Alms For Ashes

Living with the past

2011-06-23T05:58:00.004+01:00

"The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there"

Well, that’s what people tend to think anyway. It’s not Hartley’s fault; we’ve always liked to distance ourselves from those semi-civilised barbarians who struggled along with their quaint little notions about life, the universe and everything. What do I – sitting here in a coffee shop using wireless Internet on my laptop – have to do with those peasants toiling over their fields in medieval Europe? My ego says nothing, of course, but then it would, wouldn’t it? Biologically the difference is negligible. Our brains haven’t suddenly expanded in size over the last two hundred years to allow us to appreciate all this art, culture and technology we enjoy these days. There isn’t some nodule in our modern brains that enables us to use technology that Edwardians lacked. People in the past were just like us, taking advantage of what they knew as best they could. Dropped into their situation we’d have little choice to do what they did, despite our refined intellectual tastes.

We take knowledge for granted and look down on the people of the past, but how many people could honestly say that they could have figured out that invisible micro-organisms cause disease or that the Earth orbits the sun, without someone explaining it to us? Humanity’s acquisition of knowledge is a collaborative effort that travels down the generations; individually we are no more intelligent than someone living in the middle ages. More knowledgeable, certainly, but not necessarily more intelligent. If anything they probably have the drop on us: for all we can travel across continents in mere hours via aeroplane, not many of us actually know how they work. So maybe there was less to know, but undoubtedly more people knew it.

I wanted to emphasise our similarities because I feel it’s important to establish kinship with the past. One of the reasons people love Shakespeare so much are his “universal themes” but I always thought of that as a strange thing to say. People are the same whatever time you pluck them from and any writer worth their salt should be able to capture their essence. Capturing the human character is not the preserve of a single writer, no matter how good he was, and there are many more reasons to love Shakespeare. Finding a common link with the past, tapping into our common humanity, is not something you have to go to the Bard to find.

One of the most wonderful things about studying history is that you become privy to all these secret little moments locked away in chronicles and personal accounts that most people never encounter. They’re single throwaway lines or stories that plant themselves in your brain screaming “I recognise that behaviour” and then never go away. There’s no great secret to it, no barrier preventing anyone from finding them, but then who is likely to read Walsingham’s Historia Anglicana other than history students? These little gems are important because they serve to remind us that history isn’t some dry, dusty tome on a library shelf but in fact a vitally important and relevant aspect of our society; woe betide a people who become divorced from their past.

Reading between the lines is always necessary of course, especially when it comes to humour. When people think of the Venerable Bede – and take it from me, people do, just not many of them! – they mostly remember his great historical works. They remember his hagiographies of great saints, or his invention of the BC/AD dating system. People tend to forget though, that he was the possessor of a great sense of humour, and a streak of sarcasm a mile wide. It’s easy to read his claims of St. Patrick’s arrival in Ireland causing all the snakes in the land to leap into the sea as the credulous, po-faced beliefs of a pre-Enlightenment rube but Bede was no fool. Once you remember that people in the middle ages were not that different from you and me, it becomes clear that even ancient monks can be tongue-in-cheek. He wasn’t an idiot, and I’d be willing to bet that half of the miracles accredited to St Cuthbert in his hagiography of the Northumbrian holy man were invented on the spot to fuel his cult of reverence. The story of him miraculously finding a loaf of bread in an empty thatched house is a little ridiculous even for the most solemn reporter of miracles; it must have been quite obvious, even to the medieval reader, that St. Cuthbert had essentially just broken into someone’s house and proclaimed that the food he found was a gift from God.

Thomas Walsingham, like Bede, was not just a solemn chronicler but also a salacious gossip enthralled by scandal. Writing in the late 1300s principally about Edward III’s deteriorating reign and Richard II’s difficulty in establishing control, his political insight is surprising, but not as surprising as his love of a kiss-and-tell story. The way he skirts around Edward III’s affair with Alice Perrers reads like a cross between Heat and Perez Hilton. “I’m not naming any names but you’ll never guess which king was seen with which low-born harlot…” The man was a gossipy bitch, and delivers his nuggets of information in the written equivalent of a hushed conspiratorial whisper. The tragedy of course is that, given its detail, his Historia Anglicana is now a premier source for the period, warts and all. It’s like trying to gain a complete understanding of Kerry Katona by reading only OK! magazine.

Reading Walsingham is like reading a tabloid; to find the truth you have to wade through the half-rumours and falsehoods. Despite the difficulties, it’s all there to be found: a good historical writer puts you in his subject’s shoes, and reading Walsingham’s account of the Peasants’ Revolt makes you realise that, far from an Historical Event™, we are instead witnessing the terror of a small boy faced with tens of thousands of angry farmers and labourers. It’s also a clear indication that these are not names on a page; Richard II is not a king of yore but a real boy, presented with absolute power at far too young an age. Would you or I necessarily do any better?

Marcus Aurelius is an older man than any I’ve mentioned so far: a Roman emperor who lived and died in times closer to Socrates than Jesus. His depiction in Gladiator was perhaps on the charitable side, but then Ridley Scott’s never been a stickler for accuracy. The real-life Aurelius was not just a philosopher-king but also a quite brilliant strategist and not somebody you wanted to find yourself up against in a war. He’s best remembered now for his Meditations, a collection of scribblings and notes that he made throughout his life as he struggled to live as a stoic philosopher, as well as an emperor. Aurelius didn’t intend for his ramblings to be found, which makes them all the more fascinating. Reading Meditations feels like diving into his mind in a way that no purpose-written philosophical treatise can quite manage. It’s no manifesto of belief, or roadmap to a happy life, just the day-to-day struggles of a man with ordinary problems. It’s a strange feeling, finding out that the most powerful man in the world had to persuade himself to get up in the mornings just like everyone else.

Reading his personal pep-talks feels wrong somehow, like you’re betraying his confidence, but the insight into his mind is startling. Granted nobody today would seriously try to follow the stoic philosophy he adhered to, but a great many of his beliefs fit remarkably well into modern-day Humanism. Seizing life before it passes, happiness as the only good and his general live-and-let-live attitude wouldn’t seem so out of place in today’s society. The man carried the weight of a 40 million-strong empire on his back but he still had to deal every day with the little problems we all face; he was a person with all the usual weaknesses, but a determination to be a better man. Although I risk hammering home the point here, these are not just historical characters: they were real people who lived and died carrying all the emotional and mental baggage that we all do. Despite his great accomplishments, Aurelius had to remind himself – several times – that he was a good person, that he was not useless, that – hilariously for a Roman emperor – he was following the right path in his life. They are our own worries about our careers and the impressions we make on people, writ large.

Our common humanity isn’t just to be found in the authors of historical works, but also in the people they describe. Rebels during Jack Cade’s uprising in 1450 went about their merry way, as rebels do, chopping off heads all over the place. Mounting these heads on poles they then marched to London: so far, so medieval. It’s only when you read that on the way they decided to make the severed heads on their poles kiss each other that you realise that people are the same throughout history. I don’t know about you, but I can even imagine the sounds that went with it. “Oh Sir James Fiennes, you’re so dreamy! Kiss me!” These days we might only burn effigies, but it’s heartening to see that the mob mentality has remained relatively unchanged since time immemorial.

The last person I want to talk about is not a famous writer, nor even involved in anything particularly noteworthy. His life was ordinary in most respects, and that is why he is significant. Domenico Scandella – also known as ‘Menocchio’ – was a local celebrity in 16th century Italy who reaches us only in a few Church records. A simple miller and an important member of his community, over the years he somehow was given access to a variety of theological books. From these – and his own musings – he developed a complex and intricate belief system that pointed out inconsistencies in Church teachings and promoted a rather more back-to-basics approach to worship. Like many people in his time, he was resentful of the monopoly on salvation given to priests, and believed (correctly) that many of the services that they were required to perform were unnecessary.

He is on record as disrupting funerals by shouting “what are you doing giving alms in memory of those few ashes?” He openly mocked the Eucharist by proclaiming “I do not see anything there but a piece of dough? How can this be our Lord God?” He even lambasted the clergy for their temporal ambitions and the profits they made from the poor by keeping business transactions and holy scriptures in Latin. He’s a personal hero of mine, for reasons that should be readily apparent to anyone who knows me even a little bit, or happens to read the title of this blog.

He would have passed through history entirely unremarked if not for the unwelcome attentions of the inquisition, which became aware of his heresy and came down on him like a ton of bricks. Given the platform to orate, Menocchio took the opportunity of the preliminary hearing to explain his theology in great detail and acted altogether more like a prosecutor than a defendant. Facing strict censure and punishment he had the temerity to lecture his inquisitors in public:

“It seems to me that under our law, the pope, cardinals and bishops are so great and rich that everything belongs to the Church and to the priests, and the oppress the poor, who if they work two rented fields, these will be fields that belong to the Church, to some bishop or cardinal.”

The irony of course is that his criticisms of the church and its bloated, confused ideologies would be borne out in time. Today we can look back at Menocchio’s social criticisms and see that he was right: the issue of transubstantiation remains a thorny one and the problem of holy men running their religions as businesses is still relevant today. Indulgences and the days of the Church as a temporal power are largely over. Had he only been born a few centuries later, things would have turned out very differently for Menocchio.

He was persuaded to recant his heresy and return to his small village, but it was not long before he began to decry the local clergy and promote his own theology again. This time the church returned without sympathy, and put him to the stake. Those few records that we have of him exist only because he drew attention to himself at the cost of his life. What has really amazed modern historians is the sophistication of his views and his low-born status. It showed in a stroke that not only did ordinary people care about the intricacies of their religion, but that they were able to develop their own theologies to fill in the gaps left by a canon that wasn’t yet watertight. We don’t know how many Menocchios there were out there who never made it into the history books, but his story has caused a radical shift in our perception of medieval peasants. Just because they toiled away at manual labour and lacked a classical education didn’t mean they weren’t capable of expressing complex ideas just as well as the great thinkers of the age.

I think what Menocchio’s story shows us is that we’re all complicated individuals; we all have unique perspectives to share. It should have come as no surprise that an unimportant man living in rural Italy – an uneducated medieval man of the past no less! – should have a beautifully thought-out theological position, but it was a surprise. Our own egos insist that we must be more intelligent than those who came before, that we are better somehow, but the more you explore the past the more you realise that we are all the same. It doesn’t matter when you were born: the human condition endures relatively unchanged.

I remember reading Menocchio’s story for the first time and it made me realise that history exists outside of our records of it. These people live their lives and have their thoughts and they may never be written down for posterity. We would know nothing of Menocchio had he been a little quieter, a little less outspoken and a little more savvy about his own survival. Billions of people like him have existed throughout human history and left nothing behind. What it all boils down to, I suppose, is that choice of what you leave behind.

A rather more well-known man than Menocchio once said that the unexamined life is not worth living. We all examine our lives and our belief systems; we all wonder about life, the universe and everything. When you die you’re taking all those thoughts and questions with you so the real question is: what will you be leaving behind? We’re all literate these days, and we all have ample room to express ourselves on the page (perhaps too much room, truth be told). So if anything can be drawn from this ramble, it’s this: from now on do all your thinking out loud and on paper. You never know who might end up reading it.

There cannot be two skies

2010-12-14T19:25:00.013Z

So Planescape: Torment is probably the best game ever written. An RPG crafted with obvious love and care, set in an utterly unique and wonderful world that to my knowledge has never been recreated since. Though it plays like a traditional isometric RPG - it is from 1998 after all - there hasn't been a game before or since with the intellectual depth, or that dared to leave so much of its plot unexplained. This is not the kind of game where you will visit everywhere you hear about, or understand every riddle and question - what you get out of PS:T is what you put into it.

The initial plot is somewhat cliched - the Hero With Amnesia - but with the twist that your character, The Nameless One, is immortal. Hundreds of lives stretch out behind you, each ending with death, and rebirth on a mortuary slab. Finding out who you are and tracking down who killed you leads you on a tremendously ambitious journey from Sigil, a city where every door could be a portal to another world, to lands where reality is so weak that it can be swayed by belief alone. Playing a pre-built character has huge advantages over games that give you more freedom, not least because it allows the writers to truly embed The Nameless One in the world he inhabits. You've lived and died for a long time, so don't be surprised when echoes of your past lives come back to haunt you - you've been everything from a virtual messiah to an insane tyrant and the game world bears the scars you've given it. Winding its way through your journey of self-discovery is a persistent and seemingly-vital question that will likely have you scratching your head for weeks after completing the game: "what can change the nature of a man?"

The Planescape setting is jammed with evocative and original ideas and blessed with a happy-go-lucky approach to realism. Unlike other fantasy RPGs it isn't afraid to recognise that a fantasy settings means you can do anything. So yeah, Sigil is a giant torus-shaped city floating above an infinitely-tall spire, there are factions who believe ascension to godhood is a matter of self-belief (who knows, they may be right) and there are planes of existence formed entirely of shapeless, ever-changing energies that can only be given form by a sufficiently disciplined mind. The level of detail is mind-boggling, the imagination frankly astounding. I guarantee you will not have encountered anything like this before.

Artist's impression of Sigil (ever tried to draw an infinitely-tall spire?)

There really isn't much I can say without spoiling the magnificent plot (don't go on Wikipedia either, it lays it all out there) so I've come up with a list of some of the random things I love about it. I've stopped at six because the more I think about it, the more I have to add and I don't want to spend all evening talking about it - frankly, now I just want to play it.

1) The chant, cutter. One of the things I love most about PS:T is its refusal to throw you a bone. The new player starts off just as disorientated and confused as The Nameless One, not least because everyone speaks in thick slang; you'll have to explore and talk to people to get the dark of rattling your bonebox in Sigil. Immersive doesn't even cover it.

2) Ravel Puzzlewell. A complex and intriguing character, Ravel plays a huge role in your quest for your identity, and your past. Aside from the wonderful writing, the meshing of humanity and plantlife in her character goes beyond the obvious - her personality twists through the planes like a giant tree, branches reaching out and flowering in all sorts of unexpected places. One of the great, morally-ambiguous characters of fantasy fiction.

3) The Circle of Zerthimon. This curious item, carried by one of your potential companions is well worth investigating if you have sufficient intelligence and wisdom. For me, it represents everything that is different and unique about PS:T. Here, the fluff isn't just something you collect as you go along (as in Dragon Age, Mass Effect etc) but is an intrinsic part of the experience - your character's personal development is tied up in the study and comprehension of an incredibly-detailed philosophical system that reflects on ideas of self-knowledge and discipline.

4) Companions. No elves, dwarves or any of that bullshit. Instead, you will undoubtedly find yourself assisted by mutant tiefling thieves, flame-addled sorcerors, a reformed succubus, a clockwork robot, floating skulls and the ghost of a lawman bound into his armour by the strength of his resolve to dispense justice, to name but a few. Very few RPGs have managed to so deftly sidestep fantasy cliches as easily as PS:T. The whole Modron Maze section of the game is a perfectly-pitched parody of all the things that drive most people away from D&D and other fantasy licenses.

5) The Blood War. An eternal conflict waged between demons and devils over the correct approach to evil: gibbering hordes of insane demons clamouring for an orgy of chaos and destruction on one side, ordered and tidy-minded (but no less cruel) devils campaigning for the disciplined sadism of a classical hell on the other. Think Mephistopheles versus the things from Doom. On the edges, the rest of the planes nervously hedging their bets and hoping that neither side wins out - because then they'll really be in trouble. I personally love the idea of the Blood War but it is woven so carefully into the game that you feel its impact and its importance even though you never directly experience it. A lesser game would have thrown you in at some point and had you fighting in it, but then this isn't an ordinary game.

6) Adahn the Imagined. Though you could probably find out about him on the Internet in seconds, you'll have more fun if you discover him for yourself. Just be aware of the particular metaphysics of the Planescape setting and pay attention when people talk to you about belief and willpower.

2D game world, 3D character development

Torment is a gaming experience without equal, regardless of how you feel about the admittedly out-of-date graphics and the mundane nature of in-game combat. This game isn't about hacking and slashing, but instead is a thoughtful, adult take on role-playing games shot through with dark humour and a beating philosophical heart. I've been playing it for over a decade and I am literally still just realising things about the story, working out plot points, and pondering some of its questions. PS:T has just been re-released and you can get hold of it on Amazon - I guarantee that this is a better Christmas present than that DVD you were thinking of asking for. With the new widescreen mod, which shows off the beautiful hand-drawn backgrounds of the game at larger resolutions, and the various fix packs and tweak mods that re-insert cut content there hasn't been a better time in years.

They don't make them like this any more, and it's a damn shame.

Sigil's ruler, the Lady of Pain. Don't worship her, or piss her off. She will fuck you right up.

Protest narrative

2010-12-10T14:18:00.002Z

The papers this morning are full of screaming headlines about student mobs and rioting and - of course - numerous pictures of students committing outrage after outrage against National Treasures (tm) like Charles & Camilla, the Winston Churchill statue in Parliament Square etc. I would have some sympathy for their point were it not so cynically put together.

Anyone who has been to a protest in the last few years can't have failed to notice that "kettling" is a bit controversial. Certainly anyone who's faced a line of bobbies who won't let people leave the protest zone, provide any kind of facilities or in fact do anything to defuse rising tension until it breaks out into violence will know what I mean.

You try not to be too conspiracy-theorist about this kind of thing, for fear of being put with the rent-a-mob anarchists who *always* turn up to protests with their faces covered like they're some freedom fighting heroes instead of middle-class kids with a GCSE-level understanding of politics. Nonetheless, this morning when I look at the pictures doing the rounds in the papers I have to wonder - why aren't any of them mentioning the fact that students were kettled in Parliament Square most of the night without toilet facilities when they bring up the urinating on statues thing? What do you expect them to do, piss themselves? Come to that, why did the police abandon a van in the middle of the kettled area in the first protest? Why, when every wannabe political reporter - regardless of whether they were there or not - gets to have their say in an editorial, are there no stories discussing the twitter postings from people actually in the protests, many of which allege police brutality? Why is the discussion all about students pulling a mounted riot police officer off his horse rather than the appropriateness of charging students and schoolchildren with horses in the first place? The Mail has even whipped itself into a frenzy about it, asking rhetorically "what kind of sick mind would do this to a horse?" I think when you're being charged by a police horse, all bets are off frankly.

Most terrifyingly of all, we're being told with deadpan seriousness all over the news that the students were jolly lucky not to have been shot while they were mobbing Charles and Camilla's car. Personally I find it far more worrying that we're supposed to be grateful that these taxpayer-funded security guards didn't fire wildly into a crowd of teenagers or that, in fact, they showed commendable restraint. "If they were throwing petrol bombs, we could have had a serious tragedy here" one talking head sagely threw in on the lunchtime news. Yes, probably, but they were throwing paint. Paint. Dial it down a bit, mate.

Whether or not the violence was justified, or at least understandable, is another issue and not something I want to write about until the dust is settled a bit. I think it's worth asking some questions about coverage while the iron is hot though, because as time goes by the specifics will fade and be replaced with the standard narrative for all of these protests: "student violence".

Life isn't fair

2010-05-13T20:07:00.002+01:00

Sometimes, life is difficult. Life is unfair.

Its always struck me as odd that that phrase - the sentiment that life is unfair - is somehow childish. That admitting this self-evident fact is naive to the point of deserving mockery. We take children at a young age and drum it into them that they should settle down, shut up, and accept unfairness as it comes. For an adult to say so is so unusual that it rarely passes without comment and, sadly, without a sense of scandal. They're playing outside of the rules; they're saying aloud what we're not meant to say. They aren't accepting what we as a society have accepted as 'just the way things are'. Pointing out unfairness correlates pretty well, for most of us, with immaturity.

Far be it from me to suggest that the world is fair. It patently isn't, and we should have no expectations that it should be. We live in a purposeless universe that is not attuned in the slightest to the plight of humanity; of the individual social, economic and sexual concerns of an individual out of five billion, of a single species out of millions on a single planet among countless billions. The numbers don't add up. I don't think this is what people mean by 'life isn't fair' though. After all, many millions of us believe that the great amoral disasters that we face - earthquakes, floods, storms, volcanic eruptions - are driven by purpose, that a god or gods have a plan that involves the wholesale and indiscriminate destruction of people and propety. God will know his own, indeed.

So life isn't fair, but it should be. More than that, it can be. Humanity alone out of any species we know of has harnessed its environment to dizzying heights. Throwing ourselves into space, bouncing invisible electronic signals around the world to communicate, manipulating the fundamental building blocks of life itself to create more productive crops, to give parenthood to those unable by genetic accident to have children. The things we have achieved are marvellous, truly staggering, but we have not achieved fairness. We are dissuaded from so early on to accept the pitiless random happenstance of the world that we live in that we fail to distinguish between unavoidable unfairness and unfairness that we have created and maintain.

Last year UK shoppers spent approximately four billion pounds on their credit cards at Christmas. That's £4,000,000,000,000 in longhand. Granted it's a tired old rote to go on about capitalist excess, especially as I type this on an expensive computer in a well-decorated house just before I head to town for a night out, but I think my own hypocrisy probably isn't so important in the grand scheme of things. I try not to spend frivolously, I give money to charity every month and I tend to buy the Big Issue (so should you - the reviews are tremendously honest!). It's kind of beside the point though - while individual effort is of course valuable, it's kind of like multinational corporations telling us to wash our clothes at 30 while throwing out billions of tonnes of pollutants into the atmosphere. We're important, not because we can necessarily make a difference, but because we can pressure those who can.

Yes, our gross consumerism means that shops open with Christmas stock in October but they operate like everyone else through supply and demand. Just because we can do our Christmas shopping that early doesn't mean we should. Just because it's there doesn't mean we have to buy it. Why not make your own birthday cards instead of buying them? You can't honestly tell me that mass-produced cards (featuring the two themes of "you're old!" and "you're going to be drunk soon!") are better than the ones you could make yourself. Why buy things you don't need at all? Why not suggest the company you work for gets involved in charity work? Life isn't fair, but that's not the way it has to be; we are advanced enough, civilised enough, to stop dismissing unfairness as a fact of life and start working towards something better.

News: facts not necessary

2009-11-30T14:35:00.007Z

This one has been brewing for a while.

I've taken a bit more of an interest of late in the sheer unbelievable cheek of the mainstream press. Everyday I sit on the Tube, watching people reading the Metro, the Mail and the Express. This morning I was reading The Sun over someone's shoulder and wanting to just snatch it out of his hands. He was tutting over some completely made-up story about banning Christmas, or schools making all the children dress in burqas, or some other fanciful rubbish.

The problem I have with these newspapers - which I will henceforth refer to as papers, until they actually start reporting facts - is not ideological. Granted, anyone who knows me knows that I'm not exactly sitting square in the Mail's target demographic. I think immigration is a good thing, I wish Parliament would bloody well hurry up and turf the Royal Family out of government, I understand that you vote for the party not the PM and I actually quite like wheelie bins.

Chances are that even if these papers were the bastion of journalistic integrity, I would find much to disagree with, but that's not the issue. I think it's a good thing that there are papers that promote both sides of the argument, that focus on different issues. I think it's great that The Guardian wants a liberal government, and I don't have a problem with other papers pushing for a conservative one. There's only one thing that I really care about in journalism and, rather cornily, it's the truth.

Like reporting facts honestly. Being open about your sources. Not just making stuff up. Unfortunately on these fairly basic points both the Daily Mail and the Daily Express fall flat on their faces. Other papers aren't exactly in the clear either - watch The Times spectacularly missing the point of the current "Don't Label Me" campaign by referring to the children in the advert as 'Christian children'. Look at the smug point-scoring and ask yourself: is this meant to be the news? Is this delivering the facts to the readership, or just leading them down the editorial line?

Bias is inevitable. I mean, even by selecting stories to cover there is selection going on. However, that can be done without being dishonest. Bloggers have been speculating for a while now why the Mail worked itself - and its readers - up into a hysterical rage about the student who pissed on a war memorial while blind drunk, but has said absolutely nothing about the repeated, deliberate desecration of graves in Manchester. Is it too far to speculate that this is because they are Muslim graves, and that this story wouldn't go down well with a readership already whipped up into a frenzy about immigration?

Immigration is a good topic to discuss actually, because in reality it seems only newspapers like The Guardian are willing to be adult about the issue. Search the Mail's archive for 'immigrant' and see what I mean. Yeah, fear-mongering much? A conspiracy of silence! £30,000 pay-outs! There's nothing wrong with a rational, evidence-based discussion on immigration, but neither the tabloids nor their readers seem to want that. Richard Littlejohn has been caught lying time and time again about this - about how much immigrants get on benefits (he doesn't actually know), about how most of the crimes in the UK are committed by Eastern European immigrants (he made it up) or about how a judge who made up a load of bollocks about immigration figures was being persecuted over his 'sensible' stance on the issue (he wasn't, he was just an arse). And that's just one columnist. I won't even get onto Jan Moir or Melanie Phillips here (who has the time?)

That's not even touching on their insane fucked-up relationship with sex and (oo-er) 'flesh'. That simultaneous celibate attitude whereby sex is something scary and dirty that good, moral upstanding people entirely repudiate. It's so bad, what this person has done (worn a strappy top, kissed a person of the same gender in public, slept with a few people) that you need to see full-size gloriously-coloured HD images of it! It's a weird self-hating attitude that screams of protesting too much. It takes some real balls to print this and describe it was 'disturbing' and then print dozens of stories a day about how healthy-looking celebrities are 'fat'. Hell, let's just look at Natalie Cassidy, whose revelation that the pressure of staying in shape for the tabloids almost led to her developing an eating disorder didn't stop them printing this revolting piece of shit just a few months later.

The bottom line is this:

The Mail, The Express, all of those trashy right-wing papers, lie. They make up figures, they deliberately fail to convey the truth behind stories and most of all, they fucking lie. They do it shamelessly, cheerfully, and all the while claim they're just telling it like it is. All the fucking time. The worst thing is that people swallow their poison, totally without question. If you're reading a paper like the Mail and just believing in it without doing your own research, you are doing it wrong. Critical thinking, rational inquiry, scepticism: without employing these while reading the news you may as well just be sitting under Rupert Murdoch with your mouth open.

For example, take a look at this superb take-down by Tabloid Watch of the Express' ridiculous headline about breakfast. Turns out the study that indicates that breakfast is, like, totally super-healthy was funded by cereal manufacturers. The independent expert they pulled in to confirm the story has done work for them very recently. Oh, and by the way nutritionist is not legally protected; I could call myself one apropos of nothing - it's that prestigious a title. This is no isolated incident: most of the 'science' stories you read in the papers are little more than trussed up PR exercises for companies looking to shift more products. The papers love using science as a shiny meaningless bauble, which is probably why this patently transparent rubbish makes it unadulterated into print, while the LHC, vaccines and global fucking warming get an absolute mauling. As soon as something is more significant than a minuscule lifestyle improvement it's dangerous and scary. Honestly, this attitude - this fear of progress - totally baffles me.

Actually, just for good measure take a look at this, because it's classic Mail: it starts with a leading headline that sounds like a definite conclusion, which is hugely reinforced in the first few paragraphs with phrases like "something terrible, unimaginable, was amiss..." They then back up the insanity with what they fondly imagine is science: "a small - but not zero - chance" that it will "rip apart the entire universe". They even refer to the absolute mentalists (or "twats" if you're Brian Cox) who think that this is at all likely as "maverick scientists". Maverick's a great word: it implies that you're going against the grain but that, ultimately, you'll be right. You're Jeff Goldblum in Independence Day, you're Dennis Quaid in The Day After Tomorrow, you're Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park! Then, right at the bottom, the last three lines - the last three fucking lines, after all the talk of doom, and the massive pictures of black holes destroying the Earth and tearing the universe apart - there's a bit from the scientists, who treat the idea with total derision. Whether or not there are any scientifically literate journalists at these papers is a good question but whatever the answer, it's pretty clear that there are no scientifically literate editors.

What else can I say? These papers have no ethics. They lie, they cheat, they even pay immigrants to break the law so that they can write stories about how immigrants break the law

There is no sound argument to be had in favour of them being anything other than opportunistic vultures who distort the truth and whip people up into terrified balls of hatred who are impotently angry that their country is going to the dogs even though the only 'evidence' of it is within the pages of the Mail. So when I attack the Mail, or the Express, it's not because I'm a liberal who can't stand to hear the 'truth', or even an opposing viewpoint. It's because they are not offering an opposing viewpoint. If you have to outright lie to make your point, then your point is bullshit. The sooner people realise that, the better, because at the moment the thought that the Mail is the second most widely-read newspaper in the country makes me feel sick.

I am genuinely terrified

2009-09-15T14:15:00.010+01:00

OK, so looking at some pictures of Glenn Beck's "9/12 Project" protest I have come to a sobering and terrifying conclusion: the Republicans have gone fucking mental.

How I wish things could be the way they were! Sure the cynical, calculating evil of Cheney and Bush wasn't great, and the unabashed ignorance of the Palin-era incarnation of the GOP was pretty horrible too but this.... Jesus Christ.

Beck's '9/12 Project' in many ways typifies the kind of ideology these people espouse. His list of nine principles and 12 values, including steadfast belief in the nuclear family and God (presumably the Christian God). He makes a point of stressing that criticising the government is not un-American, although this kind of rights-conscious approach to political critique wasn't really in evidence when the Republicans and Fox were whining about people being mean to Bush as he was leaving office, or accusing people who said Palin was an idiot of misogyny. You only have to watch this promo video for it to see how ridiculous it is, Lord of the Rings music and all.

The popularity of the Project shows that a worryingly large proportion of the American people think he's got the right idea. And they just lap up his bullshit - from the whole ludicrous "birther" movement all the way through to the idea that recreating the Boston Tea Party is somehow relevant in 21st Century America. Worst of all is the belief - so overt in these protests - that America is under attack, that their rights are being trampled on, that the President is sitting in some ivory tower of anti-white racism and liberal superiority ignoring the will of the masses.

Well you know what Republicans? He isn't ignoring you. You just happen to be the most obnoxious and loudest people in politics right now. You lost the election. What that means for you is this: suck it up. By all means criticise and debate his policies but what happened to co-operation eh? Shouting him down in Congress, unscrupulously encouraging the spread of unfounded rumours about his birth and blocking him at every turn is not appropriate political engagement. All you're doing is alternately pulling faces and blowing raspberries, and throwing all your toys out of your pram in a series of ever-escalating hissy fits. Oh sure there are conservatives out there willing to act like grown-ups but these days they seem curiously quiet.

They're quite happy for their party to come across this way but I suspect had the roles been reversed and the Republicans were in power things would have been different. The Governor of California probably wouldn't have gotten away with threatening to secede from the fucking Union, and there's no chance in hell that a Democratic senator heckling the President in Congress would have been received with the same kind of calm rationality as Joe Wilson. There would have been calls for impeachments, resignations and a foot-stomping Hulk-out from Fox News. To be fair, it's not something particularly desirable. I like the way Obama has conducted himself with dignity in the face of tbe Republican's fuming ignorance and impotent rage, but it does give the nutters room to spread out and multiply. The '9/12 Project' is a clear manifestation of this growing lunacy in the American political system. It's as much a circle-jerk over the ol' days of living in fear and America The Conquerer dishing out righteous jugdement as it is any kind of protest agains the new president. To quote blogger Pareene on Gawker:

On 9/12, people in New York (and DC) did not feel as ‘great' as Glenn Beck, they just felt like shit. They felt scared and confused and depressed. Many of them were drunk. And only an idiot or an actual terrorist would want to always feel like it was 9/12/01... Eight years later, normal people, with brains and souls, have decided that some emotional distance from that disaster is healthier and wiser than trying to recapture the dread.

It does worry me though, that the people protesting against Obama this week are now the mainstream of their party; the opposition party of the most powerful nation on Earth. These racist, thick as pigshit, monstrously ignorant nutters represent a serious challenge for the presidency in 2012. They're undoubtedly stupid or at least, that's what I hope. When I see a picture like this, I have to believe that she's stupid, because the alternative is accepting that she thinks that advocating selling her black president as a slave is a funny concept.

The thing is, these protesters and Beckites have this idea that just because it's their opinion, it's valid. It's the same kind of thinking that goes with devout religious belief, but this time coupled with an amazing ability to absorb criticism in one ear and funnel it out the other, without it ever touching grey matter. It doesn't matter how many times you slap down their representatives on TV or point out where they're just empirically, factually wrong, they will go on thinking that Obama isn't naturalised, or that the NHS has death panels. They genuinely fear that they're going to be enslaved, that socialism is going to destroy the USA and that Obama is a Muslim.

Sometimes I do feel sorry for them, much as I feel sorry for the readership of the Daily Mail. It must be hard being pumped so full of hatred, paranoia and terror all the time. If they really do believe the kind of thing that O'Reilly, Beck et al are screaming about 24/7 then they must genuinely feel under siege. Fucking hell, if it's got to the point that children are harking back to the good ol' days of McCarthyism then how can you feel anything other than pity? To quote a wiser man than I:

You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.

Save your rage instead for Glenn Beck and his friends over in the Fox News Fortress of Evil. They are unapologetically fanning the flames of these hysterical idiots with misleading interpretations, backwards views on morality and and flat-out lies. I happen to believe that Beck at least - if not the entire Fox News crew - do wholeheartedly buy into the bullshit they spout, but there has to be someone somewhere making the decision to whip up the lunatics on the borders of American politics into such a frenzy. It stands to reason that you couldn't run a company with the kind of mindset that makes you filter out the truth and replace it with your own little fantasy world (at least, I hope that's the case). Somehow having the whole show run by cynical, money-minded hypocrites abusing the stupidity of their audience is more reassuring than the idea that Fox and the conservative media are basically passengers on a runaway train destined to hurtle over the cliff into anarchy and madness - and taking us with them.

But what can they do now they've put the lunatic, teflon-coated ultra-conservatives in the centre of the American political stage? You can't put them back in their box! Glenn Beck et al created this rabid, raving mob of ignorant prats, crazed with fear and loaded up on guns. I don't even live in the USA but I'm still terrified. I am really really scared - in the pit of my stomach - that someone is going to shoot Obama, that one of these things is going to spill over into violence, that democracy and politics in America is going to be irreparably damaged by people who can't grasp the concept of a birth certificate, or that if you lose an election that's not the same as tyranny. It's fucking scary. They're all psychopaths and there's nothing we can do over this side of the pond but watch the whole self-destructive scene play out. We can only hope it's a passing phase and that the mature, intelligent Republicans are just waiting for the mob to thrash itself to exhaustion so they can sweep it back into the dirty corners of American politics where it belongs. Then maybe there'll be a serious debate about healthcare reform and financial relief.

Do you know what nemesis means?

2009-09-08T14:44:00.012+01:00

Oh dear, I think I've got a nemesis. I didn't mean to. It just happened.

There I was, reading the following jaw-droppingly offensive Daily Mail article, happy as Larry (or at least as happy as Larry can be when reading the Mail), when I saw the name of the author of the final, horrendous bit from the 'male' perspective.

David Thomas. David Dickface Thomas. The author of the sterling piece of douchebaggery that inspired me to write this last month. Well, he's done it again. I think we were probably separated from birth or something, because he seems to set me off like no one else. Clearly an evil twin situation.

In a nutshell, the article is arguing that women don't have sex because they want to but in fact because they need some shelves putting up, or they want their partner to take out the bins. They can't do these things themselves: that's man-work! As with all 'science' journalism, this is based on a book, based on a scientific study, called Why Women Have Sex. I haven't seen the science behind this book, and I'm willing to bet Liz Jones hasn't either. I don't know what controls they put on the questionnaires to ensure that the respondents were being truthful, or the exact contents of this list of why women have sex. Perhaps the phrasing "high up the list" implies that there is more to the results than the Mail chooses to pass on. Hey you never know, having sex because it's enjoyable might be up there too!

It's classic. Women aren't sexual! They don't want orgasms and good sex, they just want a loving partner. They'll prostitute themselves to have somebody care about them, that's just how needy they are! Those women who actually like sex, and don't seem interested in submitting to providing sex to their partner on demand so that he shows them basic courtesy and affection are the product of broken homes and lack good father figures. Liz, what planet do you live on?

She also peppers the piece with misandric tripe about the male sex drive being "blunt" and stunted. While you get the sense that her misogyny is fairly accidental - she sounds essentially like "I'm not a feminist but..." - her misandry is an unthinking reflex. She has absolutely no qualms about dismissing the male sex drive out of hand, characterising men as being scared of discussing feelings and - perhaps worst of all - implies strongly that men only care about sex. This 'revelation' that women only have sex with men because they want us to do some DIY around the house is to be met with indifference rather than dismay and horror. Most people I know would be appalled to find out their partner didn't have sex with them because they actually wanted to. You know why? Because men care about more than sex in relationships. Christ alive.

But don't just take her word for it! She bases all this on the findings of the book, despite no mention being made of whether any men were interviewed. So does the book discuss male sexuality in depth, probing the whys and hows behind male sexual behaviour? Probably not. It is, after all, a book about the relationship between women and sex. I would love to know how many of these bald statements about male attitudes to sex are actually based on the book and how many have just sprung fully-formed without independent thought from the brain of Liz Jones.

I wasn't exactly expecting David Thomas to leap to the defence of male sexuality, despite the fact that he's an odious anti-feminist. It would be very out of character, given that the myth that men are mindless slaves to their sexual urges suits him right down to the ground. It's a stereotype that he believes is beneficial and one he's quite happy to propagate with the following:

"A young man's relationship with his sex drive is like a dog-walker's with an ill-disciplined dog: he's led from pillar to post without hope of discipline or control."

I've already highlighted Thomas' cavalier attitude to sexual asault and rape elsewhere, but if this is what he actually believes I'm not very surprised. Worst of all he then chooses to define himself as a progressive man who loves women! They're not the "pointless, silly creatures" that all men assumed them to be in their youth (and who wouldn't, what with their hormones and shoe shopping?) but in fact real human beings. Right, look. I'm 22 years old. I am, by any definition, a young man. I know plenty of people my age and younger who see women in the way David Thomas describes and they are - to a man - disgusting examples of human beings. The idea that treating women with respect, as equals is something that it's acceptable to learn with age is unforgiveable. I understand the use of this stereotype in justifying unethical sexual behaviour, and treating women like shit, but that's no reason to uphold it.

His toe-curlingly awful attempts to appear to be more than a cave-dwelling troll succintly sum up all the reasons I hate him. Just look at this:

Women don't have to do anything to hold men in their power. Just existing is enough. Why else would men have written countless poems and love songs; why else would they have painted them, sculpted them, gone to war for them?

The key message here? Women: you don't have to be smart, or intelligent, or interesting. We wouldn't care if you were blow-up dolls. Just as long as you can provide sex and look pretty on our arms! And if you're lucky - and I mean really lucky - we'll even engage in all sorts of activities which you won't be involved in and for which you'll get no credit. Gosh aren't we romantic! It's the illusion of power that Thomas is trying to sell. The warm fuzzy feeling he imagines women will feel when they read this. "Gosh, we hold men in our power just by existing". In truth, however, this is just naked, ugly misogyny.

Wrapping it up with a saccharine-sweet "aww but ladies you know you love us" attempt at justifying his argument, David sits back and smiles at the great opus before him. Sensible readers vomit all over their keyboards and stagger out into the street to rage at God and such a cruel twisted world that could have David Thomas in it. It makes my skin crawl, and his attempts at charm aren't even aimed at me.

So what's the worst thing about this article? The fact that David Thomas appears to believe whole-heartedly that women have no desire for sex beyond needing the odd shelf putting up, or that he claims to speak for both genders with his all-encompassing comments on human sexuality? Enough has been written about how ridiculous Liz Jones is to fill several volumes, but I am worried about the increasing presence of David Thomas on these issues. What special skills or qualities does he have that give him the appropriate comprehension and sympathy to write so often on feminism and women's issues? All I've seen of him has confirmed beyond doubt that he is a massive, wrong-headed cock who has some serious problems relating to women.

A slow few weeks

2009-09-07T10:17:00.002+01:00

I've not been updating much lately, as my time has been taken up almost entirely with producing the latest issue of Secular Future, which is the quarterly magazine of the AHS

It's quite a large undertaking, and one I've got to balance with my day-job of making scientists happy and angry in equal measure (oh the joys of science publishing). I'll be glad to get this one out of the way and back to blogging!

It should be done and dusted in the next couple of weeks or so, at which point I've got an article about heresy ready to go. If you're interested, you can read the back-issues of Sec-Fu at: http://www.ahsstudents.org.uk/secular-future

A Rationalist Reviews: The Holy Bible

2009-08-20T14:28:00.004+01:00

It’s one you have to tackle eventually. It’s not so rare in this age of screaming superlative taglines to see a story labelled as “the best ever told”, but on the basis of sales alone The Holy Bible is head and shoulders above its competitors.

It’s not strictly speaking a book, but rather a clumsy stitch-job of two completely different stories. We all remember the runaway success of The Old Testament and quite rightly thought the series was over when the original authors died centuries ago. Now though, a bunch of amateur script-doctors have leapt upon the opportunity to tack their own novella onto the original, calling it The New Testament in a shameless attempt to curry favour with longtime fans. The whole package is called The Holy Bible, after that Manic Street Preachers album.

The deluxe version of The Holy Bible, exclusively on sale in Starbucks

Regular readers will recall that at the time I lambasted The Old Testament for its po-faced take on the epic family saga, calling it "Twin Peaks without the laughs". Come back Moses, all is forgiven! This latest addition to the canon manages to retain the dry genealogies and lists of rules and regulations that made the OT so hard to read, and ditch the parts that made it interesting. They take the best character from the OT – the vindictive and deliciously fickle ‘God’ – and utterly change his character. This time round, you half expect to see Him hugging a tree, rather than setting it on fire and shouting from inside it. Replacing such a popular, in-your-face fan favourite with a proverb-spouting liberal deadbeat might be the kind of thing that goes down a storm in the literary world, but you can’t see die-hard fans in Dead Squaw, Alabama taking it quite so well.

This ‘Jesus’ is somehow both the ‘God’ we remember and an entirely new character altogether, in a lazy move that is never fully explained. He spends his time dithering around the Holy Land, throwing out glib speeches about equality and justice, all the while followed by a dozen irritating literary props collectively called the ‘disciples’. I cannot begin to express my frustration at this gaggle of faceless drones, whose sole purpose seems to be asking asinine questions so that Jesus has yet another opportunity to sermonise and patronise his audience. Considering this guy is supposed to be recruiting for some radical breakaway sect, the fact that his right-hand men seem unable to tie their own sandal-thongs without his supervision stretches the credibility of the plot somewhat.

At times it seems as though the authors haven’t even read each other’s contributions. Luke and Matthew are the only authors who can be bothered to describe Jesus’s supernatural birth, John completely omits the exorcisms that in other accounts make Jesus look like the fifth Ghostbuster, and Paul doesn’t even seem sure that the character he’s writing about actually exists in the book's setting. I know that authors are often under a lot of pressure, but I don’t think a weekly meet up over coffee to swap notes would have been too much to ask.

Overall, there are some good scenes, and some engaging characters, but the NT suffers from the same flaws as its predecessor. Promising dramatic scenes are utterly squandered almost without exception. The authors are adept at creating perfect set-ups for action scenes that would make Michael Bay weep tears of pure adrenaline, but consistently fail to deliver anything but bitter disappointment. One minute Jesus is kicking ass in the temple and the next he’s wandering around in the desert doing nothing, or healing the sick. It brings to mind the depressingly anticlimactic battle for Jericho in the OT and I’d hoped we’d seen the last of it.

Although not strictly relevant to the quality of the book, you have to wonder who authorised such loose brand control. The dizzying array of spin-offs, continuations and reinterpretations are enough to give any new reader a headache. It’s bad enough having a single story told from four often wildly different perspectives, but poorly thought-out fan fiction like the Book of Mormon and the dozens of near-contemporary Gnostic gospels hardly improve matters. It’s as though the publishers let any idiot with a pen have a stab at writing a gospel in the race to make money off the franchise. People really love these books. I mean, really love them. Harry Potter fanatics have nothing on some of these ‘Christians’. Letting so many people dash off their own non-canon spin-offs is at best irresponsible, but at worst pretty damn dangerous.

Overall score: 2/5

Verdict: if you somehow find yourself trapped in a literary vacuum then reach for The Holy Bible with a happy heart, but there are so many superior fantasy novels out there it’s hard to see why you’d bother with this lacklustre effort.

Originally published in the first issue of Secular Future, the quarterly magazine of the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies

Wedding Bells

2009-08-14T10:51:00.004+01:00

Sometimes I really do hate newspapers. Jim Fitzpatrick MP was invited to a Muslim wedding in his constituency. Finding out on arrival that he and his wife would have to sit in separate sections of the church, he refused to attend. The story here is not that a Government minister is a horrible anti-Muslim bigot, but instead that he is a local MP concerned about the growing hardline elements within his constituency's Muslim community.

First of all there is the implicit judgment that he was wrong to object when faced with gender segregation - which was clearly the right thing to do - swiftly followed by the more explicit accusation that he is a bigot. You have to read through the long description of the event, a picture of him looking like a grumpy little Englander (see above), as well as severe condemnations from Muslim leaders before you get to the crucial bit from the minister himself:

"The segregation of men and women didn't used to be as much of a strong feature. We've been attending Muslim weddings together for years but only recently has this strict line been taken. It is an indication of the stricter application of rules that is taking place that didn't exist before."

It is clear that Fitzpatrick knows about Muslim customs, and it is equally clear that in his opinion segregation at weddings is not only ethically wrong but also contrary to the tradition of the local community. Why should he have to shut up in the face of sexism, just to avoid offending religous sensibilities? He didn't cause a scene, he didn't condemn anyone to their face - he discovered the situation, disagreed with it and then walked out. Trying to spin his quite obvious concern that hardline religious fundamentalism is going to prevent local Muslims from integrating and feeling comfortable in Tower Hamlets into bigotry is absolutely shameful.

For all everyone from the Tories to George Galloway are slamming Fitzpatrick for trying to be controversial to win over that crucial Disaffected White Racist voting demographic, that's quite clearly not the case. He regularly goes to Muslim weddings, and it sounds very much like he is involved in the local Bangladeshi Muslim community. The fact that he has left one before for the same reason - at a time when Labour were riding higher in the polls - is a pretty good indication that there was nothing contrived about this. He's standing up for his principles, and for those in the community who do not want to see a return to strict Islamic law in their community. Oh, how horrible of him! Statements such as this are thrown out...

"Muslim leaders insist the custom is traditional at Islamic weddings as well as in mosques, and expressed surprise that Mr Fitzpatrick, a third of whose east London constituents are Muslims, was unaware of the fact. "

... when we already know from his comments that Fitzpatrick regularly attends Muslim weddings that are not segregated. Subsequent comments from the Muslim Council of Great Britain and the Muslim Institute assume that Fitzpatrick is utterly ignorant of Muslim affairs and assume that his objection is born of prejudice or political scheming.

The implication is that Fitzpatrick is out of touch with voters, that he bumbled into this wedding and trampled all over the beliefs of a third of his constituents, and is woefully ignorant of Islamic tradition. Obviously that isn't the case. What has happened, and what he specifically states later in the article, is that in recent years a more hardline group has taken up residence in the area and he - and no doubt the Muslims whose weddings were not segregated - is concerned that this will be bad for community cohesion.

When I've spoken to ex-Muslims about this, they describe the interaction between fundamentalists and mainstream Muslims as a case of "keeping up with the Jones's" - nobody wants to be seen as a bad Muslim, or not pious enough, so they go along with the fundamentalists instead of stepping back from them. Whether or not this is true outside of the people I've talked to would make for an interesting debate, but in accusing Fitzpatrick of being insensitive and bigoted towards Muslims, The Telegraph has given column inches to hardliners who do not represent the community and established in the reader's mind that gender-separated weddings are a core part of Islam.

It's strange how the papers view American-style evangelism as a 'crazy' form of Christianity whereas when dealing with Islam its the extremists who are handed the microphone and the space in the public eye. It's insulting to Muslims for the media to assume that fundamentalists are the 'real' Muslims, and painting Fitzpatrick as the bad guy here is a grave error. He hasn't said anything offensive - certainly nothing more offensive than the root cause of the incident! - and it sounds like he has a good relationship with the Muslim community. The Telegraph, eager to put the boot into a Labour minister, has chosen to leap to the defence of sexist fundamentalists, instead of standing shoulder-to-shoulder with a man trying to stand up and represent moderate and liberal Muslims. Integration, not separation, people!

The Kadir-Buxton Blogging Method

2009-08-13T12:40:00.004+01:00

This guy is a much underrated genius:

http://www.kadir-buxton.com

Although some would label him a seriously troubled fantasist, those of us who know the truth realise his true value. Among other things his inventions can:

* Cure the mentally ill with the patented Kadir-Buxton Method of smacking them around the head

*Awaken the comatose using the same method

* "Brighten the day of AIDS sufferers" with the use of the Kadir-Buxton buttock-slap

* Raise the dead by punching them (as the nervous system can survive longer than the brains)

* Unblock fallopian tubes, by reaching in to tickle the ovaries

* Make childbirth into a 45-minute orgasm

Despite discovering these amazing methods he hasn't rested on his laurels, and is also responsible for:

* Inventing the 'Red Rose' logo for the Labour Party

* Inventing 'Economy 7' while only 12 years old, although he was susequently targeted for assassination because of it

* The Labour Party's focus on health and education (nicked from his 'final year' paper)

* The name 'New Labour'

* Saving the 'Dodo Tree' from extinction

Regrettably, he has had trouble getting his ideas accepted by the medical profession, and some people are even skeptical about his methods due to the fact that he isn't a doctor, or medically trained in any way. One day, we'll all rue mocking him!

Wednesday Woo: Stradivari of Cremona

2009-08-12T00:34:00.019+01:00

Well it's Wednesday (just about) which means that it's time to roll out some aliteration and introduce what I hope will be a weekly feature.

'Woo' is a colloquial term that you see quite a lot in skeptical circles that refers to a whole host of superstitions, urban legends and unverified beliefs. Psychics, mediums, homeopaths, chiropractors, acupuncturists, conspiracy theorists who insist that aliens from Zeta Reticuli travel hundreds of light years to fuck with rednecks: all are in woo up to their eyeballs. But how can you tell the difference between woo and, you know, the truth? My own working definition of woo - which I'm sure will shift and change like Barack Obama when he takes his reptilian form - is one of those persistent, unkillable ideas that survives despite all evidence to the contrary and indeed when tested remains unproven. Kind of like on ghost shows where the 'victims' of poltergeists describe chairs flying around the room and light bulbs exploding, but when the TV crews arrive nothing happens. All night. And you end up with sore eyes from all the night vision on the cameras.

I thought I'd kick off with something fairly simple: the stringed instruments made by Antonio Stradivari in Cremona in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Stradivari, just chillin'

Everyone knows that Stradivarius stringed instruments are the best in the world. It's a widely believed fact. A book I'm currently reading proclaims in fairly uncertain terms that the six hundred or so surviving instruments - violins, violas, 'cellos, harps, guitars and mandolins - represent the pinnacle of their field. Furthermore they constitute:

"the ultimate rebuke to the arrogance of the modern age: science does not have all the answers; Renaissance technology still cannot be bettered"

This is indeed a fairly bold claim to make. While undoubtedly Stradivari was a prodigiously talented craftsman, were the instruments he made really so superior to his contemporaries? Can they really not be bettered even with all the powers of modern technology? Surely in an age where you can chat to someone from Brazil while simultaneously blasting the (un)living hell out of hordes of computer-generated zombies, the quality and sound of a Stradivarius can be exactly replicated. Inevitably, when claims as grand as the one above are made, we have to turn to science.

The 'mystery' of the Stradivarius violins has been of particular interest to scientists and curious musicians for centuries, as you would expect. The French National Academy put one of the surviving instruments to the test in 1817, hiding players behind a screen and inviting experts to declare which they believed to be the legendary violin. Results were inconclusive, and have been in every test performed on them since.

Soil, brightening the post-apocalyptic wasteland of Fallout 3

Testing methods may have gotten more sophisticated over time - those inquring minds of 1817 were unfortunate not to have access to X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy - but still there is no scientific proof that a Stradivarius can be distinguished from any other violin of a similar time period and level of craftsmanship. Scientists have really gone to town on this, analysing everything from likely wood sources to the consistency of the glue used to piece them together but mabye it's time to acknowledge the elephant in the room: maybe they aren't all that different to other violins.

Granted they have been marketed extremely well : the naming of each instrument after an owner in particular creates a brilliant mystique around them and hell, I'd nick one if someone left it in my taxi. If I drove a taxi of course. Or even if I could drive. Regardless, you have to wonder if owning a Stradivarius is roughly equivalent to Dumbo's magic feather. While undoubtedly absolutely gorgeous instruments, it is the player that makes them perform the way they do and if neither experts nor audiences can tell the difference between a Strad and - in one test - one put together in the UK in 1976, does it really matter?

Hammer, being mentally undressed by Baron Sugar

Maybe it is in the wood, or the glue, or the varnish but if so that hardly makes Stradivari the mystical genius that he is made out to be so often. Although the fact that we can construct modern violins that perform just as well as his in blind tests shouldn't detract from his ability to match modern science in 1680, with his own hands, let's not get carried away. I'm quite happy to settle for him being an exceptional artisan who knew his trade inside out, and produced some of the finest violins that exist in the world day. Some of the finest. Not the finest - I'd need to see some test results to say that.

Harman, feminism & the Daily Mail

2009-08-10T14:04:00.008+01:00

Words fail me. How do you respond to something like this written by Daily Mail hacksmith David Thomas?

Straw men abound, and the whole thing is written in a way designed to convince the Mail’s readership that equality legislation - and feminism - is a ridiculous idea on a par with "elf 'n' safety" and the feared "PC gone mad". Although there are plenty of shameless half-truths and purposeful misinterpretations, it also leans heavily on the Mail’s own language: certain words and phrases designed to give the reader a thought-free way of making an instant judgment about an issue. Out of interest, let's count the amount of times they throw in a sexist insult, belittle women or completely fail to get the right end of the stick.

TITLE

"My womanifesto"

The second word! He doesn't waste any time does he? Here he’s making light of the fact that predominantly throughout history language has grown to be exclusionary towards women. You only have to read something from the 1970s to see that this is indisputable. However, Thomas completely misses the point, because everyone knows that the 'man' in manifesto has about as much to do with masculinity as homogenous does with with homosexuality. It actually comes from the Latin for hand - manus - and using it in this way openly mocks the idea that language could be sexist. It tries to make out that feminists are demanding special treatment when in the real world (as opposed to the Mail’s fantasy land), no feminist would seriously suggest amending the word in that way. The criticism also fails because even if the 'man' was gendered, replacing it with 'woman' is the last thing that a feminist would do, because it's about equality, not dominance. The Mail seems to accept this principle when referring to 'Harriet Harperson' but curiously fails to do that here. Maybe internal consistency is too much to expect from editors these days.

"anti-male blitzkrieg"

Feminists are Nazis for demanding equality. Equality legislation, where it tries to redress the balance of centuries of institutionalised misogyny, is the kind of crazy thing Hitler would do. Oh come on, you know him! Killed about 50 million people by starting a horrendously destructive six-year war and ordering unforgiveable atrocities - just like Harriet Harman. Oh no, wait, nothing like Harriet Harman. Also, feminists hate men count: 1

"zealously feminist agenda"

Unhinged and irrational. Because treating men and women as individuals with equal capacity for achievement and disappointment is crazy, whereas buying into stereotypes that were invented to keep women oppressed is totally sensible. Bloody hell, and that's just the title. Buckle up kiddies, this might take a while.

MAIN ARTICLE

"making rape laws even tougher against men"

Because obviously they're so tough already. The conviction rate for rape is approximately 7%. That means out of every hundred reported cases only seven people go to trial. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that the other 93 women are just making it up to seek attention, or lying because they were unhappy with the person they'd slept with in the morning. Actually the police categorise only 3% of cases as 'probably' or 'possibly' false so if we were to use our 100-case example above, even if three people were wrongfully convicted in addition to the seven who actually did rape someone, that leaves 90 rapists at large. Remember too that only takes into account cases that go to trial - a rape is reported every 34 minutes in the UK, and the latest news is that the police suspect about 95% of incidents are never reported. Is anyone surprised, when the law is so ill-equipped to handle rape cases? Better to suffer in silence than to go through a traumatic and expensive court process, which is most likely to result in the rapist walking free. I think that this sentence is the most hateful of the article so far but then again, it's early days. Feminists hate men count: 2

"staging a secret attempt…"

Here David Thomas uses the word ‘secret’ to imply deception and espionage that will hurt you. Like ‘stealth’ taxes, here is a government minister sneaking something in on the sly to avoid the ever-watchful gaze of Mail readers, who spend all their spare time scrutinising every White Paper and policy plan that comes out of Westminster for sneaky goings-on. What he is actually doing – and this is either willful deception or utter ignorance – is confusing ‘secret’ with ‘private’. What exactly is secret about suggesting a rule change? Party officials discussed, and ultimately rejected her proposal to ensure that a woman was always in one of the top jobs in Cabinet.

Whatever you think of the actual policy, it is fairly obvious that ‘secret’ is utterly the wrong word in terms of inconvenient things like truth, and journalistic integrity. It’s definitely the right word if you want to get Mail readers’ spleens working overtime. She’s absolutely right that an all-male leadership is unacceptable considering how few of them seem to have any policy concern for women’s rights. Women, after all, only make up 50% of the population. Whether or not her proposal is a sensible way to deal with the overwhelming male majority in Parliament, and most governments, is a valid topic for discussion – not something to be filed away under “aren’t feminists crazy”. You can’t really get more patronising.

"But these are just trifling details. Behind the trivial statistics, it is absolutely clear that women are oppressed..."

No need for sarcasm Mr Thomas. Girls may perform better at school but at university they don’t – Oxford for example has a huge finals gap. While it is again true that more women are entering high-salary professions like medicine and law than ever before, women on average still earn about 17% less than men in the same roles. More women in traditionally male roles means nothing unless they're being treated equally! This is even covered elsewhere in the Mail!

"[Harman] certainly encountered crushing discrimination…"

I am actually astounded that the Mail considers this quality journalism. Taking the experiences of a single person and using it to dismiss any wider problem. Well you know what Mr Thomas, I’m an atheist but I’ve never experienced discrimination because of it, so discrimination against atheists doesn’t exist. Harriet Harman is a woman and has had quite an easy life, so therefore we can completely ignore the 30,000 women every year who lose their jobs illegally due to pregnancy, or the fact that 25% of women will be victims of domestic violence sometime in their life. Both men and women face gender-based discrimination but you'd have to be pretty blinkered to deny that women have it worse, and to do what David Thomas does – to imply that this oppression just doesn’t exist – is astonishing. You can feel the bitterness bleeding through every word in that sentence.

"I am determined that our daughters will never have to bear that terrible yoke..."

While the word ‘yoke’ is clearly meant as sarcasm, I just find myself wanting to applaud the sentiment as though it were serious. Oh yes, says the Mail, let’s sneer at a politician who is standing up for her principles. It doesn’t matter that we’ve been going on for months about slimy career politicians standing for nothing but office; because we disagree with this woman we’re going to savage her for even trying.

"...so I'm going to make our sons endure it instead"

Feminists hate men count: 3

"I should not have referred to 'Lehman Sisters'. I should, of course, have called it ' Lehperson Sisters'..."

It’s political correctness gone mad! I can only assume that since the nickname Harriet Harperson is all over the comments on articles about her, this constitutes Mail-level wit. Of course, she never said ‘Lehman Sisters’. Another example of taking a sound objection to male-dominated language, applying it to something ridiculous, and then laughing because what feminists believe is ridiculous. This is solid gold material, providing you're in nursery school.

"As we all know, women are, by nature, far more financially responsible than men, who are fuelled by a testosterone-driven madness that makes them take risks no woman would consider. Particularly not if there was a handbag to spend the money on instead."

Statistically, it is true that women are more fiscally responsible, although no one is arguing that it's down to some fundamental genetic nature. We’re clearly meant to disagree with this bit, judging by the sarcastic tone, but the fact remains that women in banking generally take fewer risks of the kind that sparked this whole financial meltdown. Testosterone encourages risk-taking. Look, science!

This doesn’t mean that all men take more risks financially than all women. You and I know this, Harriet Harman knows this, and I suspect David Thomas knows this. He is, however, doing his very best to paint things in a simple, easy to understand black-and-white way. He finishes of course with an old stereotype intended to be the dazzling sucker-punch that hits the unwary reader right in the frontal lobe. Women are more cautious with spending? Yeah right, have you ever been to a sale at Schuh!

A perfectly valid observation provided you’re able to comfortably equate a shopping spree with, say, causing the century’s largest global meltdown and losing millions and millions of pounds of investors’ money. I can’t really be bothered tackling the whole shopping thing right now, but I’ll just say that the media can be awfully selective when it looks at spending habits, and it’s rare to see men criticized for the amount of money they spend on products that are actually marketed at them like video games, DVDs, gadgets, cars etc.

"…so that no silly little boys make naughty economic decisions without getting her permission first"

You’re allowed to make crap jokes about this only on days when the corporate officers of the world’s largest corporations – 84% of whom are men – have not just destroyed the global economy. Furthermore, this is totally twisting Harman’s argument. She has repeatedly said that she believes that in big business and in government it is better to have a gender-balanced team running the show, considering that any decisions made are going to affect millions of people of both genders.

What David Thomas has done here has taken that comment, made it out to be a man-hating feminist ploy, implied very strongly that men are the real victims here and then – to top it all off – relegated the hypothetical female CEO to a motherly, scolding position. He doesn’t seem to understand how he’s demolished his own argument. Real decision-making power? No, all she’ll do is tell off the ‘naughty little boys’ who make risky financial deals. Maybe she can make a fucking pie for the board of directors while she’s at it? Or how about a lovely roast? Fuck you David Thomas. Feminists hate men count: 4

"a man may be prosecuted - with a minimum 100 per cent conviction-rate - for any 'romantic' act not preceded by a full risk-assessment, a signed contract of consent - and a Breathalyser test"

No matter how drunk you get, you know when consent has been given. I can’t believe that this was in a national newspaper. That someone deemed this worthy of publication. I’ve already mentioned the statistics but even if the picture was a lot better how can you excuse referring to rape in that coy little sarcastic phrase "a romantic act"? It's utterly despicable.

If you remember, the police estimate only about 5% of rape incidents are ever reported. People wonder why the conviction rate is so low, and they wonder why ‘arguments’ like “well what does she expect dressing like that” are still rolled, but they need look no further than the Daily Fucking Mail. All they do is reinforce the idea that women overreact about rape, that it's mostly a fuss made over nothing: an editorial position which I'd be willing to bet has been taken without any significant research being carried out. Who needs evidence, or scientific reports, when you have gut instinct?

Out of interest I did a search on the Mail’s website for the word ‘rape’, as it’s never far from their front pages. From the first 50 results, 23 were about women who ‘cried rape’, or were written in a way which cast significant doubt on the veracity of the victim's claim. Included in that delightful selection was Peter Hitchens arguing that “drunk rape victims deserve less sympathy”; that’s right Pete, flaunt your compassionate conservatism! So considering that approximately 3% of rape cases are ‘possibly or probably false’, how can the Mail justify the fact that 46% of their articles about it encourage the idea of women using rape as a weapon against men?

"What's more, any man who tries to seduce a woman by means of sexist gifts such as flowers, chocolates, jewellery or poems, shall be arrested for unfair inducement"

When was the last time someone you know said flowers were sexist? I mean come on David, are you even trying any more? What happened? Did you give a woman flowers and chocolate as part of an unwritten contract of “I gave you a gift, now have sex with me”? Was she not keen? Can’t imagine why. Frankly anyone who seems to have trouble distinguishing between seduction and rape shouldn’t be dating at all. Also note the creeping hint of “feminists are making a fuss over nothing – they’re so crazy they’d ban chocolate!” Creating a straw man like this – feminists think flowers are sexist – allows Thomas to again attribute an opinion to Harman that she has never vocalized and then points out how crazy it is. We know it’s crazy, pal, because you made it that way to prove your point.

"...precautionary sterilisation of all males at birth"

Ha ha ha – that’s just the kind of things those crazy feminists would do! You know why? They hate men! Why else would they want financial independence, or the right to vote, or equal pay, or an end to gender-based discrimination? It's probably worth taking a moment to fully consider how monstrous an accusation that is against feminists, and another moment to think about just how fucked up David Thomas must be if he actually thinks that this is something Harman is likely to do. Feminists hate men count: 5

"Across our nation, millions of ordinary women are too afraid to leave their homes at any time of day or night"

Well, surveys consistently show that women are apprehensive about going out at night – the most recent one I have access to was carried out by women’s magazine More and the figure was 95%. Thomas is here trying to make people scoff at this idea but he clearly hasn’t done his homework. He mustn't have heard of Reclaim the Night either, which last year had 2000 participants.

"All men are b******s
All men are wrong, all the time
All crime is committed by men
All crime is committed against women"

None of these are feminist beliefs, or the views of Harriet Harman. A total straw man that fails to stand up even to basic scrutiny. Feminists hate men count: 6, 7, 8 and 9

"It is time to do away with tired, sexist notions such as 'innocent until proven guilty'..."

Stop it Mr Thomas, please just stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.

"…based on my principles of gender equality, a man accused of a crime will be asked his name, offered the chance to make a formal apology, then told the length of his sentence."

Feminists hate men count: 10

"If women ruled the world, there would be no wars..."

Where the hell did this one come from? I mean, I understand that the rest of this ham-fisted attempt at parody was based on comments Harriet Harman has made this week, but as far as I can see this one was just pulled straight out of David Thomas’s ass. It goes without saying that no feminist believes this. Fuck, no person in the world believes this. It’s twice as much of a failure because even if we descend into his weird little world and take this at face value, he’s giving us two examples of female wartime leaders and then sitting back with a smug look on his face. “See, Harman claims that women aren’t aggressive (she doesn’t) but look at Thatcher and Elizabeth I!” Mr Thomas, I think you might find that over the course of history, most military leaders have been men. Do please list the world’s current female dictators for me, or all the women wanted for war crimes by the UN.

"I will speak to him slowly and clearly, in a way that even a man can understand"

With a deft flick of the wrist, Thomas devastates Harman’s opinions on gender equality with self-deprecating irony. The implication that feminists think that men are stupid is also false. In actual fact the more aware people are of gender issues, the less likely they are to be sexist. It’s people who’ve never given these ideas a second thought that uphold traditional gender stereotypes; at least that’s what science says. Feminists hate men count: 11

"That said, it is quite wrong for women to be denied access to front-line infantry combat, just because they are the world's natural peacemakers."

This saddens me most of all, firstly because I was unaware that women cannot serve on the front-line and secondly because the fact that men have to shoulder that burden instead is a pressing issue for male rights. It's no more acceptable to forbid female soldiers from doing what they signed up to do than it is expecting men to take all of the brunt of the fighting. You’d think someone as rabidly anti-feminist as Thomas would be all over masculism (at least the troglodyte woman-hating end of it), but it’s quite clear instead that he’s never given it a moment’s thought. That’s right, it’s an opinion piece about the gender debate written by someone who has clearly never read anything on it. Bravo, Mail!

"Far too often, they concentrate on boys' toys, such as guns, tanks, jet fighters and aircraft carriers. From now on, the focus will be on battlefield creches, nappy changing facilities and transgender support groups."

What exactly does transgender have to do with feminism? It seems very strange to parachute this in with no explanation into a list of perceived ‘feminine’ interests. Because all women love babies and transgender people? What? It’s probably worth pointing out that transgender people face prejudice from pretty much every corner and it's entirely possible to find feminists who will discriminate against them – just look at Germaine Greer. So it's hardly something fundamentally feminine. I honestly don’t understand what Thomas is trying to do here; it just doesn’t make sense. Please, someone, enlighten me! I’m also fairly worried about anyone who considered ‘guns, tanks, jet fights and aircraft carriers’ to be of a kind with gadgets from Firebox. No, they’re not boy’s toys. They’re designed to kill people.

"Despite my fierce commitment to state education..."

This has very little to do with the gender issues I'm trying to highlight with this critique, but I couldn't resist commenting on this. It may surprise David Thomas to know that children generally do not choose which school they go to, and it’s hardly Harman’s fault that her uncle was a lord. Does it matter to the Mail that Harman is pretty much the polar opposite of Lord Longford, the famed homophobe? Of course not! She’s got a posh uncle, therefore she cannot understand people who aren’t landed and wealthy! Who cares if her roles in Parliament have mainly been in social security and welfare, or that she was responsible for a guaranteed minimum wage? Her relatives are posh!

For some reason, David Cameron and George Osborne – both heirs to baronetcies – tend to escape this criticism. It’s weird too, how the Mail absolutely slammed Labour for running a by-election campaign highlighting that the Tory candidate came from a rich family. I remember various stories and debate articles referring to the mocking of Timpson’s wealthy background as “vicious”, “shockingly personal”, “puerile and poisonous class war tactics”. Hypocrisy, from the Mail? Surely not!

Finally, although it has nothing to say about the topic in question, this sentence is so bad I had to share it:

"What would Harriet do if she were given the keys to Number 10 for real?"

For real mister? Really? Gee willickers!

Reading back, it’s clear to see that pretty much the whole article is brimming with barely-repressed misogyny. David Thomas hates women, and he hates uppity women that don’t know their place most of all. He is fuming – absolutely livid – that Harriet Harman is in a position to push through equality legislation, and is impotently stamping his feet and tearing out his hair because his fragile masculinity feels threatened by the idea of women in positions of power. He believes that basic logic like “I think a balanced team of men and women makes better decisions” is an indication that Harman wants to put bromide in the water to sterilize men. He is, in short, a dickhead.

It’s not that this is particularly atypical for the Mail, or that this is a particularly bad example. Its just that it is a brilliant summary of the way the paper views women. I couldn’t have put into words that heady mix of sneering superiority and raging impotence, but David Thomas has done it for me. What I can’t work out is why most of its readers are women – what attraction is there in being told that your equality is a ridiculous, dangerous concept? One of the paper’s former reporters is on record as saying that the perfect Daily Mail story is “one that leaves the reader hating somebody, or something”. I don’t think it’s quite what he meant, but I’m certainly leaving this one hating David Thomas and his colleagues at the Mail for letting this inaccurate, insulting trash get published in a national newspaper.

Thank God for extremists!

2009-08-08T23:05:00.006+01:00

Three cheers for fundamentalists! Every non-believer has seen over the last few years, the growing sense of frustration within the fundamentalist community. Atheists, Humanists and a myriad of other sub-human monsters have been crawling out of the walls and demanding that religionists pack up their special privileges and go home. The push for a secular society has not been as strong in decades and non-believers have never been as vocal. Although they invariably make us angry, these fundamentalists don’t really do us any harm and are, I propose, probably one of our greatest assets.

The problem with being loud and irrational is that people start to notice. You see this time and time again, not least in the case of the UK’s blasphemy law. Christian Voice, a self-proclaimed “prophetic ministry” led by go-to-guy-for-crazy Stephen Green, objected to the BBC showing Jerry Springer: The Opera and consequently tried to prosecute the broadcaster for blasphemy. The result of a religious fundamentalist bringing an anachronistic religious privilege to court? It brought people’s attention to the fact blasphemy was still a crime, and soon the wheels were in motion that would scrap the law completely. The court costs almost crippled Christian Voice - something they definitely didn’t prophesise - and I don’t know about you but I get a warm, fuzzy feeling just thinking about it. Were I inclined to theism I would hypothesise that indeed there is a God, and he has a wicked sense of irony.

The idea of a blasphemy law in a country that – while admittedly not a democracy – praises and encourages freedom of expression was utterly ludicrous. It was a relic from times when religion was a vital and powerful force in England, when religion was woven intrinsically into the fabric of society. It fell into the same category as the succession law that bars non-Protestants from becoming monarch, the tradition that means bishop sit in the House of Lords and the endless dirge of Songs of Praise on our taxpayer-funded broadcasting service. You know I really wouldn’t mind the requirement for the BBC to show religious programming half as much if it were actually entertaining or interesting.

The problem with all of these things is that most people see them as harmless tradition. Certainly most people seemed to recognise the abolition of the blasphemy law as a good thing, but even with bishops the general consensus seems to be that their presence in Parliament is harmless: just a lovely part of British history. Kindly bishops in their funny robes, drinking tea and providing the House with wise and sagely counsel. It doesn’t really matter how many reports you show them that demonstrate how the bishops vote en bloc in a House increasingly filled with independent lords, or that they consistently stand in the way of social progress: reasoned argument just lacks that spark of excitement that gets people motivated. That’s why we need the fundamentalists.

They’ll lambast atheists, Humanists and secularists as being just as dogmatic as they are, they’ll cry offence at the slightest perceived insult to their religious beliefs and they refuse to give ground even when what they want is clearly only in the interests of a tiny minority. Religious zealots unquestionably have a talent for making a scene, for drawing attention to themselves and consequently the issues in question. In short: they bring the drama. The best part is that not only do they bring these issues to mainstream news with a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth, they simultaneously sow the seeds of their own destruction. Ultimately, their views represent hardly anyone, and rarely have logic on their side. They can never widen their popularity because their arguments are just not as inclusive as those of secularists, and all it takes to shatter their credibility for good is a verbal kicking by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight.

There’s no doubt in my mind that secularism will ultimately win out over fundamentalists, because it reaches out to people regardless of their beliefs and demands equality without seeking to advantage atheists, Humanists or any other non-believers. The more extremists scream, shout and throw their toys out of the pram, the more attractive secularism seems.

That isn’t to say we should just let them get away with keeping abortion illegal in Northern Ireland, pushing to give the Church of England the right to select the bishops who enter the Lords or any other number of flagrant abuses of religious privilege. On the contrary, they must be fought at every turn and their agendas must be brought to public attention as often as possible. Once they’ve got the spotlight, they can only make bigger fools of themselves.

The suggestion to scrap the blasphemy law at the turn of the century was met with a plaintive response from the Bishop of Oxford: “is there nothing left that is sacred?” Well actually, no, there isn’t. Not in a society that wants to be seen as free and fair to all in any case. So let’s applaud Christian Voice, Nadine Dorries and other religious fundamentalists who would seek to exercise their archaic rights over non-believers; the more they try to enforce them, the more people will move to have them abolished. Imposing their narrow, divisive views on a multicultural society is like kicking a hornet’s nest, and they get badly stung every time. Their special pleading draws in thousands of people who wouldn’t usually care and almost always brings them in on our side, not theirs. Let’s just hope they don’t figure that out.

Originally published in issue two of Secular Future, the quarterly magazine of the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies

First thing's first

2009-08-08T20:26:00.001+01:00

Well, I thought since I seem to have a knack for writing Facebook notes that make people argue a lot, the best thing would be to start a blog to save Mr Zuckerberg some bandwidth. No need to thank me Mark, I know we're cool.

I've also been prompted by a couple of my friends who have just stepped out into this brave new world: Chris at Katatrepsis and Stuart at Time Out Of Mind

So really this blog is just a tool for me to express my usual mixture of exasperation and annoyance at the state of the world as well as flag up the things that I love, from obscure foreign films to long-forgotten history. I've decided to call it Alms For Ashes, partly to pick up the odd bit of traffic from confused fans of Bats For Lashes, but mainly because it's a quotation from a hero of mine: Domenico Scandella, a sixteenth century miller known locally as Menocchio. His story is an interesting one, but at the moment I'll just leave you with his habit of needling priests at funerals with the question:

"What are you doing giving alms in memory of those few ashes?"