Daily Fail lulz

[Kudistos Megistos]

Greetings, my dear subjects!

Some of you may be aware of the controversy in Britain regarding David Nutt. For those of you who aren't, he's a government adviser on science who said some facts that didn't go along with Labour's policies, prejudices or "morals". Of course, he was fired immediately, thanks to the god complex of our government. You see, they make the facts; it's obvious that politicians who got were they are by being friends with more powerful politicians know far more about the effects and dangerousness of drugs than scientists who have spent their lives studying them. Surprisingly (since the Daily Fail usually hates Labour), one hack agrees.

See some typical British journalism here

For those who have a moral objection to reading this rag, some of the highlights are his claim that

The trouble with a 'scientific' argument, of course, is that it is not made in the real world, but in a laboratory by an unimaginative academic relying solely on empirical facts.

Damn those empirical facts! They should base their theories on hatred of anything they don't understand instead!

Some more are the inevitable Godwin where he says that Nazi Germany was a classic example of what happens when politicians accept science*, the inevitable claim that science is a religion and the sympathy for every crank theory that ever gets shouted down, sympathy that comes from the belief that statements about objective facts should be treated the same way as opinions instead of being immediately dismissed when they are obviously nonsense.

I must say that, even by the standards of the worst tabloid in the country with the worst media in the civilised world, this is a new low. It would be funny were it not for the fact that this is Britain's second most popular newspaper, and would be the most popular were it not for The Sun's policy of putting 18-year-old tits on page 3.

Let the sh*tstorm begin!

*Complete nonsense, of course. The Nazis would only allow Aryan scientists to study, and they weren't allowed to contradict the government. What happened to Max Planck is an example.

[Bosola]

You call it the Daily Fail. I prefer to call it the 'Daily Heil'...

The trouble with a 'scientific' argument, of course, is that it is not made in the real world, but in a laboratory by an unimaginative academic relying solely on empirical facts.

Is that... did they just write... can someone really claim... my god, I think I need a glass of water.

[Opine]

I feel like they're missing an important point here (not Nutt's point, just a point... in general).
In The New York Times they wrote that "Mr. Johnson wrote that 'Professor Nutt was not sacked for his views,' but 'because he cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy.'"

Missed point:  Wouldn't you want your advisers to, I dunno, advise you on what they think of your policies?

Obviously not!

[Kudistos Megistos]

I feel like they're missing an important point here (not Nutt's point, just a point... in general).
In The New York Times they wrote that "Mr. Johnson wrote that 'Professor Nutt was not sacked for his views,' but 'because he cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy.'"

Missed point:  Wouldn't you want your advisers to, I dunno, advise you on what they think of your policies?

Obviously not!

Of course not. The government can't be wrong!

I think they're really hired because the government want someone with academic authority to say that they're right. I don't think the job is actually anything to do with "advising".

[obesebear]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc1zGRUPztc&feature=related

[Kudistos Megistos]

Ah yes, that!

Kenneth Mayfield is racist!

I wonder whether the Daily Fail ever got hold of that story; I'm sure one of their columnists would have written something lulzy about it.