Imagine there's no evolution: Yoko says oh no to Expelled
Yoko Ono is incensed that the antiscience film Expelled: No Intelligence used a snippet of late husband John Lennon's 1971 paean to peace Imagine sans permission. So she sued the film's producers and distributors, demanding that they yank the track from the controversial movie, which stars Nixon-speechwriter-cum-actor-cum-pitchman Ben Stein. The BBC reports that the former Beatle's widow balked when, among other things, the film triggered a blogospheric backlash against her, because it appeared that she had authorized the song's use and, so, endorsed the movie's creationist antievolution claims. Joining Ono in the lawsuit against Premise Media Corporation; C&S Production, LP; and Rocky Mountain Pictures: Lennon's sons, Julian and Sean, and publisher EMI Blackwood Music, Inc. A federal judge in Manhattan this week nixed the complaint citing the "fair use" doctrine, which allows the use of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism. Can the two sides work it out? Apparently not—at least not yet. Ono says she plans to appeal the ruling. "It’s a pity that this decision weakens the rights of all copyright owners," she said in a statement. "One of the most basic rights I control by reviewing and choosing licenses is the right to say no. The filmmakers simply looted me of the ability to do so." 

Dumb and dumber—a real plus if you're a fly
So much for smart living. At least if you're a fruit fly. Swiss scientists report in the International Journal of Organic Evolution  that the mental giants (and here we speak relatively) among a bunch of flies they studied died at earlier ages than their blissfully ignorant compeers. Researchers Joep Burger and Tadeusz Kawecki at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland split a gaggle of fruit flies into two groups: one in which the critters remained in their natural state and the other, where flies were taught to associate smells with tastes such as sweet and sour and to expect an unpleasant experience if they, say, zipped into a rattling box. Over 30 to 40 generations, the researchers report, the learned insects developed better recall and the ability to avoid the shaking boxes. The downside: They only lived for 50 to 60 days whereas their stupid brethren lived an average of 80 to 85 days. The researchers told Bloomberg News that it's possible the flies with active brains burn more energy than the others; they note their findings may explain why flies, and other animals, never increased their mental capacity. The scientists said there's no indication the findings would hold in humans. (Good to know.) 

Anthropological analysis: Women have been prized since 5000 B.C.
An analysis of a mass grave in southwest Germany led anthropologists at Durham University in England to conclude that men have considered women trophies for at least the past 7,000 years. The researchers report in the journal Antiquity that they analyzed the remains of 34 skeletons found in the plot and determined that the bones belonged to members of two rival tribes. Interestingly, the grave only contained the bones of men and children from the clans local to the area, but there were no female skeletons in the bunch. Their absence led to speculation that the area had been invaded and ransacked by a marauding group, believed to be made up of cattle herders who made off with the local women. "It seems this community was specifically targeted, as could happen in a cycle of revenge between rival groups," study co-author Alex Bentley said in a statement. "Our analysis points to the local women being regarded as somehow special and were therefore kept alive."

7 Comments

1. 1. theburr 01:22 PM 6/7/08

   Masterpiece? Really? It hardly holds up on a close parsing of the lyrics. To call it a masterpiece--and state it as such a given--is a sad state of affairs. So much for journalistic objectivity.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. rhron62 04:22 PM 6/7/08

   How many articles do you plan to run about this film? The frequency and fervor of your protests borders on religious fanaticism. Get over it already!!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Bradley 05:53 PM 6/7/08

   I don't think the inclusion of the article in question is either religious fantacism or even that the article is about a protest over religious fantacism. On reading the details of the article, I see no indication that Yoko Ono is complaining about creationism or fundamentalist, anti-science propaganda.
   
   Yoko Ono is not known for her contributions to rationality; quite the opposite has been the case in the past. If my information is correct, some years ago Yoko Ono endorsed a for-profit mass-transformation mind-control cult (est) and its founder (Werner Erhard). I don't know if she has ever pulled that celebrity endorsement.
   
   But mind-control cults are not the issue at hand at this time. Most of what has been under discussion has been about the validity of certain creationist claims and in particular a claim that there has been a government conspiriacy to suppress intellectual freedom.
   
   The inclusion of the Yoko Ono story is probably an oversight on the part of SCIAM. I would hope that readers would be more likely to engage in critical thinking rather than looking to professional celebrities for an indication of what to think and what to believe.
   
   --
   Edited by Bradley at 06/07/2008 11:08 AM

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. macbigot 03:16 AM 6/8/08

   Um, "antiscience film"? Are those words Yoko's, or the author's? If Yoko's, then the article made little attempt at making that clear. If the classification is the author's, then he likely didn't see the film... but instead has prejudged it because he disagrees with any work that challenges his own view. That disagreement is fine; but attempting to convince potential theatre-goers that the film is made by those 'against science' (they are not) is a lie hoping to combat a different lie. Thanks for that.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. ibeJeremy 05:42 PM 6/11/08

   anti-science? The film specifically makes it clear that it is the intent of the producer(s)/Ben Stein to educate people that they should "FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE, WHEREVER IT MAY LEAD".
   Sounds like a pro-science statement to me.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Ginkgo100 11:22 PM 6/12/08

   It does sound as if Stein is hoping the use of the song "Imagine" will fall under "fair use" under American copyright law. I'm no lawyer, but since he is not criticizing or commenting on the SONG, I don't know if that will fly. I criticized and commented on the film, though, in my blog: http://ginkgo100.blogspot.com/2008/06/expelled-no-intelligence-allowed.html

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. GOD 07:54 AM 10/13/08

   it makes no difference anyway ....all they will do is pick the highest profile area ..where the film will be shown and fill it to the rafters, with Media and invite ...a lot of people.
   
   Any other corporation using songs without permission would have been screwed to he wall.......The case was probable being heard in the bible belt..........where all Law Order , Time and space, are squeezed into 6,000 years they probably thought that a bill has been passed for that too, but did not want to check up as that would require them to look at some evidence ....and we all know how creationist feel about none-faith based evidence.......sheesh do these people just think they can do what they want??

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this