "this is true". It sometimes describes what we would call ethical or moral behaviour and tries to find reasons to underpin it - like ethical egoism (all moral behaviour is for the good of the self) does, but does not suggest the adoption of it as an ethic. That's why Dawkins describes intricate animal behaviours like female spiders which bind their mates during intercourse and then consumes them upon completion. Is he suggesting that all females ought to bind all males during sex and gobble up their flesh in the style of a heterosexual Armin Miewes? Of course not. Dawkins is writing about how things are, not how things ought to be. If Reverend Mullen does not quite understand the difference, I'm sure that G. E. Moore's writings on ethics might make it a little clearer for him.
One only needs to look to the second page of Dawkins' first book, The Selfish Gene, to see quite categorically the statement: "I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave. I stress this, because I know I am in danger of being misunderstood by those people, all too numerous, who cannot distinguish a statement of belief in what is the case from an advocacy of what ought to be the case" (p. 2-3).
If I had to guess what the most frequently levelled objections to Professor Dawkins' work that I have seen are, it would be confusion about determinism and confusion about ethics. One has to wonder whether it is in fact not simply confusion but downright deceit that motivates the continued presence of these charges despite being disclaimed numerous times in Dawkins' published works (as well as countless times in interviews).
This kind of emotionalist twaddle is probably the key reason why the libertarian movement in the UK is seen as cranky and fringe. Fortunately, some libertarians do get it - even if they occasionally waffle a bit. For instance, I haven't got a problem with people living in a collectivist manner, so long as they do it voluntarily and don't try to force those people outside to go along with it. Similarly, I think Adorno is a superb writer - even though he comes from a strong Marxist perspective. Mullen's speech not only shows a stunning ability to misinterpret, but also to jump to the conclusion that everything is some form of socialist conspiracy. As much as I agree that free markets are a great idea, I think that Mullen's conspiratorial tone fails to take us anywhere interesting. The key premise, for me, is simple: it does not matter what the motivation is. Is the increased security at airports there to try and prevent terrorism or is it there as a conspiracy to inspire fear? Probably a little of both. I don't care how much though. I object on principle to being searched because it is an intrusion on my liberty by the State. That is the only thing that matters. Coming up with conspiracy theories about how evolutionary biology is the root cause of totalitarianism is misguided - it is untrue, severely manhandles the facts and does not serve any actual political purpose.
Further reading: Jeremy Stangroom, Misunderstanding Richard Dawkins and Genes and Determinism: An Interview.
Security at airports: a FOIA request
I have just sent a freedom of information request to the Department for Transport. It's regarding the new X-ray machies at airports. This is what my request asks for:
Detailed information about the handling of images and information collected from passengers during airport security procedures, specifically with regard to the new X-ray-based body scanning system (for instance, the system in operation at London Heathrow). This will include how such information is stored, transmitted, used, disposed of and otherwise handled by airport security, the Police, the Department for Transportation and any other government agency. Information can and should include both the policies governing said security measures as well as any information regarding how the measures are operating in practice.
It will be interesting to see the results (if any). There goes my Freedom of Information Act virginity.
