Skeptical organizations in the United States seem to have greater success than they do in this country. I know of only two regional organizations in the USA which have disbanded. One of these, in Florida, has since been reorganized with new members and appears to be going well. The second was the Skeptical Inquirers of New England which announced in its January 1989 newsletter, 'The SINEpost' that it was to disband. The reasons given rang a number of bells for me. Chairman David Smith wrote:
'Subscribing to 'The Skeptical Inquirer' is a spectator sport. You sit back and wait for your magazine to arrive and read all about the wonderful things that CSICOP is doing to combat the irrational. SINE, on the other hand, is a participant sport. It is here to allow you and me to do something on a local level. If the membership does not participate, then nothing gets done; we don't have a Paul Kurtz or a James Randi here to fight our battles. The past year has seen a steady erosion of our active membership. Of the nine people listed on the Executive Committee in our first newsletter, six have either dropped out or moved away. In the same period we have added one active member. You don't need a computer to figure out where this trend is leading.'
Smith continued in similar vein, finally asking if a membership-service organization like SINE is really needed. He answered his own question negatively and explained that the existing organization will be replaced by an informal network and that there would be no dues, no newsletter, and no public lectures.
The situation in the UK is a similar one. I have opposed the formation of a 'club' with membership to avoid just the problems which SINE experienced. Even so the UK activity hasn't been what I would have liked it to be. There is an enormous amount of apathy. Perhaps this is partly due to the British character and partly due to the fact that we don't yet have the paranormal extremism which the United States has. I have often thought that is the latter which creates a backlash among rational people. But that doesn't necessarily explain why the skeptical movement in Australia is so strong. Or why New England experience was so different from other parts of the USA. Is New England isolated from paranormal (and creationist) activity? I doubt it. There is another possible answer though. Steve Donnelly pointed out to me that the character of the people in New England is similar to the one in this country. He told me that he has mistaken New England people for British.
This is not to criticise the non-active readers of 'The Skeptical Inquirer' and 'The British and Irish Skeptic'. Your contribution to the coffers of skeptical movements in the USA and UK are essential. In addition I see these publications as providing an educational service. Those of us who have the time and inclination to investigate, complain, and write for these publications, are providing the ammunition for others to promote critical thinking in their own ways, no matter how small. So all you armchair skeptics, keep up the good work by renewing your subscriptions. We need you. There is no point in writing for a circulation of none.
Some months ago Prometheus Books received an announcement from a new company about the formation of a club selling New Age publications. The club was being set-up in association with Russell Grant, astrologer and psychic. Even though they will be promoting books on extra-sensory-perception, geomancy, magic, mysticism and other psychic subjects I do not question their request for information about Prometheus's trade terms. What did surprise me though, is why they needed to ask about the company's returns' policy. Surely with such a prominent astrologer and psychic at the helm they wouldn't have any returns. Would they?
Oh, by the way, I supplied a catalogue and price list, but have heard nothing since. Perhaps they took seriously my suggestion that their club members would be unlikely to read critical books.
On the subject of Russell Grant, it seems that the Independent Broadcasting Authority have an odd policy about astrology. Each Friday morning, Grant is allowed to promote all sorts of astrological nonsense on ITV's 'After Nine' programme, but the IBA rejected his publisher, Virgin, from advertising 'Russell Grant's 1989 Horoscopes' in a £100,000 campaign. It seems that the IBA code forbids advertisements which promote 'fortune tellers and the like'. This policy seems even stranger when you think of the newspapers which have been advertised on television using 'fortune tellers and the like' of Doris Stokes!
Writing these lines about Russell Grant reminds me that Channel 4's 'Who Dares Wins' occasionally showed a skeptical leaning. One of the programmes had the following definition in its "Word of the Week" spot.
'RUSSELGRANT n. ( Russell-grant) A - is the medical term for an attack of violent nausea caused by a large lump of fatty tissue which makes you throw up over your cornflakes.'