Today I went to visit my friend’s grave. He died a little over a year ago in a motorbike accident, but today was the first time I went to his grave. I’ve never been one for gravesides or funerals really. Don’t get me wrong, today was absolutely appropriate; two of my friends and I went down, laid some flowers, stuck around and had a beer each in the mid-afternoon moonrise (stupid early nights :P), left him one on his headstone, remembered some good times, and then went on our way. It was nice.

But it’s not something I normally do. I have a lot of dead relatives; all my grandparents have died, as has my great aunt who I was close to, my great uncle and several family friends, all people I knew. But I don’t visit their graves. My adopted grandmother (long story) is buried right over the road from my house, but I still don’t visit her grave.

My main reason is that I don’t know what to do there. Obviously I don’t pray, so should I just talk to them? But I know they can’t hear me, so the only reason I’d be talking is for my own benefit, and I can do that anywhere, I don’t need to be near a grave. I suppose I could just do what I did today, but again I can do that anywhere, and I often have met up with mates for a drink in his honour, and remembered the good times. The presence of a dead body isn’t really a prerequisite. Nor is it desirable in most cases, hehe.

In any case, his death came as a shock to all of us, particularly as he was someone our own age. It was a very sobering reminder of our own mortality, and it provoked thoughts in me about my own funeral arrangements. I read fairly recently that in 2008, humanist funerals are expected to become the third most popular type of funeral ceremony in Scotland, presumably after Catholic and Church of Scotland ceremonies. But I don’t think I want a grave in some graveyard with a load of other dead bodies, where people will feel obliged to visit and feel awkward. I’d much rather have a bench or something, and a memorial service with my favourite music, photographs, hopefully decent holograms by the time I die, rather than the depressing death ceremonies that are so common. I decided a long time ago that if anything were to happen to me, all my organs can be donated to whoever needs them, and anything that’s left will be donated to science.

Something that always seems to confuse people when I tell them of my atheism is my beliefs about after we die. Lots of people I’ve met who don’t believe in God have told me that they like to think there’s something better afterwards, or that they believe in some airy-fairy kind of spirit or ascended being, that I don’t really understand properly. I think it’s important to face up to the fact that once you’re gone, you’re gone for good, and there’s no consciousness left over. The only thing that’s left of you is your impact and legacy on the world through people’s memories of you, and the influences you’ve had on them. Which is why it’s important to make the most of this life. It’s the only one you’re going to get.

Winter Solstice

Yesterday was the winter solstice (or the 21st December usually is, I must admit I haven’t gone and checked the calendar to see if it’s changed for some reason), and I think I speak for us all when I say “it’s about frigging time too!” I think the FSM had better get off his divine arse and put those noodly appendages to use keeping the sun (or ‘ravioli of the sky’, as some [mainly me] prefer to call it) up there longer!

Anywho, here’s looking forwards to longer days, warmer nights and onwards to summer, safe in the knowledge that the worst of the winter is over. Cheers everyone. Have a good Christmas, and a happy festive season.

Compensation Adverts

Not having a TV at uni, it seems I’ve missed a lot of the adverts. There are the usual Christmas ones, a hellishly huge amount of celebrity-endorsed perfumes, and the occasional gem, like the Guinness advert. But, if it’s possible, it seems there are even more compensation adverts on TV than I remember there were in the Summer.

Does anyone else find them repulsive? It’s a manifestation of the suing culture which has invaded us from our Western cousins across the Atlantic. Noone is willing to take responsibility for their actions anymore. I’ve been looking for videos of the ads online but I can only find the forklift one which is crap so you’ll have to imagine what happens.

The one that really gets me is “I was installing a fire alarm, and I was actually given the wrong type of ladder. It slipped and I fell, crushing my hand. I went to the National Accident Helpline and was awarded £7,000, and I didn’t even have to go to court” What it should say is “I was given the wrong type of ladder and I was stupid enough to still use it without anyone holding it. But I needed some dosh so I sued my boss, who was so scared he just handed me £7,000 so I’d shut up.”

The fact that it’s called the National Accident Helpline is particularly strange. Most people with a brain accept that accidents happen, and you can’t always just blame someone else for it, then hold your hand out and expect some money, like the people on the adverts seem to do.

I think people are realising how immoral it is as well, because the newer adverts that have appeared since I went to uni have a little section at the end saying how suing someone helped prevent the same thing happening again, making it seem like it’s their moral duty to claim. For example “I got £5,000 compensation, and they’ve relocated that bus stop”, or “I got £3,000, and the plastic? That’s a thing of the past”.

Anywho it seems my anguish is shared by the good people of Youtube, who have made several spoofs of the adverts.

Humanist Holidays

Recently, the Friendly Humanist has taken a great interest in what we, as humanists, should do about festivals and holidays. Obviously there is a genuine need for some kind of holiday at this time of year; it’s cold and horrible and I wouldn’t get up in the morning if it wasn’t for my mum shouting at my brother to get up and go to college (ooh I didn’t mention, I’m writing now from beyond the border!).

The Friendly Humanist has been concentrating on the Cosmic Calendar, a brilliant piece of thinking by Carl Sagan, who reduced the entire history of the cosmic universe into a calendar for 1 year. With this timescale, the early homo sapiens only came into being in the last 10 seconds of New Year’s Eve. I’ve read other ways of comparing it. If you stretch your arms out at each side, and conceive that the fingertips of your left hand represent the origin of life on Earth, and the fingertips of your right hand represent the present moment, then (if I remember this analogy correctly, I can’t remember where I read it) vertebrates would only emerge at about your right elbow, homo sapiens would only emerge at the knuckle nearest your fingernail, and all recorded history since the Greeks would be erased with just a single stroke of a nail file. Makes you feel really significant, doesn’t it?

Anyway I’ll come back from my tangent and ask the question I’ve been thinking about for a good couple of weeks now. It’s all very well using logical alternative methods to come up with our own humanist holidays, but is it necessary? We have perfectly good holidays right here that are becoming increasingly secular, and I think we can just hijack them. After all, was Christmas not originally a pagan festival before the Church hijacked it and suddenly decided (arbitrarily) that Jesus was born on that date? Now, especially in the UK, I think people are more and more deviating away from the “true” meaning of Christmas, and it’s being hijacked by secularists as a time to be spent with family, which is certainly appealing to a humanist lifestyle. The same can be said of other religious festivals.

But the downside is that if we did that, we’d be hearing the same criticism that I’ve heard a number of times, that humanism is merely a parasite of Christianity and other religions. But why not!? Why shouldn’t we take the good bits of religion, like the ”love your neighbour” morals of the New Testament, or in this case the family values of Christmas, and get rid of all the bullshit? Religion (in my case Christianity) is a big part of the culture, history and heritage of our society, and we don’t have to reject all the good things that it entails when we reject the religious beliefs.

The thing about all this is that if we take on any humanist holidays of our own, whether we hijack pre-existing ones or we make up our own, is that from the outside humanism will look just like another religion, and we’ll become part of the very thing many of us are trying to destroy. I don’t know if that’s a good or a bad thing, because it may help humanism appear as a more viable alternative to religion, but at the same time compromises our values somewhat. Make up your own mind.

Love Letter

I want to do more contructive posts, honestly I do, but the bible bashers keep giving me hilarious leaflets to take the piss out of. Today’s one is called “Father’s Love Letter: an intimate message from God to you”, and was left on the bar in my work so I brought it home to tell you lovely people about it. At first I thought it was some kind of incest erotica but that’s my dirty mind for you. You can view a similar copy at this site, by clicking on the “Generic Greeting Card” link at the top. Unfortunately it’s not exactly the same, and the bits that are missed out on the dowload are the bits I want to focus on, so you’ll just have to take my word for it, it’s printed right in front of me.

Regardless of what I think of the content of the message, I must give the designers due credit, it’s really clever how they’ve constructed this leaflet. The way it’s written is that every sentence of the letter is a direct quotation from the Bible, with the Bible reference printed right after it. The result is a letter which is only slightly disjointed but generally makes sense (as much sense as this drivel could, anyway), and it means the writers are at least superficially justified in saying that this letter is from God.

Right, now to the bad bit; what’s written by the author after the letter.

Would you like to come home? All you have to do is simply believe that Jesus died in your place to make a way for you to be born into his family.

Sounds simple, doesn’t it? But it has exactly the same problem that Pascal’s Wager does. Who among us chooses what we believe? It’s not a conscious choice, so what’s the point in this leaflet? It’s got no evidence, it’s not going to convince anyone (or at least I hope it wouldn’t). Either someone believes or they don’t believe, and none of them get to choose. That’s not how it works.

The following words might help you express your thoughts to God.

Excuse me? I don’t think I’ve ever read anything as patronizing and insulting as that line. Not only does the author think I can make a conscious choice to have faith or to not, but he’s telling me what to say as well? Telling me how to “express my thoughts”? As though he knows what my thoughts are going to be? What’s next, is he gonna tell me what to think? (What am I saying, of course that’s the next step, that’s religion for you). They can bloody well piss off!

American Presidential Elections

Few would doubt that the American Presidential Elections have a fairly profound effect on all of us, particularly in the UK, because of our very close political relations with the Americans, and the effect that the US Presidency has across the world. But one thing that differentiates British politics from its equivalent across the pond is the role that religion takes, particularly in election campaigns. Whereas here the absense of religion in politics is almost as concrete a convention as the monarchy’s abstention from intervention (although Blair did make it an issue when he went against Alastair Campbell’s advice, “we don’t do God”), the exact opposite seems to be the case in the good ol’ US of A. In fact, according to a 2007 Gallup Poll, 53% of Americans would not vote for an atheist. More people would vote for a 72 year-old.

Next year’s election looks to be particularly controversial, with the Democrat candidate looking to be either a woman or a black man, and the Republican either a Mormon (another group discriminated against by voters), or Mike Huckabee, a Baptist anti-imigration bigot (who, I was very sad to hear, is being supported by Chuck Norris). What’s worse is that the Presidential elections are so personality-based that it doesn’t matter what policies each candidate has, it’s likely that a large proportion of the votes will be allocated purely on appearances and the money spent on the election campaigns. On that logic, Huckabee is quite likely to be the next President of the US, unless voters continue to be disillusioned with the Republican Administration.

Now I can’t be the only one who finds it more than a little strange that, in a country whose sacred constitution expressly forbids the joining of church and state, based on the principles of the French Revolution, which in many respects was a rejection of organised religion, that same religion can be so instrumental and institutional, with phrases like “One nation under God” and “In God we trust” being features of the state vernacular, as well as many politicians describing it as a “Christian country”, which it expressly is not. Interestingly though, poll results show that generally speaking Americans would rather vote in a religious person of any faith than an atheist, rather than just candidates of their own religion. Do they think atheists are bad policymakers?

Sometimes I wonder how atheists in America must feel, governed by a system which is almost inherently religious and biased against them. Tyranny of the majority isn’t even in it. I was in Texas with my scout troop in 2004, and my brother and I were staying at the homes of 2 different families, both of which were very religious. They were very nice people, and I was a Catholic at the time anyway so it didn’t matter, but even then, I could still tell they were taking it to a whole new level. Christianity literally pervaded every part of their lives. My brother was a non-believer and one day he happened to mention that he didn’t believe in heaven. The mother of the family he was staying with didn’t speak to him for 3 days until he took it back. I think that’s quite disturbing.

Alone

Everyone’s going home for Christmas today, but unfortunately I won’t be leaving till Monday. Out of my whole building, where 122 people normally live, I know of only 4 who will still be here after 8pm tonight, and they’re not people I know particularly well. So this is gonna be a pretty boring 2 days, I think. Don’t be surprised if I make several posts, especially since there’s quite a lot of relevant stuff happening at the moment.

First off, here’s a story in the Independent about a stabbing in Ausralia. It caught my eye because it involved both Scottish and English backpackers, and because the headline says it happened “after a creationism row”. Take a minute to read it, it’s not long.

There are a few different ways of taking this story. On the one hand I think the author has greatly overstated the significance of the “creationism row”; the judge says it was accidental and the jury obviously agrees or he’d be guilty of murder, so I don’t think it should have been a feature of the headline. So this shouldn’t be read in a pejorative sense towards creationists. I’m sure the vast majority of them are peace loving, non-violent people, however deluded they might be.

However, it shows how heated such debates can be. Anyone who’s read any of my blog posts will find it quite ironic that I’m saying this, but we have to take into account that many people take their mistaken theories of origin very personally, so it’s important to be diplomatic. We’re not going to show people the error of their ways by offending them, but by reasoned debate. That isn’t to say that we should tip-toe around the issue. Creationist theories are not just a philosophical worldview, they encroach on the terroritory of science and ignore fact. Anyone who propagates such views should have them challenged, just like anyone trying to propagate a new scientific theory would expect to have it challenged.

I’ve been thinking recently about what kind of approach to take. Don’t get me wrong, many creationists have ludicrous theories and I think they should be shown up to be a ridiculous as they are, but it’s not going to help our cause to keep harping on and making fun of the same things like the talking snake in Genesis or the Allah/chewing gum thing (comment me for more details on THAT amazing piece of literature). In some respects that makes Humanists seem more closed-minded, as stupid as that is.

But on the other hand, I quite like offending fools. And being frank about things is the best way to make sure people understand, and it’s more my style.

I speak a foreign language!

This may not be surprising for anyone who knows me (I study Spanish, Portuguese and Chinese at uni), but I’ve discovered that apparently I’m also fluent in Mumbojumbo, the language of creationists. I’m going to take some extracts from a leaflet that was handed to me outside the Main Library recently (entitled, “For Thinkers Only”) and translate them into Modern English.

Original: “You don’t need to have a PhD before you can settle life’s most important questions. Like an ordinary jury member you can simply weigh up the evidence and come up with a verdict”

Translation: Yeah! Screw learning and all that boring shit, just read this tiny little biased leaflet and make up the answers yourself!

Original: “The evidence points to a designer. Since every design has a designer - and both life and the universe exhibit staggeringly intricate and often irreducibly complex design - life and the universe must have had a creator”

Translation: Everything that we’ve designed has a designer, because we know that we designed it. We already know that God exists because the Bible told us he designed everything. Therefore everything has a designer, which is God. Therefore God exists. Evolution? What’s that?

Original: “The evidence points to a source of objective and moral values. Every law has a lawgiver - and there is a universal moral law (e.g. it is always wrong, for all people in all places, to torture babies) - there must therefore be an absolute moral lawgiver.”

Translation:  The evidence points to a set of laws that are almost never objective and not always even moral. Every law that we’ve made has a lawgiver, and there is a universal moral law which isn’t really all that universal. We can’t have developed this moral code ourselves because… because obviously God told us!

Original: “You can personally experience this God”

Translation: If you’re really gullible you can convince yourself that he exists.

Original: “[the Bible] has survived centuries of ridicule, opposition and government bans, being the world’s best selling book, with over 8 billion copies printed out in more than 2,000 languages.”

Translation: “Even though people realised it was all bullshit centuries ago, for some reason people STILL insist on murdering millions of trees to print this crap.

Original: “It has more ancient manuscripts to authenticate it than any other such pieces of ancient literature combined such as Homer’s Iliad and Caesar’s Gallic Wars.”

Translation: It’s a work of fiction so it’s fitting that we compare it to other works of fiction like Homer’s Iliad, and it’s really biased as well so why don’t we throw The Gallic Wars in, just to be fair?

Just a bit of fun.

My problem with evolution

I have a problem with the theory of evolution, which I was going to bring up in my last post, but I was revising for my exam I had this afternoon (it went quite well, thanks for asking), so I left it until today.

Yes I can hear all you creationists out there, “what’s that you say? A secular humanist doubting evolution? This is surely evidence that we were right all along!” Well screw you all, that’s not what I’m saying. Let me explain my problem.

The issue was brought up by Dr Marc Surtees of the Edinburgh Creation Group during a post-talk discussion. We’re all agreed that small changes through reproduction and mutation, combined with natural selection over a long period of time is why species are different from each other today. Now one difference between species is that they often have different numbers of chromosomes. My problem is how this comes about through mutation and natural selection.

So I’m sure you’re all aware of the similarity in chromosomes between chimps and humans, and that it appears that two of the chimp chromosomes at one point fused together to form one of the modern human chromosomes, I believe it’s the 2nd, but I could be mistaken so don’t quote me. Anyway someone brought up this remarkable similarity, and the fusion, as evidence that humans and chimps are related, but Dr Marc turned the conversation around and showed how this is one of the greatest arguments against evolution.

The way evolution works with mutation, means that at some point one individual human ancestor must have had a mutation which meant the 2 chromosomes that we still find in chimps fused into the one we now see in the modern human. You can’t have half a chromosome, so it must have happened in one stage. Now we have one individual with 23 chromosomes, and all the rest of his/her species has 24. How does s/he reproduce? You need the same number of chromosomes as your mate to produce fertile offspring. How does this mutation get passed on?

Now I was going to email some experts and ask them (if I can find Dawkins’ email on RDF I’ll probably ask him too, hehe), but it appears I’ve already found the answer. Once again it seems the creationist camp has been very short sighted again (either that or Dr Marc was lying, but it looks like other people have made the same mistake). The reason people think you need the same number of chromosomes to reproduce fertile offspring is because of the well known example that if you cross a horse with a donkey, you get a mule, which is infertile. Apparently this isn’t true across the board as creationists seem to think. This article says (a third down the page, paragraph starts “some may raise the objection”), that a Przewalski’s Wild Horse, the closest wild relative of the domesticated horse, has 66 chromosomes, in comparison with the 64 of the domesticated horse, but they can produce fertile offspring. I’d be interested in finding out more about the genetic make-up of the offspring though. So it’s not such a problem.

I think I’m still going to email around anyway, just in case there’s another explanation.

Listening to: Coheed and Cambria - Blood Red Summer

The Blind Leading the Stupid

I went to the Edinburgh Creation Group talk last night as I do most Tuesdays, where they were showing a 67-minute DVD called “Unlocking the Mystery of Life“, which the ECG describes as “a revolutionary DVD showing evidence for Intelligent Design in molecular biology”. It was not revolutionary in the slightest. It was obviously biased and one sided, emotive and often patronizing. There was very little counter-argument.

I’ll sum the video up in a couple of paragraphs or so. A group of scientists, including notably Paul Nelson, Stephen Meyer (who I particularly ended up despising) and Michael Behe, met up at Pajaro Dunes in Monterey Bay, USA, to “discuss alternatives to evolution”. Basically they all wanted to come up with evidence for ID. The first half of the video was based on the very origin of life and how really really unlikely it is. It was full of dramatic and sometimes very sensitive music, as if these guys are crusaders for truth and justice, but victims of scientific prejudice at the same time. They tried to show how complex and beautiful life is, and several times referred to evolution as “chance”, something that always annoys me profusely. It also tried to show how we can tell things are designed (apparently complexity+familiarity=evidence of design, news to me), and then applied that to animals and plants, which of course isn’t relevant in the slightest, it just explains why we perceive (in this case mistakenly) things as designed.

The second half was about the Bacterial Flagellum. For those of you who understandably haven’t heard about this, take a look at that wiki page. It’s basically a biological outboard motor on certain bacteria, which creationists often use as evidence of Intelligent Design, through something known as Irreducible Complexity. Note that the eye and the wing were previously most commonly used as examples of Irreducible Complexity, until Dawkins replied and explained it. Of course the video went to extreme lengths to compare it to a designed outboard motor, and exaggerated saying it’s “the most efficient machine in the known universe”. If you take a look at it you can clearly see just from the shape of the “propellor” that it isn’t, it would be much more efficient if it had a propellor shape instead of a whip shape. Anywho they explained the problem of the flagellum, said a bit about how complex DNA is, and then left it at that really, saying how once we accept Intelligent Design Theory, then we can carry on with science as a way of exploring the miracle of life.

Now the first section I’m going to only comment on briefly, mainly because I know very little about the origin of life, and anyone who claims to know how it happened is probably mistaken and relying on speculation. There was an analogy I particularly objected to, about how the probability of amino acids randomly joining together to form proteins is like dropping a load of scrabble pieces on the floor and hoping it’ll spell out specific lines from Shakespeare. Well it is, but only if you do it millions and millions of times (because these amino acids didn’t just come together once, but many times), with millions and millions of scrabble pieces (because I’m guessing there were more amino acids than just the number of tiles you get with one scrabble set).

Plus, although I’m no geneticist, it seems plausible to me that there are some other combinations of amino acids that could have created life other than our one, it would perhaps create a different kind of life, but just because the combination we see here creates life, that doesn’t mean other combinations couldn’t have done a similar thing in very simple cells. I know I’m not articulating myself very well, and if anyone knows something to contrary I’d welcome a comment. To continue the scrabble analogy, it would be like not knowing in advance which line from Shakespeare it’s supposed to spell out, so you’d be equally impressed if it spelt out any line from Shakespeare. To use Dawkin’s term from ‘Unweaving the Rainbow’, this increases the PETWHAC (population of events that would have appeared coincidental) quite significantly. Then when you see that all this might have been happening on any number of possible life-supporting planets out there, not just our little Earth, then you see that any mind-boggling coincidence can be reduced to real odds, without stretching the imagination too much. It’s no coincidence that we, as living beings, live on a planet that is one of the ones that has seen an origin of life. I’m no expert, I don’t claim to be, but to me it doesn’t seem as unlikely as they’re making out.

Right, now to the Bacterial Flagellum. I was very surprised that this came up in a supposedly “revolutionary” DVD, seeing as evolutionists have owned this example countless times. The argument is that the flagellum couldn’t have evolved through tiny incrementations in natural selection because it’s irreducibly complex, that is, any one of the parts is useless on its own and would be erased from the gene pool through natural selection, so the whole mechanism wouldn’t evolve.

Now this is interesting for evolutionists, but it’s not impossible. The scientists in the video (particularly Michael Behe) who claim it’s irreducibly complex are blind. Take the example of the wing, which has been used in the past but has since been abandoned by ID theorists. There is an assumption that because something doesn’t function properly without a part, it is useless. To quote Stephen Gould;

“You can’t fly with 2% of a wing or gain much protection from an iota’s similarity with a potentially concealing piece of vegetation. How, in other words, can natural selection explain these incipient stages of structures that can only be used (as we now observe them) in much more elaborated form?”

This is blind ignorance, just like Behe’s claim that the flagellum is irreducibly complex. The 2% of a wing doesn’t have to make the bird ancestor fly, but if it fell out of a large tree, it would be marginally more likely to survive if it had 2% of a wing to slow its fall than if it had nothing at all. 3% of a wing would be even more advantageous, and so on.

The same can be said of the eye (which for some reason Behe still upholds as an example of irreducible complexity). Although you can’t see like we can with just one part of the eye, it’s not difficult to see how it’s easier to avoid predators or catch prey with some kind of visual sense, even if it’s literally just a blurred flash of darkness a second before it’s too late. So you can see how one part of the eye could be advantageous, even if it doesn’t lend sight.

So now how do we apply this to the flagellum? There (that’s evo wiki btw, a resource I found last night) are numerous theories, one of which involves symbiosis between two other forms of bacteria, which seems possible. Another theory says that some of the parts of the flagellum are also present in other parts of the bacterium, so they could have been ‘borrowed’ to form a primitive form of the flagellum which evolved from there.

But in my mind, it doesn’t seem so far-fetched that even one part of the flagellum, say the whip part, could be advantageous on its own. Remember that it doesn’t have to be used for the same purpose, natural selection doesn’t know what future mutations will take place. So the whip could have another advantageous function like increasing the surface area of the bacterium, attaching the bacterium to a solid surface similarly to a bouy’s chain or a plant’s stalk, or aiding its suspension in water, or any number of other possible uses for a big long floppy thing. Then another mutation comes along which allows it to be moved, and then that develops from there by natural selection, making it more and more efficient until it reaches its modern form. Applying Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation is usually the most true. It’s not difficult to see. I mean come on, there’s even a wiki page about this! If it’s such common knowledge on the Internet, why is Behe, a supposed expert on the subject, unaware or ignorant of it, and why doesn’t he address such explanations in this DVD? As it stands it was pretty much a totally one-sided argument.

I also think it’s ridiculous that just because these scientists think they’ve found a hole in evolutionary theory, they immediately jump to the conclusion that if evolution didn’t do it, it must have been God! Goddidit!!

But what’s really frustrating for me is that while I was sitting at the back of the room, laughing to myself at how stupid the whole thing was, I looked around and saw many people who seemed to be taken in by this rubbish. These were people who in previous talks I could tell were undecided on the issue, but this DVD, made by a reputable source (let’s not forget that, worryingly, many of these scientists are University Professors at good universities in the US), has them duped. There was no question and answer section at the end either (understandably because the film-makers weren’t present), so I couldn’t even try to dispute any of the claims made.

Now there was another issue I wanted to bring up here, but this post is already really really long so I think I’ll make a separate post about it tomorrow after my exam (:s). Thanks for reading.

Listening to: Led Zeppelin: I Can’t Quit You Baby