Metamorphoses

If God resides in Heaven but no one remains to worship him, does he still exist? In an otherwise religiously-charged retelling of the creation story, Ted Hughes' translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses muses upon this question and decides that man and god are inextricably linked through life and death. Indeed, man may be god made, but it's much likelier that god is man made.

God as he was, he knew
That earth's and heaven's lease for survival
Is nothing more than a lease.
That both must fall together -
The globe and its brightness combined
Like a tear
Or a single bead of sweat -
Into the bottomless fires of the first, last forge.

A Very Gentle Reminder

Tamil Tigers Again

Reporters for the Guardian have picked up on the Sri Lankan dispute I touched upon yesterday. Once again, it's almost as if they read this blog. They make the comparison with Gaza, just as I did, and they pick up on a key point:

The Tamil Tigers used suicide bombers and have been accused of using civilians as human shields.

Not only did the Tigers pioneer the act of suicide bombing, they are also accredited with being the first terrorist organization to recruit women and children, civilians, to strap bombs to themselves. Their treatment of the surrounding refugees is central to the issue, not necessarily the death toll.

Exposure?

The Times 'exclusive', available today on their website, decries a "hidden massacre" of Tamil civilians in the Sri Lankan peninsula. As the video quite correctly points out, civilian refugees were spread across the Tiger encampment in makeshift homes. There are gun emplacements clearly visible around the camp: mortar pits, ammunition trucks, command points are all interlocked in the network of the refugee settlement. What the images also show are the graves of large numbers of Tiger fighters and, supposedly, less elegant civilian graves interspersed along the outskirts of the settlement. The UN accusations laden against the Sri Lankan army, following the end to the civil war with the death of Velupillai Prabhakaran, are rife with claims that they ignored the no-fire zone and continued to shell the settlement with no regard for the threat of civilian casualties. It's as if the responsibility for the deaths of these civilians should be held by the Sri Lankan army instead of the Tamil Tigers themselves. Much like the Hamas occupation of the Gaza strip, the Tigers were a terrorist organization quite willing to defend themselves with a human barrier. Obviously, when civilian casualties are taken it is used as a propaganda tool to turn the remaining civilian population against the enemy and align it with the occupying ideology. Many of the refugees were threatened at gun point to remain in the settlement rather than flee their homes, like many others who managed to get away. The Tigers played on the ignorance they enforced upon the innocent refugees, in the final actions of a battle they had already lost. To place the blame with the Sri Lankan army, and bypass the repugnant and, I hope you'll agree, cowardly actions of the terrorists, is a crime in itself.

American Psycho

Evidence has surfaced to suggest that Bret Easton Ellis wrote a screenplay for the movie adaptation of American Psycho in 1999. Not only that but he gave the script to the maestro of cinema, David Cronenberg, director of two of the best films of the last ten years, A History of Violence, and Eastern Promises. Picture the scene, dear reader; Ellis converted a text that many directors claimed was unfilmable and handed it to one of the best directors of our generation. What might have we beheld were it not for the takeover of the English nobody, Mary Harron (an ex-girlfriend of Tony Blair), who selected a different script over Ellis', one that captured nothing of the humour or satire of the novel, let alone the violence. Christian Bale salvaged what remained, but the likes of Edward Norton, Johnny Depp, and Brad Pitt were all strongly linked to the main role in Cronenberg's potential creation. If only...

Facebook Profiles

The New Scientist has confirmed for me what I think most of us already know about Facebook profiles. It's a commonly held perception that your online profile is merely an idealised, contrived and contorted, public persona; something that you construct to present what you feel to be your best, idealised self. There are a whole range of ways to do this: delete untoward photographs of yourself; join specific societies or forums; become 'fans' of certain things; list books you feel you should have read; copy quotes that shed light on who you are, and all the rest of it. The incorrect conclusion then follows. It's claimed that it's impossible, therefore, to tell who the real person is underneath all the tripe that people bring to the front of their profiles. Anyone who's browsed through their friends' profile pages, and delved into their friends' friends profiles will probably understand that you can actually determine quite a lot about someone's personality by reading between the lines of what's in front of you. How many 'friends' do they have? How many photos of themselves are there? What's the ratio? How many photo albums have they uploaded online? What's their profile picture like? Do they disclose their marital status? Do they display their political or religious views? How many groups have they joined? How many films and musical artists have they listed? What quotes do they choose, if any? Eminem, Lance Armstrong, or Dostoyevsky? There are plenty of others. If you know how to read these details, Facebook profiles are far more illuminating than many of its users seem to realise.

She's Back

The mad woman downstairs for so long left me bereft of all delights, but not today. There I was, almost resigned to the assumption that her last bequeathment to me would be a cockroach complaint, but she simply cannot help herself. I occasionally see her potter around in the open, under cover of darkness, shining flashes of torchlight into the night's sky, communicating. But today she braved the onlookers and took out her garbage in daylight. How fortunate I was, dear reader! Barely descending the stairs to my mailbox I saw her, floating above the ground, half-consumed by the disposal bin. She had lodged herself on the edge of the bin, her feet a yard off the ground, and her head absorbed by the darkness, peering into the depths of rubbish into which she had only just thrown something clearly of greater value than previously suspected. If only I could see what! An unripened pear, perhaps? A rechargeable battery? I couldn't bare to be seen. What if I had foiled the whole thing and she had jumped down and retained some sort of dignity? I couldn't let that happen. The urge to take a photo, however, was too great. But by the time I'd turned back, she was gone.

In the Aeroplane Over the Sea

In the spirit of revivals, I've been reminded of this album. Jeff Mangum, the creative genius behind the music and lyrics, has been heralded as the JD Salinger of indie rock. His band was called Neutral Milk Hotel, and promptly disappeared off the face of the Earth in 1998 after the release of In the Aeroplane Over the Sea, an album musing upon the life and death of Anne Frank.

Now, how I remember you;
How I would push my fingers through
Your mouth to make those muscles move
That made your voice so smooth and sweet.
But now we keep where we don't know.
All secrets sleep in winter clothes
With one you loved so long ago.
Now we don't even know his name.

- Click. It really is a close contender for the best album ever recorder.

Twilight for Grown-Ups

Decidedly I have never frequented this blog with discussions of films or television. My last foray into that area saw a review of the Spanish horror masterpiece, [rec.], and justifiably so. Last night, I was enraptured, taken, wholly entranced by a Swedish classic, Let The Right One In. A young boy, bullied at school, intelligent yet weak, separated from his idol, his father, attends to the rituals of burgeoning awareness and routine loneliness. And then a girl moves in next door. Oskar meets Eli among the snow, and a friendship begins that we fear cannot continue. It's a film of curiosity, identity, the ambiguity of ideals, the complexity of love, the relationship between possibility and impossibility, and the fine line between mortality and immortality. We're aware of the closeness of opposites, and how this limits our expectations. We regret our conceptions. Eli is unfathomably wealthy, but incapable of using this wealth. Oskar wishes to kill for revenge, but Eli kills because she has to. The piece evades all classification. To call such a film a vampire movie or a horror movie would be a gross misjudgement. It is yours for the taking, dear reader. For fear of trespassing on your enjoyment, I withhold much of what I wish to say. Stop what you are doing and watch the best film of the year.

The Kagool

Seldom am I afforded the opportunity to wear the kagool that you can see to your left, but when the chance arises, boy, do I take it? The weather here in Tucson over the last few days hasn't quite decided weather to bucket down with rain or peel your skin off, so a light, flourescant poncho is just what I've needed. The eagle-eyed reader will have already noticed that it's a w.a.s.t.e item, a Radiohead product, and so you'll understand my delight when, cycling in the abysmal rain, a passing truck had the common courtesy to avoid a nearby puddle and honk the horn, accompanied by a knowing grin and a shout: "love the poncho!". It's a small world after all.

Five, so far

The owner of a little antique and ornament shop in Northern Ireland looks up at the brand new sign above the shop entrance. It reads, NIK-NAKS: THIS AND THAT. The shopkeeper, however, isn't too happy with the result. He ponders (complete with accent):

If only I had left more space between 'THIS' and 'AND', and 'AND' and 'THAT'.

I've heard there are ways of getting even more consecutive ands in a sentence. Answers on a postcard.

Imperial Bedrooms

At last, the seventh novel from Bret Easton Ellis has been finished. Smote with Lunar Park nearly five years ago, I rallied every ounce of my obsession and read and reread everything he had written previously. His new book is going to be released this time next year, May 2010. It's entitled, Imperial Bedrooms, and revisits the characters that earned him teenage infamy with Less Than Zero. I am positively drooling at the prospect. His characters have a tendency to crop up here and there in minor cameo roles in his other novels - the exponents of decadence frequently cross wires - but now we'll catch up with Clay, Julian, and all the rest twenty years on from the exploits of LTZ. Ellis makes very clear that his books are artifacts in themselves, and written to be read rather than adapted into films (the reason he doesn't worry about the success of the adaptations, apparently), but there's constant talk of taking his novels from the page to the big screen (if they haven't been already, of course). It sounds as though all talk about The Informers film should be piled under a D-Notice, but, moving on, Ellis has openly voiced his desire to re-cast Robert Downey Jr, who played Julian in the early film version of LTZ, the drugged-up punk/prostitute who appears quite intent on self-destruction. Supposedly, that would be disconcertingly appropriate given Downey's recent past. Read this interview with Ellis and subscribe to the information flowing out of this blog to get the full low-down on everything that matters. I'll keep us all informed.

Football Impersonations

This guy really made me laugh, especially Crouch. Brilliant.

Journal for Plague Lovers

The ninth studio album from the Manic Street Preachers was released yesterday. I notice that the cover artwork has already been banned due to its claimed depiction of blood and scarring, which, as you can see, is a subjective view. The title itself, Journal for Plague Lovers, evokes a sense of guttural angst and childlike irony, far removed from the Manics’ recent releases. We may suspect, therefore, that this album will not simply kowtow to the popular expectations of fans and critics alike.

This album has been promoted by the band as the follow up to The Holy Bible, one of the most powerful, angst-ridden, lyrically profound, and respected albums of the nineties, so the mantle to climb is epic. As you should know, the lyricist and creative director behind THB, Richey James Edwards disappeared after its release, and his official death was declared last year by his family following almost fifteen years of searching. The Manics' task, therefore, led by singer and guitarist, James Dean Bradfield, and bassist, Nicky Wire, grows with every development.

According to Nicky, each band member was given a folder filled with art and lyrics by Edwards before his disappearance, which, with hindsight, became a parting gift. It is from these pages that the lyrics for JFPL were drawn. It would be extremely easy for me to devote an extremely long post to various and extensive quotations from the two albums, but I'll do my utmost to suppress my urges.

Musically, THB was compositionally and technically simple. Repetitive bass and guitar chords interlaced over grinding drums became a recurring formula throughout the songs, and JFPL sees a reversion back to the post-punk tempos and instrumentation that lent THB its severity. Rarely do we hear the strings, for example, that swept through their commercially most successful album, This Is My Truth Tell Me Yours. The real poignancy of THB, however, lay in the merciless delivery of the lyrics. On the opening track, Yes, Edwards' intentions for the album are clear:

For sale? Dumb cunt's same dumb questions.
Oh, virgins? Listen, all virgins are liars, honey.

The words are barely sung by Bradfield; rather they are compressed and spat into the microphone as urgently as possible, as if the lyrics were an afterthought. The opening bars of JFPL, during the song, Peeled Apples, on the other hand, portray a different kind of intent. Admittedly, though, I was nodding my head along to the menacing percussion that introduces the album, certain that I would not be disappointed. The early signs are promising.

The more I see, the less I scream,
The figure eight inside out is infinity.

The lyrics are clouded by uncertainty, contrasting the transparency of Yes. Perhaps, Edwards muses upon his obsession with intellectual fulfillment (regularly cited to explain the motives that underscored his disappearance), though this would be a stretch. Here, the rhythm is basic, as before, but the lyrics are sung with less brutality.

Throughout THB the listener struggles to identify the lyrics, as they're delivered faster than the music allows. There's a real carefree attitude that punctuates the songs, and gladly sticks two fingers up at the listener’s expectations. Later in Yes, during the chorus:

He's a boy. You want a girl, so tear off his cock,
Tie his hair in bunches, fuck him; call him Rita if you want.

We're hard-pressed to find similar examples of ferocity in JFPL. We're left to wonder at the thoughts that drove Edwards' to write distinctly contrasting lines; whereas the lyrics of THB indicate a troubled mind, JFPL demonstrates much greater restraint and subtlety. In an early moment of tenderness during This Joke Sport Severed, JFPL's fourth track, the guitars are unplugged and Bradfield relies more on his voice:

Jealousy sows rejection with a kiss
In silken palms that tear bone from skin.

Of course, if you go deep enough, instances of unrestrained violence and hostility do occur. The quatrain that opens Marlon JD, a song that would stand proudly alongside the mastery of THB, reverts to descriptions of masochistic aggression.

He stood like a statue
As he was beaten across the face
With a horse whip
Where the wounds already exist.

Again, the lines converge and overlap without, it appears, any regard for the music that weighs upon Bradfield’s delivery, echoing elements of THB. Further, images of whips and firearms pervade the lyrics, and the sadism that Edwards emblazoned across his early pieces, most pertinently in the first single taken from THB, Faster, is evident again.

I am an architect, they call me a butcher.
I am a pioneer, they call me primitive.
I am purity, they call me perverted.

During Faster, Edwards tackles the media suspicions of his self-harm with unrelenting honesty, whilst outlining the harsh introspection that gave 4st 7lb its intensity.

Such beautiful dignity in self-abuse.
I've finally come to understand life
Through staring blankly at my navel.

The result, then, means that JFPL will be viewed as relatively opaque and somehow weak by comparison, but this would be a flippant dismissal. Not only do you profane Edwards’ lyrics, but you ignore the accomplishment of a maturing group of musicians who’ve shaken off the burden of self-awareness and commerciality.

Edwards frequently talked of his amazement at Bradfield’s ability to sing his lyrics over the music. The lyrics were always written after the song had been composed, and it’s this process that gave so much to the feeling of urgency and brutality of THB.

JFPL came about through precisely the reverse. In recent interviews with the band, while they’ve been promoting the album, Bradfield discusses his emotions when putting music to Edwards’ lines. The overall effect is one of harmony, which, although aurally appealable, undermines the foundation from which THB became so celebrated.

Touching moments of beauty and tenderness, however, leap out from the malaise of melody and anger in JFPL. The album’s highlight comes in the penultimate track, William’s Last Words, which is (so far as my knowledge extends), uniquely, sung by Nicky Wire. His voice is shaky and uncertain, but he’s charged with singing some of the most striking of Edwards’ lyrics, so one can hardly criticize. The folder of Richey’s art and lyrics is suddenly embodied in one track, and the moment we’ve desperately searched for has been laid before us in its purest form. Edwards unravels his emotions:

Wish me some luck as you wave goodbye to me.
You're the best friends I ever had.

It’s as if we bear witness to Edwards’ parting eulogy; as if we’re hearing his thoughts the day before his disappearance; as if he’s made up his mind.

I will be waiting. All my cares are for you.
Dreams they leave and die
I'm just gonna’ close my eyes, think about my family
And shed a little tear.

As if Edwards is predicting his final moments, breathing the inevitable. The claim that, maybe, he did throw himself off of the Severn Bridge seems abruptly appropriate.

Just let me go
[…]
‘Coz I’m really tired.
I’d love to go to sleep and wake up happy.

Without the slightest contrivance, Edwards’ suicide note has been set to music.

The Innocent

Ian McEwan has stumbled onto my radar once again with the novel that marked his departure from the short story to the long, The Innocent. Published just after the Fall of the Berlin Wall it reflects on the special relationship between England and America during the post-war years, the loss of cultural naivety and, of course, innocence. We follow Leonard, the hapless Brit who's posted in Berlin under the guidance of his American superiors, as he discovers his adult self through a blend of new-found independence, financial accountability, and love. His relationship with the beautiful Maria, a German, encapsulates not only his definitive shift from boyhood to manhood, but also the coming together of nations previously at odds, embodying the future of a unified Europe. McEwan's story-telling remains his emphasis, but the prose lacks the concentration of his later works. We're reminded more of Atonement with its sweeping landscapes, heartbreak and loss of innocence, more so than we are of On Chesil Beach, with its relentless focus on character and true romantic love. As is the case with many of McEwan's works, the narrative hinges on a single moment, whether the false accusation of a child, or the fumbling of a marital night. Here, however, the crux is condensed to a single sentence, denoting at once the beginnings of tragedy, but also the inevitable.

Just then, Maria burst into flames.

The power of this description belies its simplicity. The underlying metaphor of despair, corruption, and the possibility of harmony between people, cultures, nations, is lost. The innocence laid before us during their earliest exchange between the sheets is shattered. Now we face the prospect of forced maturity, unsteadied by urgency, in place of the gradual growth of character. McEwan's insight into the nature of innocence is absolute perfection. Here, when Leonard admits his virginity:

Maria's blushes were brought on by shame at the laughter she knew Leonard would misunderstand. For hers was the laughter of nervous relief. She had been suddenly absolved from the pressures and rituals of seduction. She would not have to adopt a conventional role and be judged in it, and she would not be measured against other women. [...] She was free, they both were free, to invent their own terms.

Nothing prepares the reader for the unfolding scenes, and the closing moments bring about a feeling of total dismay, clouded by uncertainty and stalwart possibility. I highly recommend it.

Graduating

Grades have been posted, notebooks burned, exam papers archived, stationary stored, and professors evaluated. The school year has ended in America. Graduation ceremonies littered the campus over this past weekend, and wandering crowds peppered by the odd robe-clad graduatee were visible everywhere. Is there not something subtly solipsistic about graduation ceremonies? To me, there's a disturbing element of overly contrived self-glorification. Why celebrate at the hands of your employer? By all means unite with your peers to conclude what has been a significant period in your life, but education is about the journey rather than the destination.

An even more personal identification

The other day I was faced once again by that most vomit-inducing of questions, followed as always by the formidable all-American tick-box: 'Race?' Reliably, you'll be glad to know, I ticked the box "other" and wrote "HUMAN" between the brackets, much to the amusement, I'm told, of the secretaries who administer these things through. My other options included, 'Black/African-American', 'White', and 'Asian'. I mean, what? I don't feel as though I have to explain the sheer irrelevance and brutish inadequacy of such a distinction, if it may be called so, never mind the fact that this had nothing to do with a survey, medicinal reasons, identification, or otherwise, to my enlightened readership. It did act to remind me, however, of the speculative report issued regarding the possibility of introducing British ID cards, and whether they would carry the holder's religion. Whilst lending us the opportunity to proudly emblazon the word RADIOHEAD on every form of civilian identification, I can see some practical flaws. Apparently, in the proud old country of Greece every citizen ID card carries your religion, but the verdict seems to be a unanimous - Greek Orthodox - presumably because anyone outside this boundary isn't considered a citizen.

Some important interviews

Charlie Rose, I thought, did a very good and professional job last week in interviewing the Presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan, Asif Ali Zardari and Hamid Karzai. When asked about the resources we should provide to these countries in order to further aid the combating of the Taliban resurgence in and around Peshawar and Islamabad, Karzai reiterated an often neglected point.

We must also free the population from the grip of radicalism and extremism as an ideology that was imposed upon them over decades, that has caused them immense suffering, that has also caused them to fall prey to Al-Quaeda and the terrorist networks.

In other words, we cannot, in defeating the Taliban's stranglehold, rely simply on better weaponry, better discipline, or better techniques; we must undermine and "emancipate" the fundamental ideology that brings people in these regions to rely on the Taliban's governance. Otherwise, it seems as though we are fighting an unwinnable war.

Some lighter viewing can be achieved by visiting The Hour's website to watch the interview with Christopher Hitchens broadcast last night, in which he revisits some of his recent experiences and even discusses his very real desire to make a documentary founded upon god is not Great. It would, he said, be like Bill Maher's attempt, Religulous, "but funnier". Also, if you haven't cast your vote for yesterday's survey, do so.

Experiment #2

Neither a thought experiment nor one of my classic philosophical conundrums, but rather a simple question. I want to get as many responses to this as possible, so feel free to chip in with your opinion. If god were to sit down in front of you, with his infinite knowledge and power, and offered you the chance of eternal life, be it in hellfire or ecstasy, as opposed to a finite existence that ended with your death, would you take it? I shan't tell you what I would do for fear of skewing your answer, given the immense psychological influence I hold over you. Read the question again, slowly, and Respond.

From Ethics

I'm currently quite busy reading the magnum opus of the philosopher, mathematician, though largely undefinable, Benedictus Spinoza. It's entitled Ethics and appears to have been written without even the slightest acknowledgment of the principles of language. I bring you the following definition, upon 'The Nature and Origin of the Human Mind', which I hope you find extremely enlightening, just as I did. (The work continues in much the same vein for 90,000 words, so don't expect many posts in the near future.)

I say that there pertains to the essence of a thing that which, when granted, the thing is necessarily posited, and by the annulling of which the thing is necessarily annulled; or that without which the thing can neither be nor be conceived, and, vice versa, that which cannot be or be conceived without the thing.

Global Change

Foreword: The following exchange of emails between Clinton and I took place last week. Hopefully, the matters raised need no further introduction, though I fear they may do. I leave it bare for you to absorb.

Hi Rob,

During my periods of indolence, due to the poor property market, I have been trying to do some research on climate change in an attempt to look behind the hype and hysteria to try and gauge what is actually happening. Very interesting to see how government and the media and science are all reacting and inter- acting on this.

There are some good videos on YouTube by a Professor Bob Carter in Australia which seem to give a measured and balanced view on climate change. In one of his lectures he looks at the collection of raw data on temperature change. He cites research in the USA on the state and condition of the ground weather stations which America is supposed to lead the world in. He shows the weather station at UofA, which is wrongly sited on tarmac, and the thermometer is wrongly positioned! As he points out, this is an academic institution that should be on the ball. Many sites are not run by people who should know better.

Upshot of research as follows:

1. The world’s climate is in a constant state of change. In the latest 2000 years we have seen the warm medieval period and the mini ice-age from 1500 to 1850. Both involved temperatures and temperature changes exceeding those of the last ten years.

2. Man constantly affects the climate with all our activities. Some activities produce warming some produce cooling.

3. Is the earth warming? It depends on the data and the timescale looked at. We are in a warmer period but this has been the case since 1850.

4. Is man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 the cause of the present warming? No one knows. A heap of money has been spent on research and no link has been found.

5. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes, but the most significant is water vapor. The interaction between all the greenhouse gasses and the effects of the sea, the Iris effect and global dimming and the relationship between the hundreds of factors that affect the climate are not fully known or understood.

6. Man has a very poor record on understanding and making predictions when it comes to complex man-made systems, let alone complex natural systems. For example we cannot predict with accuracy the effects of certain stimuli on the world economy, as shown in the current crises and the lack of agreement on the steps needed to get us out of recession.

7. Are we heading for a crisis? No. If we are, then the steps being taken are unlikely to change anything. It is an expensive act of utter futility. These resources should be deployed to combat problems we can deal with. Pollution, supply of power to all worlds’ population, supply of clean water to all of world’s population.

I also watched some video of the late Michael Crichton (author of Jurassic Park). He makes some very interesting points. Firstly he looks at environmentalism and equates it to a religion. On an anthropological view, a religion is a collective set of beliefs which has a leader/s promoting the belief with followers who contribute to the belief system and change their lifestyle to match the beliefs. The belief provides a total view of what should be considered bad and what should be considered good. The environmental creed particularly follows the Judao/Christian belief system. I.e. There was once an Eden, which man has ruined and, thereby, became original sinners. Salvation lies through “sustainability”. You are measured as a person by being either good or bad by this creed.

Issues such as climate change need a very strict scientific approach. The environment constantly changes and our understanding of this complex system constantly changes. We must constantly re-evaluate, admit mistakes, be flexible, adapt and look at research with clear unbiased eyes. “Religion” cannot respond to this challenge.

Consensus is also a dead end to understanding. “90% of scientists believe that global warming is man-made and will lead to catastrophes”. History is littered with examples of when the scientific consensus was wrong. Scientists should never rely on consensus. (See debate on tectonic plate theory.)

The Nazis tried to discredit Jewish scientists including Einstein They got a couple of hundred scientists to say they believed his theories were wrong. When Einstein was quizzed on this he said that all that was needed was for one scientist to PROVE he was wrong.

Another factor in the debate is the fear element. Politicians and media use fear to push home their political points, particularly to justify taxation. Fear paralyses true debate and reasoning. Look at old newspapers and the language used to discuss historic issues like Y2K, global cooling, DDT. The science got lost in the hype. Look at how a complex natural balance can be misunderstood and mismanaged such as with Yellowstone National Park .

As to the end of the world - every three minutes there is an earthquake somewhere in the world, at least one of magnitude of 5 on the Richter scale every 3 hours, lighting strikes somewhere every eleven seconds, at any one time there are 1500 electric storms around the globe, a tornado every 6 hours, a Tsunami across the Pacific every 3 months and 90 hurricanes a year. The biggest threat to mankind is a virus.

========

Hi Dad,

It is tragic, as you point out, that science, and the media uptake of scientific research, can be skewed and distorted by financial opportunism.

On the matter of global warming, all of what you say can be argued convincingly. No matter how many cars we replace with Toyota Priuses there will always be 180 million Americans who herald the four-wheel drive, Ford pick-up truck as their ideal vehicle. And so long as budding industries in China and India continue to build coal-powered energy plants at the rate of about one per week, the public frenzy we see surrounding global warming is largely superfluous.

Here, it’s worth clarifying a commonly held untruth, which asserts that global warming, and particularly CO2, damages the Ozone layer. This is wholly, categorically, singularly, veritably untrue. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) chemically react with the outer layer of the stratosphere, which is made up of oxygen in the form of O3 (Ozone). In doing so, they break down the molecular structure of ozone into its component parts – O2, and of course, another single oxygen molecule. Needless to say, as this process takes place, the useful qualities of O3 in reflecting UVB and UVC light are lost and this additional radiation from the sun breaks down H2O molecules that have recently formed in the outer troposphere. Overall, this leads to a wealth of O2 in the atmosphere that has the unfortunate tendency of bonding with extra carbon molecules and form additional CO2. Hence the frequently wavered attack that CO2 is intrinsically linked to the destruction of the ozone layer.

It's true that carbon-dioxide retains heat, but it is far from the best conductor; methane gas, Freonic CFCs, and nitrous oxides are far more effective at storing heat in the atmosphere and, collectively, they outweigh the effects of carbon-dioxide. Carbon levels fluctuate anyway, as we know, through the carbon cycle, so it is important to analyse any information or recommendations we receive about carbon-dioxide with a sceptical eye. The carbon cycle is responsible for circulating roughly 200 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year and a mere 7 gigatons is anthropogenic. Even so, carbon-dioxide is not, strictly speaking, a greenhouse gas.

However, as the global population continues to rise, with birth rates in America tipping beyond 2.1 (the worst offender per capita in the world), and people living longer, there is going to be an inevitable squeeze on global resources, most evidently within the next fifty years. This, of course, is a speculative projection, but a necessary one. As we've said before, the Earth warms and cools naturally anyway over long periods of time. What we need to address is our effect on the natural warming the planet is undergoing.

As you say, human activity has a cooling effect alongside a warming effect, and it remains under-acknowledged that a lot of our carbon-dioxide output comes simply from the construction and maintenance of buildings (roughly 50%, in fact). This demonstrates again how talk of global warming is frequently marred by a select few with vested interests.

If we were in any way perturbed by being outside consensus we would not be having this discussion. Achieving scientific consensus is extremely rare, and so it should be. This reminds us of the unfortunate state of much of American and European scientific research - scientific endeavor is limited to its financial restraints. Unless someone (usually the government) is willing to fund a project, having seen the thesis, scientific research can barely get off the ground. You can see, in that case, how certain lines of thinking become more popular than others if researchers can broach their theories to conform to the Zeitgeist. Consensus, therefore, becomes reciprocal, leading to more and more extreme results (see Swine Flu, Avian Flu, SARS, etc.)

Obviously, to coincide with increasing population, we face the threat of limited resources (most pertinently - oil), the depleting rainforests, and the pollution of large water basins in North and South America. These matters, it's worth saying, are fairly trivial and non-urgent in relation to the current political landscape. I would argue that a nuclear exchange is a more pressing threat to mankind than a virus. However, some argue that these effects combined; even if they raise the global temperature a mere two degree could cause severe and irreparable melting of the ice sheets in Greenland. If enough cool water were to infiltrate the ocean system in a short span of time off the East coast of North America then we really would notice a change in the global climate. The ocean conveyor would grind to a halt and the conduction of heat from the equator to the tropics, for example, would stop. This is the most salient point, but it still seems extreme and unlikely.

Again, demands placed upon human activity, in the superficial form it takes today (drive economically; invest in wind turbines; buy a solar-panel for your home; etc.), are unlikely to change the course of global warming. We would do well to invest in broader scientific research that addresses the effect rather than the cause in order to prepare ourselves for the possible eventualities.

LXXXIV and LXXXV

Read this over and over and over again. From the second edition of Edward Fitzgerald's translation:

What! out of senseless Nothing to provoke
A conscious Something to resent the yoke
Of unpermitted Pleasure, under pain
Of Everlasting Penalties, if broke!

What! from his helpless Creature be repaid
Pure Gold for what he lent us dross-allay'd
Sue for a Debt we never did contract,
And cannot answer - Oh, the sorry trade!

COLLISION Preview

Bitch

(See what I did there?) If you fancy becoming thoroughly irritated by someone who should know better, pay Bryan a visit, then to ease any undue anxieties and soothe yourself back into a comfortable state of intellectual Nirvana, remind yourself of this.

The Secularist Identity

What comprises the cornerstones of the secular lifestyle? Why do devoutly non-religious thinkers maintain their faith in the ‘spiritual’? No one wishes to deny the presence of the numinous, the magnificent, the magisterial, or the awesome, but where does one overlap with the other and cross into the realm of ‘spirituality’? Does the essence of ‘spirituality’, as it is commonly used, refer to a sense of the ‘soul’? Is this merely synonymous with human consciousness? Does such a think exist at all? Is it only illusory, and wedded to our illusion of free will? Indeed, if the much asserted presence of free will were disproved, would the basis for maintaining ‘spirituality’ still exist?

I personally renounced the term ‘spirituality’ when I began to disavow religion. I believed that any sense of the numinous that supposedly extended into the boundaries of the metaphysical were erroneous and should not be upheld in case it lent a single jot of credibility to the religious who frequently manipulate such terms, and contort their beliefs into something seemingly much grander than they deserve. Not only does the very notion of ‘spirituality’ provide lifeblood for the archaic presuppositions of religion, but it also defames the true connotations of the numinous and the awesome.

The editor of Free Inquiry magazine, Tom Flynn contends the religious employment of ‘spirituality’ as a means of espousing authority, but defends its apparent and proper use, which should not, he claims, be denied the secular. He reports on a recent discovery. Nurses, he says, have oftentimes denied patients some forms of emotional care since the patients have claimed no religious belief or ‘spirituality’. Such care includes the usual and otherwise common rituals of hospital stays.

The nurse managers told me that they considered having a quiet conversation with a patient, holding a patient’s hand, evaluating a patient or family member’s emotional state, even giving a comforting alcohol rub, as providing spiritual care. [emphasis mine]

Clearly, this jumbling of interpretation is severely limiting patient comfort and recovery. Why is it that a renouncement of the ‘spiritual’, for one, denotes the withdrawal of any kind of psychological comforting for another? Is this example demonstrative of a wider trend across America that is limiting widespread understanding of secular values? Moreover, is this sort of discourse more generally accepted by larger numbers of the general population than I previously thought? And, indeed, does this further contribute to the hesitancy of many when confronted by urges to cast off the brick-laden backpack of religious proprieties?

It seems that, to answer these questions, a firmer definition of ‘spirituality’ is urgently required. Flynn, it must be said, hesitates in recognizing the root of the problem and the extent of what this implies. He does, however, see the trend, and concludes:

I may have discovered a wholly inadvertent discrimination against the non-religious … rooted in our old friend, the endlessly pliable meaning of the word, ‘spiritual’?

You may contend, as I do, that the use of the term, “old friend”, is rather unfounded. However, it is the very pliability of ‘spirituality’ that lends it meaning to so many, and a significant problem to us few.

Another contributor to Free Inquiry magazine, Phil Zuckerman interjects where Flynn closes and mounts the offensive by coining a new term, “aweism”. He defines himself as an “aweist” passionately embracing the numinous and our sense of wonderment. He seizes upon the flaw inherent in the term ‘atheist’. It is only a negation, he claims, affirming the non-affirmative. We would be better off with a positive definition, one that does not fall foe, or recognize anything to do with theism. His criticism is a common and pertinent one, but one that has led to the failure of other such terminological rebuttals. Professor Richard Dawkins’ proposal of naming secularists “Brights”, for instance, has all but fallen by the wayside. I predict that Zuckerman’s term will discover a similar path of embarrassed inconsequence.

Zuckerman mentions that religious denominations, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc., all provide a wealth of categorization in order for one to find, shall we say, the right match. Is this not, however, a systematic flaw in the fundamental workings of religious groupings? The sub-groups of sub-groups present throughout religious communities provide little more than the affirmation that religion is more divisive than welcoming and all-encompassing. I doubt that the author wished to mimic the religious communities, but by forming genres of non-belief we leave ourselves open to attack, and not only from without.

Unsatisfied by normal modes of secular categorization, Zuckerman wished to condense the finality of his self-analysis into a simple term. Perhaps “aweism” is appropriate for him, but he’ll be forced to explain and clarify his position (dare I say, beliefs) with inevitable regularity. He insists, however, that “awesim” is totally devoid of ‘spirituality’.

An awesit just feels awe from time to time, appreciates it, owns it, relishes it, and carries on – without any supernatural, cosmic, karmic, or otherworldly baggage.

You may feel inclined to sympathize with this deliberate, yet futile divorce, though I doubt you’ll come to label yourself an “aweist” any time soon.

The question, then, persists; how should we define ourselves? Reading this blog, it’s likely that we think in very similar ways. Should this method of thought define us? Perhaps. Or maybe we should not define ourselves at all.

Regular contributor, James Poulter once posed the question, somewhat off-handedly, of the fundamental principles to which we adhere. Put simply; what makes up the basis for secularism? I would suggest the following: logic, reason, and evidence. Might I raise a finger here and add irony? Without irony, humour, and the ability to self-questioning and self-doubt, life would be unbearable. (I was delighted to read this month’s cover of Free Inquiry, which proudly claimed: “Now FOUR MORE Pages!”)

It is important to remember and, it’s worth repeating, that the principles outlined above are not beliefs. They do not require justification of any kind, nor any faith. They are governing principles under which we should form opinion, evaluate scenarios, live. Note also that this means our opinions, our judgments, and our views are constantly susceptible to change. This is integral to secularism and the overarching detachment from religion that we procure. This is the foundation of our position. Without needing to alter our principles we can fluctuate and shift between estimations or opinions with ease. The ability to assess one’s argument against a counter-argument is central to progress and to winning the war against religion. Indeed, the religious are incapable of doing so to the same extent, as they are bound and ceaselessly limited to their scripture.

Recognizing the spiritual, as Tom Flynn has done, and refute it, as Phil Zuckerman suggests, leaves us to contend with the numinous, the magisterial, the magnificent, and the awesome: something that, I hope you’ll agree, is a rather attractive proposition. Furthermore, this refines our position. We uphold a basis of logic, reason, and evidence, and nothing more, as our defining principles, and we refuse to be categorized by them. Unlike the religious, we don’t need to gather together every week to remind ourselves of what we think. We just know.

Here and There

Besotted, as I am, with astronomer, poet, and philosopher, Omar Khayyam's Rubaiyat (simply translated as 'quatrains'), I cannot conceal my desire to post just one more, espousing the myth of the afterlife, and the futility in planning for one. Bare in mind that this was written well before the birth of Geoffrey Chaucer, at a time when Sufism and Mohammedan pervaded, occupied, and governed the lives and regions of Khayyam's contemporaries in Persia. I hope you'll agree that the inclusion of the first line very brilliantly attacks the basic teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, which can only make sense, morally and conecptually, if you believe the world to be coming to an end.

Alike for those who for TO-DAY prepare
And those that after a TO-MORROW stare,
A Muezzin from the Tower of Darkness cries,
"Fools! your Reward is neither Here nor There!"

In Subway Again

For my 400th post, something of no consequence. Once again, another genuine exchange in the Cleopatra of fast-food restaurants, Subway.

Robert: I'd like a foot long chicken Teriyaki on Italian bread, please.
Saboteur: Would you like that toasted today, sir?
R: Yes, please.
S: What kind of cheese?
R: Just American, thanks.
[Puts sandwich in oven. Silence for thirty seconds. Takes out sandwich]
S: Okay, and what else would you like on there, sir?
R: Err, just extra green peppers and extra onions, please.
[Lays peppers on sandwich]
S: And what else did you say, sir?
R: The, err, red onions.
[Spreads onions thinly]
S: Any sauces today?
R: Yes, please, sweet onion.
S: So where are you from?
[Saboteur splashes raspberry vinaigrette all over sandwich. Eye contact. Disdain]
R: [Pause] England.
S: Wow, the last time I asked someone that they said Australia. Anything else on there for you, sir?
R: No. [Pause] Thanks.

I grow lethargic with cynicism, and cynical with lethargy.

Rubaiyat

Capturing the impending doom and inevitable compromise of a surveillance state, I turn again to Omar Khayyam, with a comment on destiny, and a prelude to my 1984 post.

'Tis all a Checker-board of Nights and Days
Where Destiny with Men for Pieces plays:
Hither and Thither moves, and mates, and slays
And one by one back in the Closet lays.

Writing

Waking up and rereading my previous night's blog post yesterday was rather perturbing as I realised that I could hardly remember writing it at all. Late at night I seem to go into a creative reverie, whereas during the early hours of the day I'm much more reserved, much more contained. I also wrote an email, albeit rather long upon reflection, on the subject of global warming, drawing on what I've learnt behind the doors of my Natural Sciences class this semester. It was written in response to a similarly lengthy investigation into some of the contentions and conspiracies that, unfortunately, riddle the science from step-Dad and contributor, Clinton. I fancy I'll edit the exchange and post it up here tomorrow for all to see. Equally, as you may have suspected, I've finished my second reading of Orwell's 1984 and feel more than compelled to write a piece about certain aspects of the novel ('novel' seems like such a lazy term to categorize such a work of mastery). I'll do my best to do it justice so don't expect that post too soon.

Well Well, but better...

And do you think that unto such as you,
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew,
God gave the secret, and denied it me?
Well, well, what matters it! Believe that too.

~~ Omar Khayyam.