Interim

My beloved, Holly and I are to be reunited within a matter of minutes, dear reader, and, as you can imagine, I'm rather excited considering it has now been over two months since I trod on the motherland. Telephone calls can only get you so far, and that medium has long been exhausted. Unfortunately, this does rather, dare I say, consume my time, so don't expect a flurry of posts in the next few days. I shall be triumphant, however, and I shall not neglect passing this on.

Lyric Challenge #1

From where did I take the following? One and a half points for the first correct answer.

Why must I be the thief?
He asked of the hanging man,
And how come you're the only one
Who gives with an open hand?
Why must I be the thief?
You curse and they cry,
And behind my head
Where they smile
And look beyond the stars,
And the thief will crawl across
To share in that other's fate
But the Jesus man says,
"Not now, my brother, not now.
It's far too late."

Stewart Lee

For my birthday this year, back in July, my beloved bought me tickets to see a certain Mr Stewart Lee perform a warm-up show for his stint at the Edinburgh Fringe. Needless to say, it was absolutely terrific. Any right-thinking fan of comedy is fully aware that Lee is the best comic working today, and by a long way. His influence on me reaches far beyond making me laugh, however. Whenever I'm asked to speak or present, I'm constantly aware of his turn of phrase, and regularly catch myself repeating back sections of his show, particularly if I want to keep an audience entertained. His level of restraint, subtlety, subversion, timing, and enough irony to shake a stick at, is far beyond the realms of the cleverest mainstream comedians we see on our screens. When he returned to comedy after a six-year hiatus in 2004, he opened his set with the sentence, "So, on September 11th 2001...", which got the biggest laugh of the night. Similarly, he's been no stranger to controversy over the brief years since then. Following the religious reprisals of co-directing Jerry Springer: The Opera, Lee embarked on a stand-up tour that concluded with a thirty minute routine about Jesus, reaching its denouement with the line, "So, I vomited into the gaping anus of Christ". During his new show, which I was fortunate to catch a preliminary glimpse of, he rails against Richard Hammond, the cheeky co-presenter of Top Gear. "I wish he'd died", he repeats. Well, he goes further, as the Daily Mail cared to transcribe for us (somewhat missing the humour):

I wish he had died in that crash, and that he had been decapitated, and that his head had rolled off in front of his wife, and that a jagged piece of metal debris from the car had got stuck in his eye, and blinded him. And then his head had rolled on a few more yards into a pool of boiling oil, and that his head had retained just enough neural capacity for him to be able to think, “ooh, this is bit hot", before the whole thing exploded into tiny pieces. [...] I wish Richard Hammond had died and I wish he had been decapitated. Of course, it’s a joke. But, coincidentally, it’s also what I believe.

My dear reader may find it hard to believe, but this is rather tame in comparison to his tirade against religion from his 2006 show. I'll leave that for you to discover for yourselves if you haven't already. A commenter on the Daily Mail website said Lee must be "scraping the barrel for material", whereas a reviewer for The Guardian said "the tension between precision and disgust is tantalising. But beyond the disgust is a bruised idealism". The above photo is from my birthday celebrations, capturing your's truly with the elusive Thom. I think you can tell which side of the fence we accommodate.

Baboon

In his regular column for the Sunday Times, AA Gill writes the following about an incident on Safari with a Baboon:

Just a little one. I can handle it; I’ll be a recreational primate killer. [...] So there was this big bloke leaning against a rock, picking his fingernails, a hairy geezer sitting in the sun with his shirt off. I took him just below the armpit. He slumped and slid sideways. I’m told they can be tricky to shoot: they run up trees, hang on for grim life. They die hard, baboons. But not this one. A soft-nosed .357 blew his lungs out.

He goes on and finishes his piece with the qualification, "I wanted to get a sense of what it might be like to kill someone". Now, it takes something quite special in print to make me laugh and dribble my morning cup of tea over my keyboard, but this was just the ticket. I gather there's a controversy brewing about his open heartlessness, but who cares? In a way, he's like a modern Raskolnikov in his furious attempt to reconcile his emotions for an anthropomorphised baboon. Brilliant.

Boys on the Baize

Congratulations must go to Neil Robertson for a stand-out performance at this year's British Grand Prix. His match against John Higgins in the semi-final, achieving its denouement on a doubled black in the deciding frame, was particularly special. I can only imagine the pressure those two contenders faced as they stepped out towards the baize for one last time, enveloping the emotions and tribulations of nine days worth of competition in one short evening of snooker. The players' hotel has long since emptied of competitors down and out. The corridors of the venue are bare, save for a few cameramen. It's a very lonely sport at times, one in which you're not even guaranteed an equal shot at victory, constantly struggling to arrest table time away from your opponent. It was sad to see Ronnie go out early on, but at least he did so in style against Higgins. Likewise, Mark Williams was my pick of the bunch - with his buck legs, lazy pull back and extended bridge, he's a favorite. His face seems to disappear as it slopes down towards his chin, as if it was purposefully designed to allow him to get his eyeline as close as possible to the cue. Anyway, condolences to Ding, who carries the weight of 100 million fans on his shoulders, but a rapturous round of applause for Mr Neil Robertson. I loved it.

Join the Fun

I've been humming and harring about posting re: Nick Griffin on Question Time. As I've noted here before, QT has abandoned any political lucidity and has all-but descended into a popularity contest. Who can make the cheapest point? Who can garner the most applause? It's sad really, coz poor old Dimblebee does his best, bless him. The anti-fascist protest that led up to, and continued during the broadcast, attacking the BBC's decision moreso than the personality of Griffin (Griffindor or Slytherin?), was absolutely moronic. One can sort of understand why providing a public platform or a megaphone for a fascist organisation is a questionable undertaking, but in the interests of free speech, freedom of expression, balance, and proportional representation, any independently-minded broadcaster would feel compelled to let them have a go, even if they're going to be booed, heckled, and shot down at every junction. These demonstrators have no idea of the damage they inflict upon the very ideologies they espouse. It's this kind of cameo liberalism that gives itself a bad name. You, like me, probably run kicking and screaming from the label, liberal, and who could blame us? A similar episode took place two years ago when Griffin was invited to debate David Irving at the Oxford Union. Irving denies the extent of the Holocaust. He denies Hitler was aware of much of the Holocaust, and he holds the allied forces accountable for the number of dead and dying in concentration camps at the end of the War. Protesters gathered at the time, accompanied by none other than George Galloway, to demonstrate against that debate, and they stormed the room half way through to stage a sit-in. They all make a fatal error. As if we, the public, are unable to defend ourselves against persuasion, or unable to form our own opinions or evaluate evidence. To call these protests a matter of elitism is not, I think, a stretch.

The Cliches of Snooker Commentary - UPDATED

Your suggestions welcome. An ongoing list courtesy of the master, John Virgo:

• Where's the next red coming from?
• Tied up.
• Tied down.
• Pulled up short.
• Missable.
• Whiped its feet.
• Frame-winner.
• He's got the cue ball on a string.
• Given himself a bit to do.
• Get his hand on the table.
• Tough school, this.
• Where's the cue ball going?
• Not sure what he payed for there.
• In all my years of snooker - as a player, and as a commentator - I've never seen a shot like that.

Wiki-Sutra

It goes without saying nowadays that user-generated sex positions are the future. Here's an immediate contribution from Vanity Fair:

Do You Believe In God?

Seeing as Thom asked so politely and eloquently, here is the essay, entitled, 'Does God Exist?', that I wrote for my class on the philosophy of religion. It's rather brief and aggressive, and you may notice a couple of occasions where I paraphrase Hitchens. I couldn't help it.

In my experience, to ask someone who believes in God what exactly they mean by ‘God’ is to hear of a concept, a notion, or an entity that one had not previously entertained. Indeed, because the principles and bases underlying the potential for God’s existence are so dynamic, one individual’s perception of God is regularly removed from another’s, not to mention one’s own. This quality, as I have described, lends the potential for God’s existence its great strength, but also its great weakness.

Personally, I am almost sure that God does not exist. Regardless of the garb with which I could dress the notion of God; as the metaphysical embodiment of the laws of the universe, for example, I cannot bring myself to concede that such an embodiment should, or may even exist. This assessment is based upon three fundamental principles that underpin my thought processes, and have done for some time. These principles are logic, reason, and, simply, evidence. It is through this last principle that all of my beliefs, opinions, and perspectives must pass before I feel wholly comfortable expressing them.

My prolonged struggle and regular forays with science have demonstrated to me that no convincing evidence for God’s existence has been, or could be established. Of course, science can rarely, if at all, confirm a theory, but it is certainly effective at disproving a theory. The universe, as it is documented and observed, need not rely upon the assumption that it is controlled, or was set in motion by a divine creator. Needless to say, it works perfectly well without this hypothesis.

As I have come to terms with this question, for it is an extremely important question, I have surmised that which may appear obvious, but is, nevertheless, worth addressing. Although I do not believe in God, I accept that this is a belief, and, though I wish to distance myself as far from the faith position as possible, I cannot conclude with acceptable finality that God does not exist. However, this is not symptomatic of some form of doubt; rather, this is, almost by definition, true for everyone. In this sense, we are all agnostics, because we cannot possibly know whether God exists.

Further to my reasoning and processing of evidence, I have grown suspicious of organized religion in all of its forms. I concede that I am, technically agnostic, but this is only true for the conflict between deism and, shall we say, a-deism. I have, therefore, an inherent sympathy for the deist position because I consider it a position that is very difficult to contest successfully. However, to transcend the gap that spans between the deist position and the theist position is something that I have no sympathy for. For me, this presents an irreconcilable non-sequitur. To claim, as the adherents to one of the three primary monotheisms do, that not only does God exist, but also that they know the will of God, is wholly and outrageously fatuous. In other words, they claim to know God’s intentions, motives, preferences, and plans, along with a host of information that is impossible, in the strictest sense, to know.

Further to this assertion, I am personally glad that no historical or scientific evidence has arisen that would infer the existence of God. For me, the very notion of a divine creator, an entity that made me, has dominion over me, knows my thoughts, along with my actions, and has a plan for me even after my death, represents the perfect encapsulation of a totalitarian nightmare. Again, the fact that I cannot reconcile the evidence with the suggestion of a divine creator is the source of tremendous personal comfort. And so, if I were to define myself based on these premises, I am an anti-theist.

Here, I note that the prompt for this piece contained the requirement that God be defined as “an all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly good being”. I hope that my above paragraphs go some way towards explaining why I consider this premise rather shaky. Indeed, this definition leans heavily on the side of theism, and my overarching beliefs are divorced from the description that is given; I wish mainly to express my position as an agnostic anti-theist without addressing the nomenclature of the Judeo-Christian God.

Finally, I conclude with an oft repeated question, though it is one that I have never heard satisfactorily answered. If we are to believe that God exists as an all-knowing creator, who, then, created the creator? We are posed with an infinite regress. I do not accept the response that this is beyond the realms of Human understanding. Of course, in applying our understanding to this question we, once again, inspect the great, yet fragile dynamism of the notion of God.

A little bit more of Fry and Hitchens

From what I can recall this is only the second time that Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry have come together in public to discuss the matter of religion. Yesterday, they teamed up against Ann Widdecombe and Bishop Onaiyekan (of Abuja, Nigeria) to argue against the motion, "The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world". Unlike their discussion at Hay Festival in 2005, this debate centered on Christianity, demanding they focus their efforts. Seeing as this was a formal debate, conducted under proper auspices, here are the numbers:

Before the debate:
For - 678
Against - 1102
Don't Know - 346

After the debate:
For - 268
Against - 1876
Don't Know - 34

Well, what did you expect would happen? For all intents and purposes, that constitutes a rout. As someone remarked over at Richard Dawkins' website, "that's what they get for showing up to an artillery duel with water pistols". Apparently, the exchange is to be broadcast on BBC World on 7th and 8th November. Not one to miss, I imagine. There were even reports of Derren Brown in the audience. Fancy that.

god an' that

The blog is spluttering away like an infant but I'm currently tied down writing a lengthy philosophy essay discussing what I consider to be the best contemporary argument for god's existence. The prompt does seem rather pointed upon reflection. (Why not ask what the worst argument is and why?) In consummate style and poise that comes only from years of repeated adventures under the cosh, the essay is due tomorrow and I have barely begun. I don't quite know why I'm bothering; my first essay for the class, entitled "Does God Exist?" received a 'B', or, in American-speak, 8 out of 10. The grading was pretty inexplicable, which I'm sure you'll have already presumed. At the time I was quite tempted to post the essay, indicating the points where the instructor made a mark or a comment and refuting them. Perhaps I should have done this with him personally at the time, but I was too insulted to approach him. Nevertheless, here is the first paragraph of that essay. Just ask for more if you're so inclined.

In my experience, to ask someone who believes in God what exactly they mean by ‘God’ is to hear of a concept, a notion, or an entity that one had not previously entertained. Indeed, because the principles and bases underlying the potential for God’s existence are so dynamic, one individual’s perception of God is regularly removed from another’s, not to mention one’s own. This quality, as I have described, lends the potential for God’s existence its great strength, but also its great weakness.

New Depths from the GOP

Anyone good with Photoshop want to knock together a George Bush banner with a swastika for the S?
Well, admittedly, this is pretty funny.

Thereon

Is her last sentence a stretch? Discuss.

The Golden Suicides

Connoisseur of kitsch, and the most talented writer of our times, Bret Easton Ellis is writing a screenplay with Gus van Sant, the helmsman of 2008's Milk, tentatively titled, 'The Golden Suicides' or 'The East Village Suicides'. It's based on the dual suicide of the inseparable couple, Theresa Duncan and Jeremy Blake, which was masterfully transcribed to print by Nancy Jo Sales for Vanity Fair's January 2008 publication. Bizarrely, the article is currently the magazine's most popular article online. I recall reading the article when it was published nearly two years ago. Normally, I'm not one to enjoy personality prose or the public veneration of a private tragedy, but something about this story resonates rather poignantly with me and, it would appear, with many others. Sales calls it "a kind of modern Romeo and Juliet story", but that's somewhat modest. She's accurate, however, in labelling Ellis "a great chronicler of the modern macabre", so we're left with our appetites well and truly wetted. First, do yourself a favor; print the article and read it during your favorite hour of the day.

Hassle the Hoff

Yesterday, during Arizona's definitive victory over testicle-suckers anonymous, Stansbury, I met David Hasselhoff. He was doing nothing in particular, except slurring his way through the National Anthem. I remember the time he went over to the UK a couple of years ago for a brief publicity visit and remade a name for himself, leching around television presenters and grooming hipster teenagers in London clubs. One has to admire his commitment to the figure of college clown. What a tool.

Hitchens In Oz

I pass these on for what they're worth. Illuminating that speeches and debates of this sort are becoming somewhat popular as spectacles in themselves. The Ancient Greeks would be green with envy. Hitchens is on particularly fine form, humorous and enlightening.

. Interview for QTV - video from Radio Broadcast.
. Australian Q&A Panel Show (similar to Britain's Question Time).
. Keynote speech and interview at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas.

In case you were wondering...

I set you free.

Slowly we unfold
As Lotus flowers,
And all I want is
The moon upon a stick,
Just to see what is.
Just to see what is.

Comma

I can't help it. Michael Yon knows what he's talking about. Read.