Good Reason

It's okay to be wrong. It's not okay to stay wrong.

Category: politics (page 14 of 19)

Why is disbelief threatening?

8 April 2008 / / 12 Comments

I shouldn’t be amazed at the overheated rhetoric going on, but I sometimes am.

Data point 1: An outrageous outburst from Illinois state legislator Monique Davis. Apparently the governor had been shoveling money to a Baptist church, and when atheist and legal gadfly Rob Sherman took up the matter, her response was (click through for audio):

Davis: What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous–

Sherman: What’s dangerous, ma’am?

Davis: It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But damn if you’ll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands. I am fed up! Get out of that seat!

Sherman: Thank you for sharing your perspective with me, and I’m sure that if this matter does go to court—

Davis: You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.

Summary: Atheists have no right to be here, and are dangerous and destructive. Even the knowledge that atheism exists is harmful to children.

Data point 2: Dawkins’ website shows a new book, a bit of pushback to the New Atheism: The Delusion of Disbelief: Why the New Atheism is a Threat to Your Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness

Unpack that title: People who don’t believe in god not only threaten your life and your liberty, but also, somehow, America.

I could go on.

Why are atheists so threatening?

I like the House of Cards theory: Religious faith has no factual basis. Believers secretly suspect this, and aren’t pleased when people point it out. Remember that Monty Python sketch about El Mystico, who would put up blocks of flats by hypnosis? It’s like that; belief holds the edifice up; disbelief makes it collapse.

Another answer has to do with magical thinking: I used to hear people in church express the view that the righteous are somehow protecting the wicked just by being scattered within the population. It’s like the story of Abraham in Sodom: if only he’d been able to find a few good people, the city would have been magically saved. Conversely, atheists within a population can magically undermine it by emanating powerful waves of anti-God energy, capable of destroying countries and institutions.

But I think the most accurate view is the Meme War. Maybe believers are actually right. Atheists are dangerous — to belief systems, not to people. Admittedly, this is a distinction that True Believers have trouble making. When you’re so heavily invested in your belief system that you mistake it for your whole life, then it’s easy to think that a threat to the belief system equals a threat to your life.

What this tells me (yet again) is that religion, if taken seriously, has an unhealthy ability to engulf your entire life. It can encompass your family, your community, and your entire way of living, to the detriment of your ability to see clearly. Certainly true for ‘high-commitment’ religions.

Last year, at the start of the ‘New Atheist’ insurgence, I wondered, “When are we going to see some pushback?” Well, here it is. Unfortunately, instead of bringing good arguments, the believers are making even less sense than usual. Which makes me wonder: is it superstitious for atheists to claim that religious people are threatening?

Fitna

1 April 2008 / / Comments Off on Fitna

The film ‘Fitna’ is a really nasty and biased piece of inflammatory, manipulative garbage made by a right-wing anti-immigration asshole.

I’ve decided to link to it here for three reasons.

1. LiveLeak took it down temporarily because of death threats. Fuck that. Fuck anyone using threats and intimidation to control what we see and hear.

2. The people featured in the film really did say the things they said, and it’s reasonable to expose them to the light.

3. I’m aware that there are nice moderate Muslims, just like there are nice moderate Christians and nice moderate Jews. I’m also aware that there are scriptures in the Quran (Bible, etc.) that urge peace and shun violence. But you know what? It doesn’t matter. How peaceful a religion is depends on who’s running it at the time. Even if a religion is currently completely nice, there will always be some ‘bad scriptures’ lurking in there, waiting for some weirdo to interpret in their own violent way. It’s only a matter of time. Tick tick tick.

And when enough people believe their interpretation, they’ll take planes into buildings, and kill people for not believing. They’ll even murder their own children because of the extremist view. And there’s no way to reason them out of it — the delusion is fixed.

This is why moderate religionists are just as responsible for extremism as the extremists. The problem is god-belief. If people believe that a supernatural being exists, and wants them to do certain things, then their belief can be co-opted by anyone convincing. If not now, then when the climate changes. The line is not between the moderate and the extremist. It’s between the rationalist and the supernaturalist.

Blasphemy laws dropped in UK

7 March 2008 / / Comments Off on Blasphemy laws dropped in UK

Time was, if you denied that gods existed loudly and publicly enough, you were considered a threat to the social fabric and arrested under blasphemy laws. This Wikipedia page mentions James Naylor, who in 1656 suffered flogging, branding and the piercing of his tongue by a red-hot poker.

No more. The little-used and anachronistic blasphemy laws have been revoked.

After an acrimonious debate in which the bogeyman of secularism was repeatedly invoked, the House of Lords on Wednesday March 5 2008 accepted the amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill that abolishes the common law of blasphemy and blasphemous libel.

I liked the comment from the Earl of Onslow:

On the question of blasphemy, it has always struck me that if Jesus Christ exists, and if Jesus Christ in his Godlike form was capable of creating the universe, then he could quite easily hack the bit of left-wing obscurantism and b-mindedness that writes things such as “Jerry Springer: The Opera”. If he does not exist, nothing will happen; if he does exist, it is up to him to get hold of the chap who wrote it and make sure that he does time in the diabolical house of correction. The offence is unnecessary.

It also seems that the provision applies only to the Church of England, not to the doctrines of the Roman church, as far as I can gather. You can be just as rude and insulting as you like about the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, papal infallibility, or what the Church of Rome says about contraception; you can be blasphemous about those without any possibility of being prosecuted.

Blasphemy is a crime that is open to intense mockery. As the Minister said, something that is open to mockery and has been used only four times since 16-something-or-other has no place on the statute book.
…
Please let us now get rid of the crime of blasphemy. It is unnecessary and otiose.

Not everyone was happy.

Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: …The fact that one has not had a flood for a very long time does not mean that one should destroy the floodgates. My fear is that the removal of this provision will be seen as encouraging people to make outrageous statements that are needlessly offensive to a great many people. They will only do it to annoy, because they know it teases.

He then burst into tears, sucking his thumb while rocking and whimpering quietly to himself.

Obama and religion

5 March 2008 / / 3 Comments

American secularists. Try bringing up god in relation to politics, and watch them bristle. And for good reason, too — did you see what the Christians did to the place once they got in power? We’ll never get our bond back.

Expect a nuclear allergic reaction from reading them this passage (and others) from Barack Obama:

And during the course of that sermon, I was introduced to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed and that if I placed my trust in Christ, He could set me on the path to eternal life.

Ideally, a rational thinker would be in the White House. Someone who knows how to think critically, and who knows the difference between evidence and not-evidence. (Which disqualifies Grandpa McCain.) But until that day, we’re stuck with either a politician who panders to religion, or (worse) a politician who actually believes it. Obama comes uncomfortably close to the latter.

But maybe we’re not all sunk. Consider the situation we faced over here in Australia with Kevin Rudd, leader of the center-left ALP. From the outset, he made it clear that not only was he a believer, but that he didn’t intend to abandon faith to the Right, and that his religious beliefs were going to inform his politics.

At the time, I found this inappropriate. Australia’s secular! Couldn’t we just let the right-wing have religion, and then the grown-ups can get on with the work? But of course, I voted Labor. (Well, Secular, with preferences to Labor.) And lo and behold, Labor did turf out the Liberals, and there was much rejoicing.

And then what did Rudd do when he got into office? He ratified Kyoto, he apologised to the Stolen Generation of Aboriginal Australians, and he introduced legislation to dismantle Workplace Agreements (which allow employers to pay you less than scale if you ‘agree’). He sent Navy ships to monitor Japanese whalers, for Pete’s sake! And that’s just the first 100 days. Not a bad start.

Everyone picks and chooses out of scripture. As a credit to his character, Rudd picked and chose parts of the Bible that happened to correspond to not being a moralistic cretin. The Religious Right loves Deuteronomy because that reflects what they like — especially hating on gays. Rudd’s more of a Sermon on the Mount kind of guy.

But if our starting point in this debate is supposed to be Christianity (and therefore a Christian view of morality), then my challenge to the Coalition is as follows: isn’t our preparedness to feed the hungry and give shelter to the homeless a moral value; isn’t our preparedness to respond humanely to those who seek refuge in this country from political oppression elsewhere a moral value; and is not our response to the 1.5 billion people around the world in abject poverty also a question of moral values?

Obama’s not as gung-ho on the separation of church and state as a Democrat ought to be (a bit like Rudd), but he does agree that faith has been hijacked (as does Rudd). He has reached out to non-believers. His rhetoric seems more inspirational than doctrinal. I think (or perhaps just hope) that Obama might be more a Rudd-style Christian, and less a Huckabee-style one.

I can live with that, at least until the coming Glorious Age of Rationalism bursts upon us.

More questions from the search logs

29 February 2008 / / 6 Comments

People posed questions to Google, searching for wisdom, and instead found themselves here, looking at posts that were only tangentially related. Well, now I’m answering their questions. Too bad they left in disgust before they could read these responses, but you’re in luck.

is there ever a good reason for children to work

Why, yes, there is. My boys and I have just finished cleaning up Australia. (It took a while, but now it’s done for another year.) We spent a couple of hours picking up rubbish at a public park nearby with other volunteers. The boys got to do some public service, and they now have little patience with people who litter. I also learned that every volunteer thinks they’re going to find a body in the leaves, like at the beginning of a CSI episode.

But I think the question refers to child labor. Employers would love to get their hands on children because they’re cheap, compliant, and don’t unionise. Thank goodness progressives in the last century worked to pass laws to stop the exploitation of child workers. But you’d expect the current generation of conservative vipers to wish for a return to the Gilded Age, and argue for rollbacks. And so they do.

Meet Connor. He’s a constitutional conservative, a Mormon, and is currently in training to become a member of the next generation of apologists for unreconstructed small-government conservatism. He sharpens his rhetorical chops on his blog, where you’ll sometimes find me disrupting the social fabric. And the most jaw-dropping post so far has been this one where he argues that government has no business dictating the terms of child labour, and that it should be left up to financially desperate parents and their children. Can’t see any problems coming there!

This is why I say that movement conservatism is a pathology. Allowing employers to exploit children like in the old days would cause untold problems. And what problems would it solve? The problem of not enough conservatism? It’s madness. And since no one’s going to implement their program in totality, there’s no way to show them it’s madness. They’ll always claim that their program hasn’t been followed in an ideologically pure fashion.

Have a look at the post and prepare to shake your head in amazement. This is the logical conclusion of small-government libertarianism. They really are amoral cretins.

fatherly quotes

My father had a lot of quotes, mostly because he liked to say the same things over and over. As an educator, he called it ‘reinforcement’, but as a kid I called it ‘boring’. But at least I still remember a few things he said, so maybe he was onto something.

When, as a kid, I would get my shoelaces in a knot, Dad would untie them for me, and as he did, he’d say:

If a string is in a knot,
Patience will untie it.
Patience can do anything.
Have you ever tried it?

And now I say it to my boys, and the cycle continues. Cycle of what, I won’t say.

And my favourite:

When in danger,
When in doubt,
Run in circles.
Scream and shout.

I have followed this advice many times.

does milk cause mucus
do dairy products cause mucus
does dairy cause mucous
does dairy cause mucus
milk causing mucus

How many ways can we ask this question? Can we spell ‘mucus’ any differently? What if we include the various spellings of ‘yoghourte’?

But however you ask it, the answer is still: nope, milk does not cause mucus or mucous. Here’s a recent (2005) study entitled Milk Consumption Does Not Lead to Mucus Production or Occurrence of Asthma. From the abstract:

There is a belief among some members of the public that the consumption of milk and dairy products increases the production of mucus in the respiratory system. Therefore, some who believe in this effect renounce drinking milk. According to Australian studies, subjects perceived some parameters of mucus production to change after consumption of milk and soy-based beverages, but these effects were not specific to cows’ milk because the soy-based milk drink with similar sensory characteristics produced the same changes. In individuals inoculated with the common cold virus, milk intake was not associated with increased nasal secretions, symptoms of cough, nose symptoms or congestion. Nevertheless, individuals who believe in the mucus and milk theory report more respiratory symptoms after drinking milk.

So if you believe dairy causes mucus, and if you think you’ve just drunk some, you’ll report more mucus. Even if you haven’t had any.

40 and still in grad school

Hey, that’s a bit harsh. Go somewhere else if you’re going to be like that.

Taxonomy of morality

28 February 2008 / / Comments Off on Taxonomy of morality

We interrupt our normal schedule of godless religion-bashing to talk about something important: morality.

How do you know what’s moral? Why do good people differ on moral issues? When people’s ideas of morality conflict, is that because different people focus on different aspects of morality? Has anyone tried to construct a taxonomy of morality?

For the last question, yes, and here is one such attempt that I found intriguing.

Moral Foundations Theory proposes that five innate psychological systems form the foundation of “intuitive ethics.” Each culture constructs its particular morality as a set of virtues, values, and ideas based on or related to these five foundations (as well as to many other non-moral aspects of the evolved mind).

The five parameters they’ve come up with are:

  • Harm/Care
  • Fairness/Reciprocity
  • Ingroup/Loyalty
  • Authority/Respect
  • Purity/Sanctity

I’m not sure what they’re basing these groups on (I can think of better values than ‘Ingroup/Loyalty’), but if you don’t like them and you can show them some other empirically-based reason to split or lump them, they’ll change it and pay you. (What would that experiment look like?)

Where things get interesting, and where you actually get some predictive validity, is the application to politics.

The current American culture war can be seen as arising from the fact that liberals try to create a morality relying almost exclusively on the Harm/Care and Fairness/Reciprocity foundations; conservatives, especially religious conservatives, use all five foundations, including Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity. In every sample we have examined (including samples in the US, UK, Europe, Latin America, and Asia), political conservatism correlates negatively with endorsement of the Harm and Fairness foundations, and positively with endorsement of the Ingroup, Authority, and Purity foundations.

At first, I didn’t like the idea that conservatives use all five parameters — what’s fair about regressive tax laws or lack of health care for the very poor? But after looking at a few cases, it seems to me that conservatives do use the first two parameters, but their ability to do so accurately is challenged by their over-reliance on bad information and emotional reasoning with respect to the other three.

Let’s try it out. Pick a political issue. My lovely and talented assistant Miss Perfect has chosen ‘immigration’.

According to this taxonomy, we should expect Liberals to be geared towards maximising fairness and minimising harm. Certainly putting children in detention camps, as Australia does, falls short of fairness and care. Conservatives would care about fairness and care, too — for themselves (they’re taking our jobs!), but their feelings about these would be mingled with ideas about Ingroup/Loyalty (They come over and don’t speak the language!) and Authority/Respect (They know they’re here illegally!).

Pornography. Our Standard Liberal (let’s call him Mr Liberal) would oppose pornography only to the extent that someone’s being harmed by it. Which is to say that for most forms of non-violent erotica involving adults, Mr L would say, “Eh.”

Mr Conservative might also oppose porn where people are being harmed, but his ideas about harm would be mingled with his ideas about purity and sanctity. He might argue that porn does harm its users, perhaps defining harm so broadly as to include everyone in a society where pornography is being made.

Gay marriage: Mr Liberal might say, “It’s not hurting anyone. And it doesn’t seem fair that gay people are being denied the right to get married, along with the insurance and inheritance perks.”

But Mr Conservative would say “It does harm the institution of marriage. And it’s defiling the Purity/Sanctity of marriage.” He’d also want to keep the gays out of the marriage club (Loyalty/Ingroup), though he’d probably keep that to himself around Mr Liberal.

Mr L and Mr C are both moral actors, but Mr Conservative defines harm in a very self-referential way. If something is good for his in-group, it’s good. Out-group? Not so much. And Mr C is more fearful. He thinks that things he doesn’t like have a magical ability to reach in and hurt him. Possibly a result of all that magic thinking he learned in church.

This taxonomy gave me some interesting thoughts to chew on. What do you think?

(h/t Jewish Atheist)

Deconversion stories: the 2004 election

17 February 2008 / / 7 Comments

We’re knee-deep in election results these days, so I thought I’d tell about an eye-opening election result that assisted in my deconversion.

During my Utah days, I was a member of that rare but illustrious species: the Mormon Democrat. I didn’t mind being a minority; I rather liked it. Contrarian streak. Most members agreed (in theory) that liberals could be good members of the Church, but every once in a while someone would question whether liberal points of view were in fact compatible with Church teachings! It didn’t bother me too much. I figured those things weren’t the Church, just the people. One day, things might even out. They were good people.

Fast-forward to the 2004 election. Most Americans now disapprove of George W. Bush as president, but at the time, it was running half and half. That seemed strange. Having started the Iraq war, after the revelations of Abu Ghraib, the choice between Bush and NotBush seemed fairly clear and unambiguous. Not everyone would make the right choice, but didn’t the Book of Mormon say that most people would make the right choice most of the time?

Then came the results: Utah went for Bush county for county, one of only three states to do so.

Well, of course they did. Utah’s conservative, and is to this day more pro-Bush than any other state. But the election did disabuse me of one idea: that the conservatism of Utah was some kind of anomaly that would get sorted out eventually. The people of my church had gotten it wrong, and badly so. No dissenting counties? Not even Park City? A state full of people that claimed to have the Holy Spirit of God had voted for evil, and their vote was unanimous.

I can smile about it now — Utah didn’t vote the way I wanted them to, so they’re evil. But at the time, it was profoundly disappointing. They would never get it. And it changed the way I saw rank and file Mormons. They could get it wrong.

Australian flag debate

15 February 2008 / / 1 Comment

Of course there are more important questions than whether Australia should change its flag. But we at Good Reason firmly believe that if you wait until the big issues are solved, you’ll never deal with the little issues. So I want to put forward my pick for the new design, in case Australians ever decide to resolve the whole flag debate.

Here it is.

It’s tasteful and modern, it’s got the Aboriginal dots thing going on, and it combines sky, sea, beach, and bush, which just about covers the Australian Experience.

Seen anything better?

Wanker of the Week: Brendan Nelson

11 February 2008 / / Comments Off on Wanker of the Week: Brendan Nelson

People don’t like the realisation that they’re irrelevant, but it is a rare person who can realise it, and then try to ingratiate themselves and kvetch at the same time. Liberal Brendan Nelson is just such a person.

The Opposition has offered in-principle support to an apology but is waiting to be fully briefed by the Prime Minister about the precise wording of the speech.

You know, I don’t really care whether this batch of Liberal wankers support The Apology or not. They blocked it until it looked like it was going to happen without them, and now they’re jumping on. Where were they before?

Wait, it gets better. Notice how, having contributed nothing to the whole “sorry” mess, Nelson gets pissy about not having been included.

Leader of Government Business in the Lower House, Anthony Albanese, says the wording of the apology will be released for all to see tomorrow.

But Dr Nelson has told Fairfax Radio he has not been told what is going on.

“This is all appearing chaotic. To the great credit [of] a lot of my colleagues we have decided in principle we will support this,” he said.

“But if Mr Rudd wants it to unify Australia, to bring our nation together, the most important person he should be negotiating with is me.“

“It’s very important that we actually sit down, we’re two days away from this for goodness sake.”

Me! It’s all about me! Only Dr Nelson and his precious feelings can heal this nation!

No, it’s about the people who have been wronged by the policy. It’s a bus, Dr Nelson. You missed it.

UPDATE: It never stops for Nelson.

Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson has been forced to defend his response to today’s stolen generations apology, in which he spoke of indigenous Australians “living lives of existential aimlessness”.

The Liberal leader provoked outrage among the thousands who gathered across the nation to watch the televised broadcast when he spoke of ”the seemingly intractable and disgraceful circumstances in which many indigenous Australians find themselves today”.

Across the country, people booed, hissed and shouted during Dr Nelson’s speech – with some going so far as to pull the plug on the televised broadcast.

In Melbourne, the 8000-strong crowd at Federation Square turned its back on the screen during Dr Nelson’s speech, amid chants of “get him off”.

In Perth, noise from the angry crowd that had gathered on the city’s Esplanade drowned out Dr Nelson’s words. A protester then cut the Liberal leader’s speech short by pulling the plug and causing a power failure.

In Canberra, many of those gathered outside Parliament House had either walked away or turned their backs by the end of his speech.

Some grew increasingly angry as Dr Nelson told Parliament: “Our generation does not own these actions, nor should it feel guilt for what was done in many, but certainly not all cases, with the best intentions.“

Members of the crowd jeered and yelled at Dr Nelson to “get off”, “go and learn history” and “get your hand off it Brendan”.

It gets worse if you read the full text. At first, the speech seems appropriate enough, but it eventually turns into partisan rancor…

Alcohol, welfare without responsibilities, isolation from the economic mainstream, corrupt management of resources, nepotism, political buck-passing between governments with divided responsibilities, lack of home ownership, under-policing and tolerance by authorities of neglect and abuse of children that violates all we stand for, all combine to still see too many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living lives of existential aimlessness.

defence of John Howard…

Sexual abuse of Aboriginal children was found in every one of the 45 Northern Territory communities surveyed for the Little Children are Sacred report. It was the straw breaking the camel’s back, driving the Howard government’s decision to intervene with a suite of dramatically radical welfare, health and policing initiatives.

cultural warfare…

Our generation has, over 35 years, overseen a system of welfare, alcohol delivery, administration of programs, episodic preoccupation with symbolism and excusing the inexcusable in the name of cultural sensitivity, to create what we now see in remote Aboriginal Australia.

… and, incredibly, defence of people that carried out the acts of kidnapping (with undertones of warning against giving the dole to those filthy undeserving poor).

Even when motivated by inherent humanity and decency to reach out to the dispossessed in extreme adversity, our actions can have unintended outcomes. As such, many decent Australians are hurt by accusations of theft in relation to their good intentions.

In future, when people tell us there’s really no difference between the two major political parties, let’s just remember this moment, shall we?

UPDATE 2: Unbelievable.

As Nelson rose to offer his apology to the Stolen Generations on behalf of his Opposition, the signs were already abroad that all was not roses. West Australian Liberal Wilson Tuckey had made great show of reciting louder than anyone the Lord’s Prayer at the beginning of the parliamentary session, and then had marched out of the chamber. He would have nothing to do with any apology. Nor would fellow West Australian Don Randall, who was absent, and Victorian Sophie Mirabella, also missing. Others shuffled paper and read throughout Rudd’s speech, and Peter Costello tapped on a laptop computer.

I

I got nothing.

Australia finally ready to say ‘sorry’

31 January 2008 / / 1 Comment

The Howard government steadfastly refused to apologise to Australian Aboriginals for policies that saw children taken from their homes. Now with a new Prime Minister, the hardest word — ‘sorry’ — will finally be said.

Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister, will deliver the apology to the “stolen generations” on the floor of Parliament on February 13. It will be the Labor Government’s first item of business.

“It’s building a bridge of respect which I think has been in some state of disrepair in recent decades,” Mr Rudd said. “But having crossed that bridge, the other part of it is all about practical business.”

The apology will come more than a decade after a government inquiry established that at least 100,000 children were removed from their parents between about 1869 and 1969. They were placed in orphanages run by churches or charities, or fostered out to socialise them with European culture. Some were brutalised or abused.

Americans, can you imagine what it must feel like for this Australian to see a return to sanity? For years, our respective governments have approached every problem with a stubborn belligerence, doing whatever they wanted, legal or not, moral or not, and they dared us to hold them accountable. Now in Australia at least, reasonable grownups hold the reins. Somehow it makes you feel exhilerated, and want to cry at the same time. I hope you get to experience this soon.

I remember the first Sorry Day in 1998, when people decided to go over Howard’s head, and apologise one on one. I happened to meet an Aboriginal man working at a community market. The place was mostly empty. I chatted with him for a while, and then said, “I just wanted to say sorry.”

He said, “It’s cool.”

But of course it was not cool. Not for him and not for the Native Americans of my own country. Nor for any of the displaced tribes whose history has been forgotten in nation after nation.

So I hope that in addition to a verbal apology, the Rudd government will back it up with money for social programs (in preference to the individuals themselves) to help stop the problems that still plague these communities.

It’s not all kumbaya over here, though. See this page for some truly nasty letters to the editor, including this one.

If being civilised and having modern technology is so hard for this tiny minority of aborigines who want to whinge (wasting tax payers money and destroying the reputation of most aborigines who are very decent hardworking smart people), then why don’t we fence off the National park, they can move there and live without our technology – see how long they last when they don’t even have the wheel.
Posted by: Anthony Henry of 5:40pm January 28, 2008

You stay classy, Telegraph readers.

Older posts Newer posts

Meta

© 2024 Good Reason

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑