@Google Talks

Besides the inevitable, yet entertaining, comic videos posted on YouTube, such as this hillarious collection of people's reaction to "2 girls 1 cup" (a film I'm proud not to have watched), we've previously established the opposite end of the spectrum, where renditions of Beckett or readings of Pinter can be observed. Indeed, today I stumbled on this video of Christopher Hitchens at Google Talks. I was initially surprised not to have discovered this earlier, and for that matter, the other countless speakers they've presented on the web. It is over an hour in length, so get comfortable, but it's well worth your attention, as Hitchens is on fine form. As one for immeasurably knowledgeable discussion, and sharp wit, Hitchens delivers his spiel with aplomb. In the past I've watched Hitchens debate with Dinesh D'Souza, one of the more prolific and commendable pro-religious intellects (the author of a book, What's So Great About Christianity, that counters the atheists' argument), however, I sense that on that particular evening Hitchens was partially intoxicated and thus renderred slightly indifferent to the outcome. I've also watched him speak in Toronto where his fist shook with increasingly assured anger to fantastic effect. At Google Talks though, Hitchens finely addresses the balance between humour and timely seriousness, consequently enlightening his audience superbly.

Roll on the P.C. back-lash

Woolworths have pulled furniture branded under the name, 'Lolita', from their range, reacting to protests from web-friendly mothers who see the name as "sexually charged". Now, call me old-fashioned, but that's a bit rich coming from the same people who spread anti-birth control propaganda in the 60s and 70s. Those same mothers who preported to the ridiculous mewlings of Nancy Keenan when she said: "In a perfect world, no teenager would be having sex." Those feminists who targeted the recent RyanAir billboard, which can't be all bad seeing as broadcasters are still showing it. Those feminists who attacked WHSmith for stocking Playboy branded merchandise and stationary (at least they showed some welcome resillience and continued to stock the products). It's only a matter of time before overall public opinion quashes the collaborative efforts of stupid, uninformed, scolding, politically-correct individuals. Bring-on the backlash; the elastic band has stretched far enough.

Pratchett and Alzheimer's

Stem Cell research was at the forefront of Alzheimer's research until a few days ago. Apparently, stimulating a deep center of the brain can increase memory recall. This was, incredibly, discovered when surgeons accidentally misplaced a diode inside an obese man's brain (someone who wanted to lose wait by surgically reducing his appetite). This could come as good news to the magical Terry Pratchett, who has been recently diagnosed with the degenerative disease. Also, this snippet of news outlines an old fact we all care to forget once in a while: exercising increases the length of your life. Surely not.

Fuck you, MonkeySquirrel!

This sketch about the writers' strike negotiations from Simpsons collaborator, Seth MacFarlane, is both clever and hilarious - a winning combination in social satire. Keep hold of your sides...

Religion and Bush

Right at the end of this article on Bush's plea to congress we come across this overshadowed statement that sticks out like a sore thumb: "But he did not give up entirely, announcing a $300m programme to strengthen religious schools in poor neighbourhoods." By now we have firmly established my views on religion and children (an immoral combination), but this harks to another point that Christopher Hitchens is outspoken in criticising in Britain. Incidentally, the first act on the American Bill of Rights forbids state subsidy of any organised religion, something that we fundamentally counteract in Britain; the monarchy is, by definition, interrelated to the church, and the British government provides tax exemption for all places of worship. Ahh, but has the Bush administration wormed its way through a loophole yet again with this massive gesture of good-intent? Answers on a postcard. While I'm here, I'd like to offer my suggestion to a question posed by Richard Dawkins during his publicised conversation, The Four Horsemen. Dawkins asks, why is it that religious critics are viewed as strident and arrogant, often attacking the sensitivities of religious individuals? And why is it, he asks, that one can attack someone's preferred football team without fear of offending them, but as soon as we attack their religion, this transpires as directly insulting? What followed was an unsure response to a question with, what seems to me, an obvious answer: uncertainty. I support this with a simple thought experiment. Picture yourself with your closest, religious friend. If you were to tell him: your wife doesn't love you, you have wasted your life; he would stand slightly baffled but secure in the knowledge that, in fact, she does love him, and he hasn't wasted his life. However, if you were to tell him: god doesn't exist, you have wasted your life; it would irritate the very fabric of his being. Not because he has dedicated more time or effort to religion than to his wife, but because he is unsure of himself when it comes to the existence of god. This scenario can be seen in other, less complicated scenarios - if we know something to be true, we are unlikely to be offended or fazed when someone claims otherwise. Yet when we believe, or hold the opinion, that something is true, we are aggravated by those who don't share or views through intra-personal uncertainty. So, Mr Dawkins, there's your answer.

'Laura' by Vladimir Nabokov

Admittedly, I am not the most well-encompassed Nabokov reader, but I have read Lolita to, I'm almost disappointed to say, little effect. Perhaps I fall under the category of what Dmitri Nabokov (Vladimir Nabokov's son, now 73) calls a "Lolitologist", or a "misinterpreter". Either way, I feel wholly sympathetic to his current moral dilemma - posthumously appease his father's wish and burn the unfinished manuscript of his work, Laura, or agree to the impassioned appeals of the literary world and publish the work, going against the perfectionist methodology of his father. This case reminds me of Samual Beckett's wish not to have his unfinished play, Elutheria, performed. (The tide seems to be turning on this case however, as the text was published in 1995.) In both cases, the living relatives of the writer should be allowed ample time and dedication of thought, without the pressure of hungry academics, to come to a conclusion. What impassions them more, for example, should be at the forefront of their choice-making.

9/11 and Diana

British people look at the hysterical American reaction to 9/11 and frown somewhat condescendingly, but we only have to look back a few years to notice that we did exactly the same thing when Princess Diana died. As you may remember, I'm not in the least bit interested in the surrounding media palaver, but I am intrigued about the American reaction to a seemingly unconnected, insular tragedy. Dominic Dunne has written an article where he comments and analyses the events in Britain encumbering the Royal Family from an outsider's perspective. What annoyed me however, was the misinterpretation of off-hand conversation. He claims: "Ten years have gone by and people talk about the accident [Diana's car accident] casually. There are no longer hushed tones." Now, just because we've been desensitized dramatically to the once-relevant national tragedy through article upon article of procrastination and intrigue doesn't mean we were ever "hushed" or any less "casual". This event was never taboo to discuss, thanks to our ever-ruthless tabloid media. I feel this, and the ongoing reaction to 9/11, is a cultural difference lost in translation.

Markensen (Follow-up)

Well, its no wonder the good doctor Kermode has taken a shine to Mr Mortensen (here with here), but I'm sure I'm not the first to point this out.

Eastern Promises

This film is another Cronenberg masterpiece. As you know, I am not someone to use that word nonchalantly. We follow the drama, as it unfolds, from the position of an innocent maternity nurse (Naomi Watts) and the driver (Viggo Mortensen) of a Russian mafia cartel situated in London. As critics have already pointed out, this is the first film set in London where I don't recognise any of the set pieces. Mortensen is a fine actor as demonstrated in A History of Violence, which I commented on previously, and I can only echo the words of Mark Kermode: "Viggo Mortensen is the new Robert DeNiro". The film deals with themes of identity, vulnerability, the family unit, social construction, conflict, and (undeniably) homosexuality. It's a film I feel inclined to watch again for the subtle nuances that surmount the final scene. I strongly urge people to watch this film with concentrated interest.

Martin Amis 2

The Second Plane is Martin Amis' latest book. It's a collection of essays and short stories written in the wake of 9/11. We follow Amis' thought processes that achieve the conclusions outlined below. The book was appraised on Newsnight Review this week and received a big thumbs-up from two out of three armchair critics (the third was, in fact, a Muslim). I feel this is a book I should order immediately. And before I forget, my brain wasn't what it should be last night and I forgot to include Saturday (my favorite McEwan novel) in my examples of his religious criticism.