Wide As A Dog

It's 2010

2010-03-19T21:14:00.001Z

And I should be revising, so it seems as good a time as any to post here again. So! Homeopathy, glad that went away... Oh. I must develop some new obsessions!

music: Jethro Tull - Songs From The Wood

Oh

2009-05-30T07:43:00.001Z

And do click through to the audio recording of Shatner in the recording studio. Essential.

SHATNER!

2009-05-30T07:37:00.000Z

The legend... this is a terrific article, go read.

Notes and Chords Mean Nothing To Me

2009-04-01T19:29:00.002Z

Rather a shame that the title gives away what is to come! Still, give these lads money, underwear etc...

Because I am

2009-03-18T20:44:00.000Z

Pusillanimous Priest Produces Piffle

2008-02-07T21:10:00.000Z

When I started this blog I intended to provide a fair bit of writing about matters secular and religious, and hopefully to produce some insightful commentary.

Thus today's comments by Rowan Williams would seem like prime material for acute, insightful dissection.

What a fucking numpty the man is.

Music: The Almighty - Crank

Life In Cold Blood.

2008-02-04T22:11:00.000Z

Attenborough.

Extraordinary.

With all this wonder and simply awesome richness and variety, why on earth would anyone find such a tawdry idea as God to be more attractive than reality?

If these are animals then I am proud to be one and wouldn't swap it for all your angels. When I feel tenderness and love I shall imagine myself to be as beautiful and as glorious as a turtle or a crocodile.

If you need to sell kidneys to see this one, get your scalpels out now.

Music: The Duke Spirit - Neptune

Thing about guitars is

2008-02-02T23:04:00.000Z

there's an awful lot of notes on 'em, and most of them are usually wrong.

Time to admit it...

2008-01-29T22:56:00.000Z

I may just have been wrong about all that spiritual stuff...

But have I also been wrong about moustaches?

The future of music, in a strange alternate universe.

2007-12-27T20:41:00.000Z

Get Down!

Season's greetings to Pirate Skulls everywhere!

2007-12-26T22:12:00.000Z

Dammit, Jimmy Page still knows how to look cool when he wants to. Is this fair use? I suppose it's commentary.

2007-12-10T22:08:00.000Z

First Song, First Album

2007-12-10T17:10:00.001Z

Or what about 'Good Times/ Bad Times', come to that: 'In the days of my youth...'

Why didn't they ask me?

2007-12-10T16:19:00.000Z

There was a review by Colin Tudge in yesterday's Graun of a book which purports to debunk Dawkins et al. The review was startlingly fallacious - I have no idea about the book, not having read it - and so I was going to witter on about it here.

But bugger that! Led Zeppelin are playing tonight fer fuxake! Yes, this lot:

Corks. I was glad to find that video, as that would be the 'Telecaster as offensive weapon' I was talking about on a previous post. There's a still more ferocious version of the song here.

No I didn't get tickets.

But the reason for posting was that I realised that unbelievably, I have failed to have the 'what will they/should they play' conversation with anybody, in particular the will they/won't they play You Know What thing. What kind of geek do I think I am?

Well, My two pennyworth is this: I think they should start with it. No one will expect that, and most importantly it will get it off their chests right from the start; speculation dealt with, they can then get on with the rest of the gig and play. More than all that, though, it would work terrifically in terms of dynamics. Picture it thus - pitch black stage, and spotlights pick out each of 'em in turn as they come into the song, Page first, then Jones, Plant and finally, ahem, JB, who will get a HUGE response, I hereby predict. Instead of a hammer blow to start with, we go from hush to a roar, within the first song. The trouble with opening up hard and fast is that in terms of dynamics, you've nowhere to go but down; after this, they can go anywhere they like.

In the recent Queens of the Stone Age DVD they open spectacularly with Go With The Flow, an excellent WHAM of a beginning with a terrific visual punch to go with it. The trouble is, that song has rather a down beat chorus, the melody descending and releasing rather than climaxing, and so you feel that the impact is lost even before the first tune is over.

If you have to go with attacking from the off then it would have to be CB I guess, as in the above vids. One of the first songs they ever nicked, sorry, wrote, and it, ahem, never fails to bring the proverbial Rock, as far as I'm concerned. Somehow it's all in that one riff, a bridge from Cochran to Hetfield and beyond.

My prediction, though? It would take a heart of stone not to be sorely tempted by the sheer cheesy appropriateness of 'It's been a long time since I rock 'n' rolled', would it not? Either that or D'yer Mak'er. Not so much Sons of Thunder as Sons of Althea and Donna.

NME and Uncut will be blogging live as the band plays. I will be watching, because I'm old enough not to care if you think I'm sad.

Aaah - aaaaaah - AH!

(Now, if he can still do that, I'll be impressed.)

Your Kung Fu lousy.

2007-12-02T22:30:00.000Z

Well, here's a splendid video. To summarise, amazing martial arts magician demonstrates his fabulous Chi powers and chucks his students around the room without laying a finger on them! He challenges any martial artist (or possibly any martial artist from a particular discipline, I don't know) to fight him for tons of money! Do I need to spell out the next bit? Here it is:

So, how does this all happen? My strongest hunch is that these students actually believed all that they were doing. There are a huge amount of social pressures which push people to act in the ways expected of them, but that doesn't mean that the students are putting it on. They think they are going to get knocked about by magic, and so they are. He thinks he can knock people about by magic, and so he can - as long as they've drunk the kool-aid (I nicked that). People can persist in these parallell worlds absolutely forever, unless something happens to fracture it. And you know what? I bet that even now that guy believes he can do it, it's just that the meridians weren't flowing right, or the other guy secretly practiced ultra anti-chi woo more powerful than his woo...

So, don't ever give me 'lots of people think homeopathy has worked for them so it must be true', because it's bollocks. As are crystals. Psychics. MMR did not cause your child's autism, and the strength of your conviction that it did is the strength of the force beating the student around the head so that he is helpless, vibrating in space.

I wonder if there's something here, too, about how it is that manifest fools like Rumsfeld and Bush can command so much respect and obedience for so long. There's lots more to this, but I'm tired now. Laugh at the fool!

Music: Neu!2

My teddy bear is called 'God is a cunt.'

2007-11-30T22:09:00.000Z

So, what can we say about the Sudan that will shed any light onto the sorry spectacle playing itself out over there? For one thing, it needs to be noted that people out there have been being murdered, tortured and raped in their thousands, without so much as a naming a beanie baby after Abraham. In a sense, then, the current spectacle is not really that important.

Still, it's unedifying in the extreme, isn't it. I've thought of all sorts of epithets for the numpties on the streets who are so upset about their wretched prophet being apparently insulted, but truly what they are is wretchedly ignorant. I don't know whether they have been whipped up by local authorities into their frenzy or if its truly spontaneous or, indeed, what, but it amounts to the same thing.

One thing, though: if, as, of course, all the moderate voices agree, this is ridiculous, then it is equally ridiculous for there to be any suggestion that it is not OK to insult religion in any way. Offense is in the eye of the offended, and how offended they are should never ever be used as a measure of whether what was done was illegal or otherwise reprehensible. The Sudanese have a point, in the sense that the intentionality of the person causing offense is irrelevant, it's just that they draw the wrong conclusion.

And you know what else? As long as we allow there to be a law against blasphemy on our statute books, we are the sodding numpties. There is no better justification for it than for burning teddy bears. This is not Islam's problem, it is the problem of any system of thought which privileges recieved wisdom, because belief without evidence (i.e. faith), no matter how apparently benign, is a doublethink which inevitably leads to absurdity. And blasphemy laws do nothing other than protect people from having to listen to facts and opinions and, indeed, lies, which might challenge their doublethink.

And by the way, if your God, the arbiter of the afterlife, really wants you to kill people who say rude things about him or his, when he has all eternity to do as he wishes with them, then he is a miserable, wretched hobgoblin who deserves every insult he gets.

Appropriate, time, then, to rediscover this. I heard this when it was first broadcast, inserted in the middle of a routine radio 4 topical comedy show. The visuals are well done, but will, I fear, add little to the experience. Just listen...

oops! forgot to add the Music: not sure now; Either Lou Reed - Rock 'n' Roll Animal or Nine Inch Nails - The Fragile. Probably.

Phew, FW...!

2007-11-23T22:16:00.000Z

Having heard about it ages ago, I finally got around to checking out Snopes. This is a worthy website whose purpose is to debunk - or occasionally verify - the ludicrous rumours that get spread around the interweb, like looking at asylum seekers will cause your eyeballs to get infested with horrid parasites. That sort of thing. Next time someone FWs you some scurrilous rumour, go here and you will quickly discover if its fer real or just nasty minded crap.

Gast me flabbers, though, at what is number two on the list of current rumours. That's right, Philip Pullman's books have anti-religious themes, and they've been made into movies! In case you're rabidly clicking to find out what else it's all about, I'm afraid I must disappoint you. That's it. At the risk of sounding like a Spitfire pilot, or even a teenager, like, duh.

This is the second most shocking piece of info currently tearing its way from computer to computer in the most powerful nation on Earth. Fear for your children! Free thought alert! At some point I may return to this computer and pour forth some more bile about this, but QI's on in a tick and there might be some people there who can cope with the idea that it's all right to think that the universe and life happened in the way that the evidence suggests they did, rather than having to protect your kids from any actual information so that they can continue to swallow like gannets the absurd cosmology of a two and a half thousand year old desert sky god cult and another thing ...

Music: Skindred - Roots Rock Riot

Spoilers below. And blasphemy.

2007-11-19T22:02:00.000Z

Mark was up last week as he says here, and delighted I am that he had a good time!

While he was up, he remarked that it was rumoured in some quarters that the upcoming Pullman adaptations have actually left in a good deal more critique of the Catholic church than they are letting on; slipping it in under the counter, so to speak. Nicole Kidman was dumb enough to marry insane midget Tom Cruise, so I guess she'll believe whatever she's told. I simply can't be bothered to search out the bit where she says she's a Catholic and so wouldn't be in a film which was against Catholicism, but it's out there somewhere.

I can't help thinking that there must be something to this. You can mess around with the trappings of the Magisterium in order to make the resemblance less obvious, by all means. But just how, exactly, do they propose to alter the later books, where God turns up and turns out to be a wretched fraudulent tosser, in order to pretend that this is not the assault on religion and hymn to skepticism that it is blatantly intended to be? It wouldn't be the first time Hollywood completely obliterated source material, of course, but Pullman's involved in this project, I believe, so here's hoping.

Music: Led Zeppelin - The Song Remains The Same (the new version, and it sounds awesome. The old version of this was rubbish. Amazing job.)

My best, most pithy and meaningful post ever.

2007-11-12T21:53:00.000Z

Because I am a walking tragedy, and at rather a loose end tonight (definitely avoidance behaviour, as I really should be practicing) I've been wondering how to add one of those little bits at the bottom for popping in info on the Rock that is currently Rocking Me. Like what Mark does. And I dod wonder if it was a bit of a rip off. But then I thought sod it, I'll just type the bugger. So I will, in a minute. Maybe I'll actually ask Mark if and how he has that set up. But that would be confessing that I've been actually thinking about this....
I've just bought a new duvet and so will be going to bed soon.
In the meantime...

Music: Comets On Fire - Avatar

Try it!

2007-11-08T23:25:00.000Z

How do you confuse a Mail reader?

Tell them that asylum seekers kill paedophiles.

Young people today...

2007-11-01T21:30:00.000Z

So I joined Facebook. It's like discovering how your granny felt about the video recorder.

This is almost certainly a breach of copyright, but I really don't think anyone will mind. By the way, homeopathy is a fraud.

2007-10-20T20:42:00.000Z

To cut a long story short, various homeopaths were caught red-handed peddling bloody dangerous twaddle. An article about this on a blog appeared, and the Society of Homeopaths bullied the blog provider into taking it down. You can read more about it here. Having read that, I thought, what the heck, I'll post the article myself. This may be an unnecessary gesture, as it is now out there in lots of places, including, I think, its original home. But I want to. So here it is:

'The Society of Homeopaths (SoH) are a shambles and a bad joke. It is now over a year since Sense about Science, Simon Singh and the BBC Newsnight programme exposed how it is common practice for high street homeopaths to tell customers that their magic pills can prevent malaria. The Society of Homeopaths have done diddly-squat to stamp out this dangerous practice apart from issue a few ambiguously weasel-worded press statements.
The SoH has a code of practice, but my feeling is that this is just a smokescreen and is widely flouted and that the Society do not care about this. If this is true, then the code of practice is nothing more than a thin veneer used to give authority and credibility to its deluded members. It does nothing more than fool the public into thinking they are dealing with a regulated professional.
As a quick test, I picked a random homeopath with a web site from the SoH register to see if they flouted a couple of important rules:

"48 • Advertising shall not contain claims of superiority.• No advertising may be used which expressly or implicitly claims to cure named diseases.
72 To avoid making claims (whether explicit or implied; orally or in writing) implying cure of any named disease."

The homeopath I picked on is called Julia Wilson and runs a practice from the Leicestershire town of Market Harborough. What I found rather shocked and angered me.
Straight away, we find that Julia M Wilson LCHE, RSHom specialises in asthma and works at a clinic that says,

"Many illnesses and disease can be successfully treated using homeopathy, including arthritis, asthma, digestive disorders, emotional and behavioural difficulties, headaches, infertility, skin and sleep problems."

Well, there are a number of named diseases there to start off. She also gives a leaflet that advertises her asthma clinic. The advertising leaflet says,

"Conventional medicine is at a loss when it comes to understanding the origin of allergies. … The best that medical research can do is try to keep the symptoms under control. Homeopathy is different, it seeks to address the triggers for asthma and eczema. It is a safe, drug free approach that helps alleviate the flaring of skin and tightening of lungs…"

Now, despite the usual homeopathic contradiction of claiming to treat causes not symptoms and then in the next breath saying it can alleviate symptoms, the advert is clearly in breach of the above rule 47 on advertising as it implicitly claims superiority over real medicine and names a disease.
Asthma is estimated to be responsible for 1,500 deaths and 74,000 emergency hospital admissions in the UK each year. It is not a trivial illness that sugar pills ought to be anywhere near. The Cochrane Review says the following about the evidence for asthma and homeopathy,

"The review of trials found that the type of homeopathy varied between the studies, that the study designs used in the trials were varied and that no strong evidence existed that usual forms of homeopathy for asthma are effective."

This is not a surprise given that homeopathy is just a ritualised placebo. Hopefully, most parents attending this clinic will have the good sense to go to a real accident and emergency unit in the event of a severe attack and consult their GP about real management of the illness. I would hope that Julia does little harm here.
However, a little more research on her site reveals much more serious concerns. She says on her site that ’she worked in Kenya teaching homeopathy at a college in Nairobi and supporting graduates to set up their own clinics’. Now, we have seen what homeopaths do in Kenya before. It is not treating a little stress and the odd headache. Free from strong UK legislation, these missionary homeopaths make the boldest claims about the deadliest diseases.
A bit of web research shows where Julia was working (picture above). The Abha Light Foundation is a registered NGO in Kenya. It takes mobile homeopathy clinics through the slums of Nairobi and surrounding villages. Its stated aim is to,

"introduce Homeopathy and natural medicines as a method of managing HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria in Kenya."

I must admit, I had to pause for breath after reading that. The clinic sells its own homeopathic remedies for ‘treating’ various lethal diseases. Its MalariaX potion,

"is a homeopathic preparation for prevention of malaria and treatment of malaria. Suitable for children. For prevention. Only 1 pill each week before entering, during and after leaving malaria risk areas. For treatment. Take 1 pill every 1-3 hours during a malaria attack."

This is nothing short of being totally outrageous. It is a murderous delusion. David Colquhoun has been writing about this wicked scam recently and it is well worth following his blog on the issue.
Let’s remind ourselves what one of the most senior and respected homeopaths in the UK, Dr Peter Fisher of the London Homeopathic Hospital, has to say on this matter.

"there is absolutely no reason to think that homeopathy works to prevent malaria and you won’t find that in any textbook or journal of homeopathy so people will get malaria, people may even die of malaria if they follow this advice."

Malaria is a huge killer in Kenya. It is the biggest killer of children under five. The problem is so huge that the reintroduction of DDT is considered as a proven way of reducing deaths. Magic sugar pills and water drops will do nothing. Many of the poorest in Kenya cannot afford real anti-malaria medicine, but offering them insane nonsense as a substitute will not help anyone.
Ironically, the WHO has issued a press release today on cheap ways of reducing child and adult mortality due to malaria. Their trials, conducted in Kenya, of using cheap mosquito nets soaked in insecticide have reduced child deaths by 44% over two years. It says that issuing these nets be the ‘immediate priority’ to governments with a malaria problem. No mention of homeopathy. These results were arrived at by careful trials and observation. Science. We now know that nets work. A lifesaving net costs $5. A bottle of useless homeopathic crap costs $4.50. Both are large amounts for a poor Kenyan, but is their life really worth the 50c saving?
I am sure we are going to hear the usual homeopath bleat that this is just a campaign by Big Pharma to discredit unpatentable homeopathic remedies. Are we to add to the conspiracy Big Net manufacturers too?
It amazes me that to add to all the list of ills and injustices that our rich nations impose on the poor of the world, we have to add the widespread export of our bourgeois and lethal healing fantasies. To make a strong point: if we can introduce laws that allow the arrest of sex tourists on their return to the UK, can we not charge people who travel to Africa to indulge their dangerous healing delusions?
At the very least, we could expect the Society of Homeopaths to try to stamp out this wicked practice? Could we?'

So much for God; now you, Adolf...

2007-09-14T20:17:00.000Z

Check this out here or here.

For a taste, try this:

'… [Dawkins's] sense of 'Fascism' is lamentably error-strewn. Dawkins has only a superficial knowledge of Mein Kampf, or the poetry of Marinetti; and he seems entirely ignorant of the much more subtle and intellectually stimulating work of Fascist philosophers such as Hermann Graf Keyserling, Alfred Baeumler, Martin Heidegger, Giovanni Gentile, Rafael Sánchez Mazas, Alain de Benoist and many others. Only somebody who has mastered the complete works of all these thinkers could even conceivably be in a position to advance an anti-Fascist argument. The lack of that necessary body of knowledge fatally undermines Dawkins's right to attack Fascism in the first place.'

Absurd? Well, no! Look at this: 'Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. ' 'What, one wonders, are Dawkins’s views on the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus? Has he read Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope? Has he even heard of them? Or does he imagine like a bumptious young barrister that you can defeat the opposition while being complacently ignorant of its toughest case?'

More from the more serious review:

'Worse, he does not seem to realise that his own position, so-called non-Fascism, is actually a kind of Fascism: a structure of belief determined by Fascism, dependent for many of its core ideas on Fascist traditions.'

'I am not, of course, suggesting that Fascism has been perfect; no reasonable Fascist would. Whilst it's true that the Leader is the inerrant embodiment of the will of the People—ordinary Fascists themselves are prone to all the fallibilities of the human condition.'

Enough; go read the whole thing. I only wish I'd thought of it.

Beware! Screaming Gittery!

2007-08-11T21:26:00.000Z

Everybody in the world really should read Charlie Brooker's Screen Burn from today in full. But for the heck of it, here's a few choice quotes:

'If it wasn't for the Enlightenment, you wouldn't be reading this right now. You'd be standing in a smock throwing turnips at a witch.'

' "Spirituality" is what cretins have in place of imagination.'

And I can't edit this paragraph at all without losing a bit I really like, so here 'tis:

'Maybe you've put your faith in spiritual claptrap because our random, narrative-free universe terrifies you. But that's no solution. If you want comforting, suck your thumb. Buy a pillow. Don't make up a load of floaty blah about energy or destiny. This is the real world, stupid. We should be solving problems, not sticking our fingers in our ears and singing about fairies. Everywhere you look, screaming gittery is taking root, with serious consequences. The NHS recently spent £10m refurbishing the London Homeopathic Hospital. The equivalent of 500 nurses' wages, blown on a handful of magic beans. That was your tax money. It was meant for saving lives.'

All television reviews should be like this.

Ooh, get her!

2007-07-14T21:30:00.000Z

I love a nicely turned piece of understatement, so here's one from today's Guardian single reviews:

'note: "reasonably agreeable" is not really a compliment in rock'n'roll'.

Envoy to WHERE?!

2007-06-27T21:30:00.000Z

Around fifteen years ago a friend and I compiled an imaginary tape to have been entitled 'Thatch No More'. The details are lost in the mists of time and that long ago drunken haze, but the lead off track was to have been 'Glad To See You Go' by the Ramones.

Please don't misunderstand, I love America, but no one can embarrass you like those you love...

2007-06-18T21:55:00.000Z

Well, now. I recognise that brainstorming can be very productive, and that you've got to throw around as many ridiculous ideas as you can in order to get at the good ones. But Gay Bombs? Gay Bombs? Only in the confused, repressed, creationist mind of a midwestern Colonel, surely.

As is often the case, Stephen Fry has expressed it in a way which probably cannot be bettered:

“Tell you what, lovely army, very nice vehicles and things; d’you have any grown-ups anywhere?”

As if I didn't have enough to do

2007-06-10T19:27:00.000Z

I fear I'm going to have to read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire at some point. Try this passage:

‘But how shall we excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world to those evidences which were presented, not to their reason, but to their senses? During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrine which they preached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, daemons were expelled, and the laws of Nature were frequently suspended for the benefit of the church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or physical government of the world.’

Isn't that lovely? I'd count myself a serious writer if I could manage a passege that good just the once...

Life in a Secular State

2007-06-06T19:14:00.000Z

On the radio this morning, I heard one of the Republican candidates for the Presidency of you know where. It seems that following outcry from various scientists and the like, he had decided to moderate his earlier comment that he did not believe in evolution. He now said that all he knew was that God had created the world, but was not too concerned with how, and didn't see that it affected his ability to carry out the duties of the President.

Well, as far as relevance to his duties goes, it would demonstrate a capacity for rational thought. And it would demonstrate that he could take on board uncomfortable information, rather than just pretending the world was the way he wanted it to be and acting accordingly.

So I suppose he was right, at that.

I need a badge.

2006-11-24T22:49:00.000Z

As I was saying, it turns out that in the fifties, America's motto was changed from "e pluribus unum" to "In God We Trust". Now, far be it from me to slag off America when it's been so popular to do that lately. "From the many, one", is, it must be observed, a lovely sentiment, packed with meaning, speaking into being a state that makes democracy its central ingredient. The nation exists in that it is a democracy; democracy is not a new style of government for a pre-existing nation. More than that, it evokes a pluralism which remains a bold ideal, even now - particularly now. It is entirely appropriate for the secular state that the USA is constitutionally bound to be.

"In God We Trust", by contrast, is psycho imperialist religious paranoid bollocks.

Meanwhile, it seems that the airline worker who insists on wearing her emblem of murderous torture (that would be a cross) over her uniform may well be allowed so to do in future. I don't care whether she wears it or not, really. But the thing is, in contrast to some of the symbols of other religions, which symbols are tolerated, there is no stricture within Christianity which says that she will go to hell, or suffer ostracism, or some similar opprobrium if she doesn't wear it. She just seems to think that she can't do her job unless she can declare to all and sundry that she is a Christian while she does it. I'd really quite enjoy going to work wearing some kind of symbol which meant "there is no God, you stupid bastards", but I don't expect it would be popular.

Rumsfeld lives, while...

2006-11-11T12:23:00.000Z

"I personally don't believe in God;

I tend to think, if God wanted us to believe in Him,

He'd exist."

Linda Smith

This decision is a great erroneous.

2006-11-05T21:34:00.000Z

According to the White House, apparently, "Saddam's death sentence is a great day for Iraq." I've heard this repeated often enough to assume that it is, in fact, what they intended to say. I suppose that, by now, we shouldn't be surprised that they have such a poor grasp of the English language; more than that, these are people who are quite happy to assert that where the facts don't agree with what they say, it is reality that has got it wrong. How many legal judgements make a month?

On a slightly less obscure point, I have for a long time found it rather ironic that in a country where the State is seen as a necessary evil at best, the viewpoint that the State should keep as far out of people's business as possible is held by essentially the same demographic that believes that the State should have jurisdiction inside women's bodies.

A Pusillanimous Priest.

2006-10-31T14:38:00.000Z

This morning Radio Four had "Humphrys in search of God", interviewing Rowan Williams. John Humphrys is an ex-believer, and the purpose of the program is that he asks leaders of three religions to convert him back. Given that Humphries is a journalist, it is no surprise that it was the good old fashioned Problem of Evil which did for his faith. As a consequence, much of the focus of the program was on that area.

It was a truly painful experience listening to Williams negotiate the twists and turns of the architecture of nonsense which he has had to construct in order to find some evidence of God in the world. What it seems to amount to is that if people pray and are generally sort of holy, then they weaken the membrane between this world and God's, and occasionally some good stuff gets through to help people cope with all the pain and misery of existence. And that's about it. It's as if he's an atheist who feels a duty to pray because he can't think of anything else useful to do for the world.

Strange; so often we atheists are accused of nihilism. Whereas, it seems to me that the world is a neutral place which we can fill with true glory and beauty if and when we so choose. In other words, I live with and through hope every day. Williams, on the other hand, seems to see the world as a horrible place, so horrible that he has to explain any good he can find in it as God's work, because he can't imagine that it just comes from people. (Or, indeed, nature, chance, and all those other wonderful things). Wretched man.

Fascinatingly, at the end he says "God alone can judge how much of your resistance to God is culpable, due to selfishness, laziness of spirit, bloodymindedness, and how much is just due to whatever got in the way." I despise with all my being this idea that there is some sort of moral responsibility to accept God, but it is easy to see how this offers Williams his own get out clause. In his worldview, God is in all the good bits, and so he is doing good just by believing. That must be comforting to a man whose moral cowardice was written large, in public, in his pitiful climbdown over gay priests. Bugger off and write your rubbish poetry, say I.

Faith. No More!

2006-10-26T15:28:00.000Z

The problem with faith is that once you use it to justify anything, you can use it to justify everything.

Female genital mutilation. It's illegal in this country, and it's also illegal to take someone abroad from this country to have it done. Bloody well right. Those who practice it, though, say that it is expected in their culture, and will argue that it is required by their religions. It's all about their relationship with their God, and it's nobody else's business.
This may sound familiar to anyone who has paid any attention to the news recently. I don't like a lot of the people who have come out against the wearing of the niqab, and "it makes me feel uncomfortable" is just about the most pathetic, bleating excuse for a contribution to a political debate I've ever heard. But as soon as you admit the argument "It's about my faith" you've lost any possible claim to moral authority.

This is thrown into sharp relief when people justify their adhesion to nonsense in the face of evidence by saying "you don't understand, it's not about evidence, it's about faith." In which case, you can believe absolutely anything and give it equal moral weight and truthfulness. If you accept, alternatively, that some things are taboo, no matter what the faith-based reason for them, then you have admitted something which cuts to the heart of many of the arguments which are used to justify faith based schools and the like.

Morality does not derive from faith. It is imposed on it from without, and often in spite of it.

This means, among other things, that extremist, mine-is-the only-true-faith bigots are actually more rational than tolerant moderates. Morality can only be associated with faith where there is only one faith; if a negotiated morality is acceptable, then it derives from without.

This should be obvious, really. Anyone who has ever read the bible with an open mind will be aware that alongside the "thou shalt not kill" stuff, which everyone can appreciate, is the "go slaughter your enemies and rape their wives and beat their babies brains out" stuff. Yet few who claim their morality to be biblical would argue that the latter exerts moral precedence over the former (even when behaving in the latter manner). Why not? because our morality doesn't come from the damn book, it comes from somewhere else. I would suggest that it is probably from a mixture of hard-wired behaviour and social negotiation, but that's not really important.

What is, is that if you call on faith to justify your position, you have lost the argument by any reasonable intellectual standard. And if you say that religious people tend to be better, because they derive moral standards from their faiths, then you are a liar, a fool, or a bigot.

And as for the veil, by the way, wear it if you want to. But don't tell me that your religion requires it, because if that's not an excuse for genital mutilation - and it isn't - then it's not an excuse for anything else either. You wear it because you want to, and if you have political reasons for wanting to these days, that certainly makes sense. But just because you have individual reasons for wearing it, you have not changed its essential nature. Its purpose and function is to dehumanise women, no matter what any God's mouthpiece says.

Live by this

2006-10-23T21:16:00.000Z

A new motto:

"Give a good supper to the righteous, and a sound drubbing to the wicked."

Strange mushrooms in the woods...

2006-10-14T22:41:00.000Z

So here's an interesting ethical one. When I talk to the little ones about God - which has occurred already - I say it's an idea that some people have. As and when the issue of what I think comes up, I will explain in no uncertain terms my own position on the subject. Yet I'm quite happy for them to think that this was put in place by fairies, rather than, as is in fact the case, Jem Finer.

Neologism: "dringley" (hard 'g').

Yeah, you and your pork pie hat.

2006-10-04T21:45:00.000Z

The Guardian's been giving print space to the tiresome Pete Doherty again. (If you don't know who he is, don't worry, you haven't missed anything at all).

If you've read that and aren't sure what the problem is, exactly, then read these two letters, because they sum it up quite nicely. In fact, they sum it up quite nicely in any case.

If Pete Doherty is our best hope for lyrics better than Noel Gallagher's, then God help us poor atheists. Folks, you can do better. Go out and listen to The Pursuit of Happiness, Warren Zevon, Simon and Garfunkel. if you still think Pete Doherty's got anything to say, then tell me so - I'll be fascinated. For comparison:

"It's the story of a coked-up pansy
Who spent his nights in a flights of fancy
Met two fellas over gin and mixers
They talked for a while he soon got the picture"

vs.

"Don't talk of love
Well I've heard the word before
It's sleeping in my memory
I won't disturb the slumber
Of feelings that have died
If I never loved I never would have cried"

If anyone's writing great lyrics at the moment then I can't think of them off the cuff, although "You Suck" by Strapping Young Lad is very funny. Any suggestions welcome...

Why the human race does not deserve to exist part 342.

2006-10-02T19:31:00.000Z

Blunt's "Goodbye My Lover" most requested funeral song, it says here, presumably by people who want to make their loved ones suffer. I know that listening to that kind of banal cack makes me want to die.

Me, I want "Surprise, You're Dead" followed by the Dropkick Murpys' version of "Amazing Grace" from "The Gang's All Here". And if there's a band at the wake they can play a version of the Hoodoo Gurus' "Dig it Up" with the lyrics transposed.

They said it wasn't our fault? Must be some mistake!

2006-09-25T20:26:00.000Z

The Michael Stone report is finally with us. Startlingly, it fails to say that mental health services, having met him, should have cured him of being a bastard with a wave of their magic therapy wand and taken away all his responsibility for not killing people! This seems rather wondrous, given the way this case has been reported over the years. We have bright shiny new personality disorder services in purpose built buildings at Rampton Hospital, thanks to Michael Stone. I wonder how this report - which essentially says that his mental health care was appropriate - will impact on all the service changes that were instituted to make up for his supposed lack of care?

What's not stressed in the BBC report linked to above, but was stated on the radio, is that the report suggests that the criminal justice system needs to be taking more responsibility for managing people like Stone. This is a huge statement; the trend of the last ten years, from this observer's perspective, seems to have been putting more and more pressure on mental health services to bear responsibility for all the behaviour of those who come into contact with them. To say that the criminal justice system is the appropriate agency is the same, surely, as to say that psychopaths must bear the responsibility for their own behaviour.

Speaking of which, I hear that Cherie Blair has been "accidentally" - and deniably - overheard calling Gordon Brown a liar. Whatever happens over the next year, we can be sure that Tony and cohorts will be blaming Gordon and his posse for spoiling it all. This is a crying shame, because it is another reason why Blair will never face up to the horrific disaster that his foreign policy has been.

"How very stupid not to have thought of that" part 308,972

2006-09-24T19:13:00.000Z

"The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive."

-Sam Harris

Nice.

Calling anyone who ever thought guitars were cool...

2006-09-18T19:07:00.000Z

Just have a look at these! Quite possibly the most beautiful guitars I've ever seen. One of the guitarists from Mastodon has one of these in Silverburst, which may well be the loveliest single guitar I've ever seen; trying to figure out what exactly it was led me to these. And they only made 40! The swines!

If I can find a link to a decent pic of Mastodon bloke's one I'll pop it in.

Honestly, I care about stuff other than religion, but...

2006-09-16T21:35:00.000Z

Tony Robinson turned up a prodigous crew of swine tonight in the tediously, but understandably, named "The Doomsday Code". This was all about the Book of Revelation, and the people, some of them hugely influential, who believe in a "literal" truth derived from it, and why we should hate them, fear them, and throw mud and poo at them.

One delightful preacher was deriding those who would believe in evolution, when all the time there was a God telling them that he had had his son tortured to death for them, and they only had to take Him into their hearts, so it was their own fault they were going to BURN and have their livers drawn out and there was going to be a river of blood up to HERE, wow, and isn't God infinitely merciful. Another one, or it might have been the same one, condensed this unconscious irony in beautifully compact form; it ran along the lines of "all you (atheists and agnostics) had to do was accept my grace and love and infinite mercy, but you didn't and so you're fucked forever!" (Without the swearing and probably more elegantly put.)

And so, for the morally inept amongst you, here it is. Any creature which defined the worth of a human being by their attitude towards that creature, rather than by how they behave towards other human beings, would be an egotistical excrescence, even if it did make them in the first place. Anyone with the remotest approximation of a moral sense would have a duty to oppose it.

And that's just one of the reasons why if God existed He, She, or It would be a scumbag of, ahem, biblical proportions. Good job there's no sensible reason to do so, isn't it.

Eight legs good.

2006-09-15T20:19:00.000Z

I haven't posted for a little while - clearly not enough to complain about. So today I shall complain that it's bloody hard to take pictures of spiders with an autofocus camera. Still, I think these came out OK - I found these two beauties apparently hanging in midair the other day.

'Ang on, I've changed me mind...

2006-09-07T21:05:00.000Z

Last run before, er, the run, tonight. It felt really good, actually. I've had a nagging pain in my right thigh for a while now, but it's given me less trouble each time for a the last few runs, so I take that to mean I'm judging something right. I have my number - 879 - so I know I'm really in it. Well, this will certainly be different from anything else I've ever done...

Creeping Americanisation... It gets everywhere.

2006-09-06T22:15:00.000Z

I said assholes! I, of course, meant arseholes. Some heritage is worth preserving. Apologies.

The fact of the matter is, some people are downright wrong, and we don't want them.

2006-09-06T15:40:00.000Z

Yes, I'm still here. It seems that a vaccine for HPV will soon be here; HPV is the virus which causes cervical cancer. It also seems that the voices of hate and fear have to have their say on this, as on so much else. The Catholic Church, as well as "family campaigners", according to Zoe Williams, for starters. There's reference to more assholes to be found if you follow this link. Let's be quite clear on this - if you think ten year old girls will suddenly want to have sex because they've been given a jab, you're a twisted old pervert. And if you think that thousands of deaths are preferable to giving people the tools to make their own moral choices and to offering them protection when it will be the most effective, then you are the sodding Taliban, and no civilised country deserves you.

Wot no harmonicas?

2006-08-29T20:05:00.000Z

Slayer have a new album out, "Christ Illusion". On it they still "Hail Satan" and "choose 666", which is reassuring after all these years. But a closer inspection reveals that, rather worryingly, there is something serious going on here. War, religion, religious wars... that's about it as far as lyrics go, and there's no ambiguity about their position. These are hardly new concepts for metal in general and Slayer in particular, but I'd usually expect a few numbers about, I don't know, zombies in there too. There seems little doubt that this focus derives from 9/11 and all that's happened since. So not only could this be described as a concept album, this is surely... a protest album. That shreds like a bastard!

Yeurch...

2006-08-27T16:17:00.000Z

While wittering about right-wing historians, I forgot to mention the loathsome Niall Ferguson, but now I have remembered!

A Classical Education

2006-08-26T20:30:00.000Z

I've finally finished Robin Lane Fox's "The Classical World", which I'd been wanting to read since the hardback came out. It was well worth the wait; a fantastic way of putting what I can only describe as "all that stuff" into context without having to go through a pre-1940's public school education. His occasional, somewhat bizarre, emphasis on the significance of gardens is only explicable when one reads the author's biog and discovers that he has been the Financial Times' gardening correspondent since 1970.

It's clear that Fox has a great deal of admiration for many of the military exploits and feels sympathetic towards some individuals whose behaviour was at times, well, ruthless, to say the least. This is probably fair; neither the idea that the classical civilisations were hideously cruel and alien, nor that their inhabitants were demigods compared to us can be adequate. We must judge in context. Nevertheless, I was reminded of David Starkey, another historian; during an edition of "Any Questions" he claimed that anyone who actually understood history would be right-wing politically. I'm not at all sure; I think that, inevitably, people like Starkey and Fox view history from the top-down, as it were. It's no wonder that this happens, because that is the stuff that our traditional sources of History talk about, and that is where all the action seems to be - wars are led by kings, not serfs. Life, though, is lived from the bottom up. There have been vastly more serfs than kings, and the history of kings and queens is really only context for the true meat and gristle of human experience.

Theists and their Straw Men, Life and its Beauty.

2006-08-19T20:47:00.000Z

So, back to the Hitchens critique of Darwinism. (1) (2) By the way, I acknowledge that the piece I have picked up on is not his own words, but someone else's attempt to sum up his views. However, the "Hitchens critique" seems reasonable shorthand, given that the piece is explicitly associated with him, even if it does not necessarily derive from him. You can find some comment about this in words that are explicitly his under "What are Archbishops for?"; scroll down the page to find it. He says there:
"Darwin's theory - and that of his followers - is a heroic and impressive attempt to describe events that no human could ever have witnessed, on the basis of very thin evidence which cannot easily be tested."

But I shall go back to the original piece first, because there's even more foolishness in it. Like this: "the theory of evolution, unlike other scientific theories cannot be tested because it cannot be and has not been observed, and remains a theory about the distant past." See that Big Bang? Apparently, that's not a scientific theory. To be fair, this is where poor wording may be making Hitchens look more ignorant of science than he actually is. Or maybe he really does believe that the theory of evolution is unique in this regard.

But what, exactly, is meant by "cannot be tested"? This seems to assume that unless you can reproduce all of what you're talking about in a laboratory experiment, then you can't be doing science. Because there are plenty of ways to test a theory. For example, you could dig up thousands upon thousands of fossils which demonstrate different species living on the earth at different times. Or you could look for "transitional stages". Good one this, because for some reason, anti-darwinists of various stripes often point to it:

"If all that's true, then we should see lots of inbetween stages, shouldn't we." Yes, is the reply, and the thing is, that we do. For example, every animal that has ever lived anywhere ever. And all the plants, too. "Species" only appear to be discrete entities because what we actually see are individual creatures at one moment in time. But if that's too abstract to grasp, then take the eye. (Squelch.) Go for a more complex one, such as that of a human, or octopus. Now, the fantastic thing is that just about every stage that could be easily imagined in between "no eye at all" and the organ in your hand exists in animals, many of them alive now. (This eye bit is entirely derived from The Blind Watchmaker, by the way.) So that's transitional stages thoroughly sorted out, then.

Or there's the burgeoning science of genetics, and all that we have learned about molecular clocks. The test, not to labour the point, is whether the information that we keep on turning up is compatible with the theory, or not. And it is, in all its vast quantity.

So, and lastly for today, about this "has not been observed bit". I hope I've already indicated that a theory can be highly robust without needing for all its implications to be seen in process. But go back to the bit about natural selection. The two observations, I would contend, being observations, have been observed. Stop me if I've missed something, here. The rest simply follows. The really interesting part, though, is speciation, the process itself. Even if species, as such, only exist in snapshots of time, the process of speciation is absolutely vital; it does not (necessarily) happen in quantum leaps, but even if we cannot draw a boundary, it is still possible to say "this species is not that species, yet they are both descended from that species." If you can identify that, then you have identified a speciation.
Shame we can't see that happening, isn't it? Oh. Have a look here. And here. I'll not deny that this evidence has its detractors. Some of those detractors may actually be better at it than that one, who nicely attempts to refute the evidence by ignoring most of it (compare the examples listed by the proponent above and the opponent), and by setting up straw men: "Darwinists say all dogs are different species!". Only thick ones. "Speciation...In the sense of one species changing into another" is not what we're looking for; speciation, where descendents of a common ancestor diverge into separate species is another matter entirely.

Well, I'm off for now. If this has become gibberish, I may well come back to tighten it up; in the meantime, I just wish we Darwinists had more than just the flimsiest of evidence to draw upon. More about why Intelligent Design is just a misprint of Nonrational Craving for a big old Daddy in the sky later.

My fun spoilt.

2006-08-19T20:19:00.000Z

Woe! Jesse Norman has disappointed me. He was introduced on "Any Questions" with reference to the Telegraph's having described him as "one of the brightest young Tory minds". Nick Clarke then mentioned his recent book "Compassionate Conservatism, what is it, and why we need it". I was delighted by this apparent evidence that this bright young Tory mind couldn't even string a coherent title together (hint - where does the question mark go?). Unfortunately, it seems the real title has it "what it is, and why we need it".

I like the idea of a "Tory mind", though, somehow defined by its quintessential connection to a political party. Bit Stalinist, somehow.

I'm tough, me

2006-08-19T20:04:00.000Z

Yikes; supposedly a shortish "tempo run" tonight; in fact a miserable washout. Makes me realise what a dry summer it's been, since I've encountered the rain only once before since starting this insane mission. It's not being able to see that I object to the most. Moan, moan; now I really feel like Ranulph Fiennes.

On the Other Hand

2006-08-14T21:16:00.000Z

Of course, we might all just be spawned from pods...

Right, then, about that Evolution thing.

2006-08-14T20:34:00.000Z

See entries below; time to see if I can nail this. For starters, let's just check what Natural Selection actually means, because I think that there are a lot of people who have never understood this. It's actually blindingly simple. It depends on only two observations. The rest barely constitutes an argument; it's really just a statement of a necessary truth.

Observation One: Changes in the form of an animal (including people) can occur between generations.
Observation Two: These changes can often be inherited.

Yup, that's it, and I'd just like to see anyone try to say that either of those points has not enough evidence to support it. We'd be a lot colder if it wasn't true, because we wouldn't have such marvelously woolly sheep.

Now here's the logic bit.
If such a change confers an advantage upon its possessor, then those who possess it will do better than those who don't. (As you see, this is basically a definition of "advantage". It's an important step, though, because it sets up the next one.)
This means that, over time, the proportion of creatures (in the particular context) with the trait in question will increase.

And. That's. It. That's what it means, for a particular trait to be naturally selected. Everything else we know is just icing on the cake, really.

This is survival of the fittest, and for those amongst you who have never gotten over the misinformation which was promulgated in (particularly) America post-Darwin, please note the complete absence of it being all about getting one over on the other guy, or of any feature which could allow it to be mistaken for any sort of moral imperative.

I'm not saying that this is enough to account robustly for all that is attributed to the process of evolution. But this is what is meant by Natural Selection, and this is what is meant by the Survival of the Fittest; please, show me how the existence of these forces is just a matter of opinion, do.

So Arch, You Could Build a Cathedral On 'Em.

2006-08-13T20:47:00.000Z

So, we know all about how Queen Muse are. The backing vocals, the imperviousness to ridicule, the painstaking layering. This refers of course to the time when Queen really did build Sonic Cathedrals of Sound, rather than spending months evidently getting a synthesizer to go "parp".

But how Metal are they? On the day of the Loincloth Revolution, when Death comes at last to False Metal, will they be lined up against the wall next to Jon BJ, or will they be knighted (order of Olympus Mons) next to Lemmy? Lemmy, like Robert Plant and Jimmy Page, says his band isn't Heavy Metal; they are all wrong, and they have missed a key point: it isn't up to them. I digress - although the Zeppelin connection is apposite; it doesn't matter how many reggae songs you do nor how much folk, if you put Stonehenge on your stage you are Metal. So it's not all about the riff quotient; "In Through the Out Door" is part of the Metal Canon, even if "In the Evening" is the only song on it which is Metal in and of itself.

So, let's look at the evidence. A first album that sounds like watered-down Radiohead? Ah, not helpful, or indeed good in any sense whatsoever. Still, let's carry on. Song called "Assassin"? Better. Song called "Assassin" with a galloping riff and which contains the lyric "destroy demonocracy"? Much better. Songs about celestial phenomena? Positively Rush! Having your guitars custom built with all sorts of gimmicks, and calling them "Mattocasters", you yourself being called Matt? Sterling work. Duffel coats? Oh dear. Video where the band ride spaceships away from exploding planets? Now that should be good, but Linkin Park have been up to that sort of thing too, and they are False, False, False, and knobshiners to boot.

Hmm. But what about a song called "Knights of Cydonia"? That's promising. What about a song called "Knights of Cydonia" which actually features the sound of galloping horses? My hands desperately want to do the horn thing, but I think we need a clincher. So, go and listen to "Supermassive Black Hole". Listen to the way he delivers the title. Why does he pronounce "Hole" like that? Well, I wonder if you could write that down phonetically, somehow. Some way of showing precisely how he does that vowel sound. Ah, yes, of course. "Supermassive Black Höle". QED.

String 'Em Up!

2006-08-12T20:42:00.000Z

Not the greatest start to the day. Somehow, it's actually more annoying because there doesn't seem even to have been an attempt to steal anything. Just for fun. Now, it's nothing, of course, which couldn't be dealt with with a couple of hours of cleaning, a few 'phone calls and a trip to the local glass replacement firm. In the course of a lifetime, it's not much, really, and not worth wasting time worrying about.

But you know what? I could see their feet hacked off at the ankles without it troubling my conscience. Or do it myself. Which just goes to show what a bloody stupid idea is John Reid's current one of letting victims have a say in the disposal of offenders.

This newfangled technology...

2006-08-11T21:23:00.000Z

I posted today - it's appeared below, as "Hitchens (Peter) on Darwinism etc." I saved it as a draft a few days ago, but I would still have thought it would post - well - here, as I actually posted it today. Sighs. What I intended to do was split it in two - there was more than the same again, which I seem to have lost. Nuts.
Anyway, have a look at it, if only for a link to an entertaining bit of banter with Hitchens and Fry.

More time lords

2006-08-08T22:22:00.000Z

I found this in the Guardian's diary section today. It's utterly beautiful and requires no other comment.

"The office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." HL Mencken, 1920.

I run! You give away your cash!

2006-08-08T22:14:00.000Z

See "Give us your fucking money" below; here's a page for sponsoring my run and giving your money to Amnesty:

http://www.justgiving.com/danhaycock

Thangyewverymudge.

Blair in your past, present and future! Celebrate!

2006-08-07T21:47:00.000Z

Armando agrees with me, but the bastard's managed to explain the otherwise inexplicable. I'd been wondering if and when Russell Davies was going to recast the Master...

In fact, I've just read a headline which suggests that even Dubya is going to suggest, soon, that perhaps killing hundreds of civilians and rendering their cities uninhabitable might be a bit unhelpful. Most observers would have to admit that this is potentially quite remarkable, and no bad thing. Maybe it even comes as the result of skilful behind the scenes work. Maybe that would have been undermined by calls for immediate ceasefire. I don't believe it, though.

Hitchens (Peter) on Darwinism. God help us. I mean...

2006-08-06T21:04:00.000Z

In the entry about Peter Hitchens in Wikipedia, I found the phrase "profound shallowness", which is rather nice. I also found the following text, which I will reproduce as the chances are it won't be there in ten minutes:

On Darwinism
Hitchens' position on the theory of evolution is that the theory of evolution, unlike other scientific theories cannot be tested because it cannot be and has not been observed, and remains a theory about the distant past. Those who adhere to it are therefore embracing a faith, just as theists (whose beliefs also cannot be tested) are. His use of expressions such as 'fundamentalist' and 'ayatollah' to describe the intolerant, dogmatic advocates of evolution is mockery intended to provoke thought - applying to them the epithets they aim at others. He opposes dogmatism of any kind on this subject, pointing out that neither he nor anyone else has any idea how the realm of nature took its present shape, or how the universe began. Views on this, theist or atheist, remain a matter of free choice.

As to why I seem to be obsessed by the Hitchens boys at the moment, it's just that I seem to keep running into both of them. Peter was on Radio Four last Saturday explaining why women should stay in the home while being very careful not to actually say that.

Both Hitchens brothers are clearly very articulate, bright, and capable of some excellent insight. I have the sense, though, that they are each equally happy using rhetorical slights of hand to support poor reasoning when it supports their prejudices as they are making truly well-argued cases. While both celebrate their reason, they are both idealogues; if you watch Peter for long enough, he will start talking about "real" conservatives, which is a Platonic ideal too far for me. Similarly, Christopher just loves his newfound neoconservatism nearly as much as he still loves his Trotskyist identity (see - or rather hear - him on this program, if it's still up). He's right about God, though. And this here, which I've mentioned before, is very entertaining and worth your time. However! this is not what I originally intended to talk about, so I will wrap it up and start again.

Name that Fallacy

2006-08-05T20:55:00.000Z

Here is a review from today's Guardian. In it John Gray sympathises with but disagrees with the thesis presented by Amartya Sen in "Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny". Broadly, Gray says that Sen argues that too much thinking categorises people in terms a single identity - muslim, for example - rather than the multiplicity of interrelated roles which is a more proper way of viewing a person. This mistake then fuels conflict. Gray thinks that Sen's solution to this is unrealistic, but also that Sen has misunderstood human nature. I don't want to go too far into the relative merits of Sen's and Gray's understanding; my interest was piqued by one particular thing that Gray says:

"For Sen, as a good liberal rationalist, it is an article of faith that the violence of identity is a result of erroneous beliefs. He cannot accept that its causes are inherent in human beings themselves."

This is surely a false dichotomy, as there is no reason why the causes of those irrational beliefs cannot be inherent in human beings. Humans are not naturally rational; there wouldn't be enough time for all decisions to go through internal processes of deductive reasoning. Most thinking is done in shortcuts, and one type of shortcut is the stereotype. They are useful - actually, they are essential. They are often correct, but sometimes erroneous beliefs whose origins are inherent in human beings. More on this later.

Keep your smelly shoes to yourself.

2006-08-04T21:08:00.000Z

There is a general assumption that experience is a good thing. This is reflected in phrases like "walk a mile in my shoes", "university of life".
Plainly, though, experience is not always useful. I am sure that the multitude of Israelis who support their country's recent behaviour do so because their quite genuine experience teaches them that it is appropriate. Similarly, Hizbullah no doubt feel their behaviour is appropriate, because that stems from their own life experiences. Each in turn creates the experience of the other. And thus we are inexorably led to unstoppable cycles of violence and barbarity in which the most bestial behaviour seems reasonable. So, the next time someone says "walk a mile in my shoes before you judge me", you may want to be sympathetic, you may want to express understanding, but if the behaviour can only be justified by "walking in their shoes" then that should be a big glowing red warning to you that there's a problem here.

Some people will use phrases like "I live in the real world" to justify their holding certain opinions. This often seems to mean that they in fact can't justify or explain them other than by making this assertion; it's the sort of crap bigots come out with to justify ill-concieved stereotyping. It is an attempt to make a point inarguable - if you don't agree, that's just because you haven't had enough experience to understand. It is a poor cloak for ignorance. In my experience.

Where do you start?

2006-08-02T21:01:00.000Z

Will Tony Blair, or someone, please explain why asking for an immediate ceasefire will prevent a sustainable ceasefire? No, of course they won't.

Give us your fucking money

2006-08-02T20:26:00.000Z

I mentioned running below, which may well have surprised anyone who read it and knows me. However, it's so; I decided to enter the Nottingham Half-Marathon this year, entirely for the sake of the challenge and the "buzz" - well, buzzes, meaning the physical buzz from the exercise, and the achievement buzz. Half-Marathon because I didn't think I had time enough to get fit enough for a full one, but that doesn't mean that won't come later.

Since I was going to do it anyway, though, I figured it would be a waste not to do something else with it, so to speak, and so I will be raising money for Amnesty. An address for a justgiving page will be up soon, and I'll be emailing people and stuff.

So, why Amnesty? Put it this way: my raising money for Amnesty will do not a jot to resolve the situation in the Middle East, but it puts a bit of cash in the way of people who are trying to help people cope with the consequences of the worst human behaviour. We're all seeing some pretty dreadful human behaviour on a daily basis at the moment. Can your money, put to some medical charity, maybe save some lives? Indeed. Should we fight nature in that way? Oh yes, not for nothing do I describe myself as a child of the Enlightenment. However, I am not against cancer in the same way as I feel impelled to be against, for example, war, torture, Israel's behaviour, AND Hizbullah's behaviour. So am I going to dedicate my life to fighting injustice? Of course not; I have a life and a family to which I am dedicated; I don't love other people's children more than I love my own. For one reason. But, if 95% of my nature is quite venal, that's no reason to suppress the other 5%; or, to put it another way, I might as well raise some money, and Amnesty seems to me to be a good place to put it. I hope anyone who reads this will agree; I will post the justgiving page as soon as I recieve a couple of bits of info from Amnesty.

My name in lights. Well, nearly.

2006-07-29T21:37:00.000Z

I'm pleased to have had a letter published in the Guardian's review section today. It's here, and the article to which it refers is here. Here's the full text of the letter, before the Graun edited it:

"Do we like [Gill's Petra drawings] any less knowing...that...Gill was habitually abusing his two elder daughters?" asks Fiona MacCarthy. Well, I certainly hope so. Let me reframe that question: "Does the knowledge that these are a rapist's portraits of his victim, who also happens to be his daughter, change the way we feel about it?" Are these pictures really still "delicious"?
Sex offenders, by the way, are not motivated by an "overbalance of tendresse". Like other emotionally manipulative people, though, they are often expert at fooling the naive, which makes their behaviour easier to commit and to get away with.

Don't misunderstand me - many forms of transgression are terrific and productive and thrilling in Art and in life. Work of incontestible value has been created by some vile people, too; you could start with Wagner and make a list a mile long. But "impossible to view without a frisson, those delicate, delicious portraits of the teenage Petra"? A "frisson", for goodness sake, like it's just a bit of added spice. For all I know, Petra's still alive, although she must be very ancient if so. She wasn't raped by her father in order to give your viewing experience added flavour, she was raped by her father because he was scum.

Homosexuality is often quoted as the archetypal transgressive behaviour, and the changes in its legal status are testament to the inappropriateness of mistaking "illegal" for "bad". This is not the same thing, though. Even many of those stupid enough to believe that homosexuality is in some sense unnatural, let alone immoral, must, I hope, understand the whole "consenting adults" thing, and why if I call this a crime, it is in a different sense from that in which homosexuality used to be one.

So should we destroy Gill's works? Of course not; see reference to Wagner, above, and no, you don't have to be as good as W. for the argument to apply. And NO, an "it's art" defense does not apply to child pornography. I can recognise, having said that, that the Petra pictures could be seen as occupying something of a grey area in that regard; more thought required, perhaps.

What I do know is that, knowing what they are, I don't want the Petra pictures on my wall.

Anyway - my name's in the paper today!

My Cat Drinks the Blood of the Censorious

2006-07-28T21:40:00.000Z

The easiest comment to make about this would surely be the timeworn truism that some people have no sense of humour, although that's perhaps not much comfort. Instead, I suggest finding solace in the fact that idiocy is its own punishment.
She had to take her sign down, but the person who made the complaint has to live their whole life as a tedious waste of oxygen who has nothing to offer but to make the world a little greyer. Without question a fender-less eunuch, and a knobshiner to boot. Man, woman or other.
For goodness sake, when did people start to expect to live their lives without ever being offended? (I am in the uncomfortable position of being indebted to Christopher Hitchens to some extent on this one. A rather wonderful conversation between him and Stephen Fry on the theme of blasphemy is available as a podcast - I'll find a link to it at some point soon. Anyway, Hitchens makes this point.) And since when did the population, as a general trend, decide to indulge such nonentities, rather than telling them where to go, and to think about what it really means to live in a world with other people in it while they're out there? It's no good expecting me to tolerate your millenialist death cult if you won't tolerate my laughing at you.

"There's some rum thoughts going on inside that lad's head" said Mr. Ravenscroft.

2006-07-26T20:37:00.000Z

Well, a day so hot and humid that you can't sit still for more than a couple of minutes or you find yourself in a puddle. After that it makes perfect sense, of course, to go running in the still-oppressive evening heat. Or pace running, even. I'm glad to say that the afterglow is rather lovely, in fact, because otherwise there wouldn't have been a lot to recommend it. "Ah!" you say, "surely the point of running is the challenge, and without suffering there is no challenge?"

No. The point of running is that moment when you suddenly feel like you're flying, because the ground is just shooting by under your feet and you could go on like that for ever and ever and you aren't flying because you're almost part of the ground but there's no suffering and no effort at all. And that happens more often than you might think. Bloody hard work a lot of the rest of the time, though.

The last couple of times out I've been listening to a Julian Cope playlist on shuffle while I run; I had feared that this wouldn't work too well, and that I'd get too much Autogeddon turgidity and not enough Jehovahkill transcendence, but quite the opposite, in fact. Plus when you're listening to someone singing "to penetrate the diamond the pituitary gland gets torn off its axis and leaves" it's hard to think that what you're doing might be construed as daft.

Speaking of the Archdrude, on a recent perusal of his website (http://www.headheritage.co.uk/) I discovered what has instantly become one of my all time favourite insults. It is this:
"fender-less eunuch".
I hope I need say no more, but for me this just gets funnier and cleverer the more I think about it; there's a whole world-view wrapped up in that. The recipient, incidentally, was a charming radical Muslim who had been explaining how we in the West needed to "fix our women". Because they dress like whores, that sort of thing. Now, I think this epithet works exceptionally well when applied to this sort of "clerical knobshiner", as Copey also, exquisitely, refers to him, but need surely not be restricted to this use. If Julian Cope didn't exist it would be impossible to invent him.

Don't Tar Me With Your Brush

2006-07-25T11:37:00.000Z

This is my blog, where I can rant if I want to. So...

On Radio Four last Sunday I heard a program about faith schools, their advocates and their opponents (23/07/06, Sunday Best - A Class Apart). One man interviewed was the Reverend Steve Chalk, who runs a religious charity which is taking over the running of Enfield Academy and other schools. I was quite warming to his apparent broadmindedness until he was explaining how very broad the education in schools needs to be, how indoctrination needed to be avoided, by incorporating, alongside teaching about Christianity, teaching about Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism..."and that other great faith, Secular Humanism."

Right! Lets go through this, once again, for the hard of thinking. The absence of faith is not the same thing as another kind of faith. Positions which do not start from the premise that there is a God are not equivalent to those that do. To not assert a thing is not the same as to assert a thing. The difference between a non-theist position and a theist one is really quite easy to fathom - it's right there in the language, so there's just no excuse for this twisting of that language in order to assert that the lack of faith is just a special kind of faith.

So let's just think about what "faith" means here. Whenever I try to boil it down, what I am left with is that it is all about believing something for which there is no evidence, or which contradicts the evidence, or which is otherwise impossible. I really can't bring myself to see this as in any sense a virtue.

Theists often try to defend their position against reason by asserting the presence of faith in other modes of thought, and generalising from there. The deterministic nature of Marxism is an example commonly given. The fallacy of this, though, is that identifying an error in one mode of thinking, which is also present in another, does not indicate that it is not an error. Furthermore, to identify aspects of faith in one aggressively antireligious system is not a demonstration that all modes of thought not including a God work the same way.

Which brings me back to the reverend's vocabulary - not all atheistic thought should really be classified as Secular Humanism. However, Secular Humanism as a very specific philosophy is not followed by more than a few intellectuals, as compared with the teeming millions in the theist yoke. Yet Mr Chalk describes it as a "great faith". This is a common trick which works by encouraging people to group all atheist thought together under one umbrella, the easier to disparage it.

Does all this matter? Well, it does to me. In a country and at a time when faith schools are such an issue, it matters greatly that even apparently moderate advocates of faith schools can't help but display their religious chauvinism wrapped in doublespeak.