Just Finished Reading: Choice of the Cat by E. E. Knight

The Year is 2067. It is now 45 years since the Kurian invasion of Earth. Lieutenant David Valentine is steadily making a name for himself as an officer in the army of the Ozark Free Territory but that all comes to a sudden end when he is left in charge of a hill fort under attack. Leaving against orders he manages to save only remnants of his command against overwhelming odds. Threatened with Court Martial he resigns his commission and joins the covert surveillance organisation known as the Cats. Infiltrating the Kurian Zone with the help of the enigmatic Smoke he discovers that the alien Kurians have developed a new weapon. Breeding half alien - half human hybrids they have produced soldiers with the strengths of both and the weaknesses of neither. The force is still assembling and Valentine determines to stop them before they become fully effective both to save his people and his reputation.

This was the second in Knight's Vampire Earth series (the first being Way of the Wolf) and continues the adventures of David Valentine as he begins to fight an alien invasion that happened years before he was born. This is very solid writing indeed with good characterisation and a wholly believable world in which they live out their lives. Told with measured assurance this is honestly a cracking adventure series full of tension, action and fear. Although we are two books in we have yet to ‘meet’ a single Kurian who are secretive in the extreme. I do hope that when it eventually happens I won’t be disappointed but from the quality of the writing so far I don’t think that I will. These books are a nice addition to vampire fiction (as well as to the Combat SF genre) and I can recommend them to anyone who loves to lose themselves in a great adventure novel. Whilst not exactly high literature or a life changing experience this series is proving to be highly entertaining. I’m looking forward to the next book – and the one after that.

Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.

Not a bad start. Not bad at all......

Face to faith

All faiths must accept pluralism if we are to defuse strife caused in the name of religion, says Jay Lakhani for The Guardian

Saturday November 3, 2007

Not long ago, interfaith dialogue in this country was based on the idea of "tolerating" other religions. This was clearly a derogatory attitude, suggesting that other religions had to be given permission to exist. The dialogue has since moved on and is now framed in terms of "respecting" other religions. This may appear to be a more mature approach suited to the needs of a multi-faith society, but in reality this terminology is a camouflage, shielding an exclusivist, non-negotiable agenda of the Abrahamic faiths. A sarcastic interpretation of the idea of "respecting" other religions is: I know that my faith alone is right and the others are in error, but I will not make a fuss about it. While this may reduce the chances of open confrontation between people of different faiths, it is hardly a prescription for community cohesion. Recently Pope Benedict declined to participate in a joint prayer meeting with people of other faiths because that might have given the impression that the Catholic church considered all religious traditions equally valid. This can be interpreted as "Catholicism alone is right; the rest of the religions are in error".

One of the greatest challenges we face this century is how to defuse strife caused by people in the name of religion. Continuing to shield exclusivist agendas is no way forward. The solution lies in an innocuous-sounding word: pluralism. In a nutshell this is an acceptance that there can be many pathways for making spiritual progress. It can be made in a theistic mode, a non-theistic mode, and even in a non-religious mode. We are all different and this difference shows up in the way we relate to ideas of spirituality. Down the centuries, different prophets have promoted different pathways for spiritual progress, tailored to suit the needs of the society they inhabited. Over time these teachings ossified as various religions. Every religion can be seen as a particular pathway promoted to suit the needs of the time. The destination they promise may be glorified as absolute, but the pathways can certainly not be absolute. They are always relative because they have to relate to us.

Every religion is entitled to make claims about its pathway and promote it to its adherents, but when it attempts to impose its pathway on people of other faiths or no faith, a religion can turn into an explosive device. One would think that mature theologians would recognise the seriousness of the situation and be happy to affirm that there can be many pathways for spiritual progress, their religion being just one of them. But my experience suggests otherwise. In the view of those theologians who are committed to exclusivist claims, God has been well and truly encapsulated within their system of doctrines and dogmas, so how can He escape and make an appearance in another religion? But if any system, however esoteric, captures God within its framework then by definition that system has superseded God. So a God easily confined by a religious system is hardly worth bothering with. The exclusivists also see pluralism as amounting to relativism - a dirty word to them because it suggests there is no absolute truth, hence anything goes. But pluralism does not suggest that; it simply states that there will be a diversity of prescriptions adopted by different groups as they reflect different starting points, but crucially these prescriptions are binding in each case. This is not relativism.

If there are no absolutes in religious teachings then pluralism too cannot be an absolute injunction. But pluralism has never claimed absolute status. It is simply an instrument to address a need: how can people of different religions coexist without thumping each other? One casualty of pluralism would be the proselytising agendas of missionary religions. I suspect this is the real reason why there is such resistance to this simple but potent concept - and that it is not spiritual but monetary considerations that prevent pluralism from being allowed to address the needs of a pluralistic society.

[Sounds like a plan to me. Of course if all religions are an equally valid way of finding a path to God doesn’t it also mean that none of them are – in the same way that where everyone is ‘special’ no one is? Will it also mean that all religions will have to admit that they are equally in error as well as equally right? Never going to work is it?]

Cartoon Time.
This is doubly funny as we're studying Plato at the moment. I wonder what my tutor would think if I brought in some Play-Dough?

SF Art.

My Favourite Movies: The Last of the Mohicans

I saw this film many years ago (back in ’92 when it came out) and loved it instantly. The opening scene of the misty mountains and the outstanding soundtrack totally entranced me in the first few moments. I settled down in my seat and lost myself in the film. At the end of the movie I walked out of the cinema with a deep smile on my face. This is what cinema was made for.

Set at the time of the Anglo-French conflict in the New World and told through the experiences of the adopted Hawkeye (played superbly by Daniel Day-Lewis) this historic epic pushed all the right buttons. It was an action adventure film in time of war, it was a tale of revenge and it was a love story. I loved the setting and the effort taken to make it apparently historically accurate. I loved the character of Hawkeye and his masterful use of the flintlock rifle. I loved the costumes and the cultural details of the Native Americans. I just loved the movie – and, not incidentally, fell in love with Madeleine Stowe too. As soon as she picked up a pistol after her military escort had been ambushed I knew she was the woman for me (it always annoys me how characters don’t pick up fallen weapons in danger zones).

My favourite scene in the whole movie was after the fort had been taken by the French and the British army was allowed to leave. Ambushed by a large Mohawk contingent Stowe (and sister) where about to be killed when Daniel Day-Lewis springs into action running across a field strewn with fighting men in order to save her. Even though I’ve seen this film a fair few times now it still makes my palms sweat and my heart race. But then I guess I’m just an old romantic.

Anyway – it’s a great film and if you haven’t seen it you’re missing a treat. Go get some popcorn and some ice-cream and unhook the phone for a few hours. No matter what is going on in your life this film will make you feel better. Enjoy.

Cartoon Time.

Picture Time.

Cozy.....

Death and Foxholes and Atheists, Oh My!

By David Gleeson

August 21, 2006

“There are no atheists in foxholes.”

For the first 35 of my 40 years of life, I had never once heard this saying. I must have been living on Mars. Now I can't seem to go a week without hearing some arrogant talk-show host or holier-than-thou preacher glibly using it in an attempt to ridicule and demean rational thinkers. I must admit that when I first heard it, I was perplexed. I guess I don’t have an ear for fundamentalist double-speak. I later learned that it’s basically a cute way of saying, “You may not believe in God today, but someday you will. Oh, and (wink, wink) by then it will be too late.” Apart from the implicit threat of Hell and eternal damnation that’s present in many of these fundamentalist credos, this one contains a strange and obvious admission of one of theism’s most glaring sources of embarrassment: the direct correlation between faith and fear, between the promise of a comforting afterlife and the harsh reality of this life, between belief in God and ignorance of the natural world.

Here is a perfectly acceptable translation of this ridiculous little homily: “You can’t be an atheist forever. One day, at a moment of extreme personal anguish or loss of self-control, when you are stressed or scared, cowering in fear of the unknown or of impending death, then you will turn to God. You will seek out His comfort, you will use Him as a crutch to get you through. His loving mercy will be like a warm blanket wrapped around your shivering body.” Well, well … humans seek comfort in stressful situations. There’s a shocker. Atheists, I think, have a better-than-average understanding of this type of human fallibility. It is, in fact, one of the primary reasons we reject human inventions, particularly those that seek to assuage the fear of death or the unknown. It is therefore quite perplexing to me when one of the primary arguments against the existence of God is turned around and used, unwittingly, by a devout theist in an attempt to ridicule atheism. But this is exactly what these poor misguided fools are doing. It’s as clear as if they’d rented a loud speaker and pulpit and plopped down in the middle of Central Park shouting, “Religion is for the stressed and weak-minded! God is real only to those who are cowering in fear!” Somehow, I doubt this is the message they want to be sending, and yet they send it over and over and over again.

So the popularity of this little saying among the devoutly religious strikes me as a bit curious. And let's be honest: even if all atheists renounced their atheism upon their deathbeds or at the deathbeds of loved ones (ludicrous, of course, but let’s go with the flow for a moment), what does that prove other than the obvious point that these people were human? Faced with unimaginable anguish or adversity, a human being sought comfort in a fairy tale. Understandable? Of course. Healthy? Perhaps. Proof of God’s existence? Um, no. As a matter of fact, it goes a long way to proving exactly the opposite: God exists only in the minds of frightened and fallible human beings. So whenever anyone, with an air of glib superiority, makes absurd generalizations about the unwillingness of free-thinkers to take up residence in man-made dirt ditches, I politely tell them, first, that they are just plain wrong; and second, even if they believe they are right, the analogy is so thoroughly counterproductive to their cause that it might behoove them to pick a better one. I’m pretty sure the devoutly religious have better things to do than lay bare, for all the world to see, one of the most convincing arguments for atheism.

[I’ve heard the expression about atheists and foxholes more than once and this article is the best rebuttal to it I’ve seen so far. As it points out, Christians seem to be saying that even rational people will turn to God – when they are in fear of their very lives! In other words that faith – or at least conversion to the faith - is based on naked fear. What a great basis for a religion. I have even heard it said that some people need to be humbled before they come to God – in other words something really bad needs to happen to you before you give up your convictions and turn in hope to something you previously thought to be a fantasy. Is this really what Christians want to get across to us unbelieving lot? Do they honestly think that arguments like this cut any ice with us – I mean any ice at all? Fear is the mind-killer and it seems that the religious amongst us want to encourage just that attribute in other to fill their congregations. It speaks volumes.]

Just Finished Reading: Different Engines – How Science drives Fiction and Fiction drives Science by (Professor) Mark L Brake and (Reverend) Neil Hook

I stumbled across this book whilst browsing through Amazon and it looked interesting enough to buy – which I obviously did. Only later did I read a review that was less than complimentary. So it was with some trepidation that I dived into this history of how progress in science gave rise to Science Fiction and how SF returned the compliment by influencing the direction of science.

Bursting with interesting facts this book actually turned out to be rather good – despite the bad review. Running from the mid-seventeenth century almost to the present day this was a very readable overview of just about every highlight in SF placed within its scientific and cultural context. From the obvious link with the space shuttle Enterprise to the lesser known facts of early astronomers penning science fiction to by-pass Church censorship, the authors remind us of the pervasive influence of this so-called marginalised literary genre on the world today. Science fiction is often portrayed as the fiction of the future – and as often derided as such – but as the authors repeatedly point out SF is the fiction of the present and a clear reaction to the pace of change we all experience. Only SF deals with this area and, arguably, helps people come to terms with the often confusing world in which we find ourselves.

Regulars will no doubt have noticed my passion for Science-Fiction and if you read this book you’ll understand where that passion comes from. An entertaining and illuminating read.

Cartoon Time.

Poster Time.

My Favourite TV: The Man from U.N.C.L.E

Like most great TV from our past this show did not age well. Running from 1964-1968 for a total of 105 episodes this rather camp and self-knowing spy drama thrilled me throughout my formative years (actually seeing the transmission dates I can’t help wondering if I watched the re-runs).

The reason I was reminded of this not so great show (despite its favourite status) was the fact that I had the movie DVD box set bought for me this Christmas. On a weekly basis I dutifully watched 5 Man from U.N.C.L.E films. I must admit that they were almost uniformly bad. I don’t mean questionable… I mean really bad. The scripts were laughable, the acting universally poor and the effects often downright embarrassing. Yet I loved this show so much! I’m not sure whether it shows how much my taste has matured or just how undiscerning I was as a child. For several years I really wanted to be either Napoleon Solo or more often Illya Kuryakin (as I was blonde back then) – and that was before I noticed girls much so couldn't have been entranced by that aspect. If only life were that simple [laughs].

Anyway, that’s one of my more embarrassing TV secrets. Though I’m not entirely sure if it’s my worst…..

Cartoon Time.

Do I exist?

On the face of it this seems a particularly silly question to ask. After all if I didn’t exist then how can I possibly question my own existence? The answer is surely obvious.

Or not. I think that the question posed is actually two questions. They are: Do *I* exist and the rather different Do I *exist*… You see the difference in emphasis I hope.

Taking the first question of whether *I* exist revolves around the question of is there an *I* a unique thing that is me that exists throughout time. It could be argued that the *I* of my youth is not the *I* of today. My physical appearance has most certainly changed a great deal since I was, say, 5 years old. I imagine that just about every atom in my body is different today than it was way back then. So even on the atomic level I am not the same person. This goes the same for the structure of my brain. My brain today is vastly different from that of the child that I was. My brain structure is also linked in a very deep way to the ‘structure’ of my mind. I have experienced much and learnt much in the years since I was 5 so again the question must be raised: Am I the same *I* that I was decades ago? In many real senses the answer must be No. Yet in another very real sense it certainly feels like I am the same person I was so long ago.

For one thing I have memories going back into my childhood. Is the *I* then a collection of memories that have a link through time. Am *I* the product of those memories? Of course the problem with this line of reasoning is that memory is notoriously fallible. If I forget important parts of my life through injury or simple old age does that mean that I am no longer *I*? What about false memories or hypnotic states or drugs that can add false information into the mass that makes up what is regarded as the essential *I*? Where does that leave my identity?

It is arguable that what I think of as *I* is being created millisecond by millisecond by my brain but is essentially an illusion. Maybe in order to function the *I* has been created by evolution in the brain/mind in order that I can act as a purposeful agent. Maybe those early humans born without an essential *I* found it difficult or impossible to cope with the many conflicting demands of their environment and so perished before they could pass on their failings to future generations? Maybe the *I* is being generated by the mind as just a way of managing a complex brain system.

The second question is whether I *exist* or not. It is possible though not necessarily plausible that we live inside an advanced computer simulation and are just fairly complex pieces of computer code. If we were written in a sophisticated enough manner we would never be able to discover this. In a very real sense, if true, it would mean that our entire existence is a fraud and that, again in a very real sense, we did not actually ‘exist’ in the sense that we would have no real presence. Another possibility is that I might be a machine programmed to believe that I was a ‘real person’. There would be no way to verify this by thinking about it because my ‘thoughts’ would have been programmed either to be incapable to conceiving of such a possibility or to come to the conclusion that I was mistaken. I could attempt to damage my body physically in order to expose the fraud but I could have been manufactured in a sophisticated enough manner to appear to bleed (or feel pain) or simply ‘experience’ the sensations without any of them actually occurring. In other words there would be no way of independently verifying my ‘real’ existence.

So, if I cannot prove absolutely that I exist where does that leave me? I think that the only rational position is to assume that I exist until proven otherwise. My experiences, questionable though they are, seem to support my existence in both of the senses I’ve been discussing. There is also nothing to suggest that I don’t actually exist despite the sceptical arguments already outlined. So, for the moment at least, I shall carry on as if I do indeed exist – even if it’s for the entertainment of a player in a computer game or for scientific knowledge during a simulation. What else can I do?

Just Finished Reading: Permutation City by Greg Egan

In the world of 2050 death has lost its final dominion. For a fee a person’s brain can be scanned and the mind uploaded into Cyberspace there to live forever. But such technological wizardry comes at a price and not just a financial one. Despite advances in computing power the resources needed to ‘run’ the Copy personalities is huge. Competing with them is a new global weather control system which periodically uses all of the worlds computing power. Afraid that they could be legally ‘deleted’ a group of virtual billionaires finance a scheme to produce a whole new universe specifically designed for them to live out their lives for all eternity. But when reality is controllable it’s always best to make sure who exactly is in control.

This was my first Egan book and I was totally blown away by it. It was just packed with so much inventive plotting and ideas that sometimes it was all I could do to keep up – indeed on a few occasions he lost me and I just had to go along for the ride until I got my bearings again. Bringing in such concepts as personal identity, the nature of reality, artificial life and the ethics surrounding death this book is a powerful reminder that in the future anything, and I do mean anything, might very well be possible. The problem we’re going to have is just how to deal with the moral, philosophical and practical aspects of our ever growing technological prowess. Parts of this book really had my brain working overtime with ideas of what actually is real and how that we can tell even who we are. It was a delicious way to spend a train journey or a lunch break at work – despite the funny looks I got when I laughed out loud at the authors amazing audacity. If you like having your mind expanded in the best possible way I can heartily recommend this to you. But be warned: this book will fuck with your head and you may never see things quite the same again. Excellent.

I Say "Atheist," for Several Good Reasons

By Bobbie Kirkhart

HumanistNetworkNews.org

Aug. 22, 2007

I’m a humanist, sure. Who in the freethought community isn't? Okay, a few curmudgeons, but humanism, to give a simple definition, means that we have human values, not divine ones. It only makes sense. And I’m not lackadaisical about my humanism. I'm proud to be a life member of the American Humanist Association and a board member of the Institute for Humanist Studies, which publishes this e-zine. I work hard for freethought, and much of that is with humanist groups.

But when people ask about my philosophy, I rarely say "humanist;" I say "atheist" for several good reasons. First, there is the obvious: The word "humanist" is usually misunderstood. The Los Angeles Times once printed an article saluting Pope John Paul as a humanist.

People know what an atheist is. They may think we have some illogical certainty, as last week’s guest columnist in Humanist Network News opined that a strong atheist says, "I do not know, or care, what your concept of God is, I hold it to be false." Others think we are intolerant of all religion, as some of us are. So are some humanists.

It is mostly people in the religious community who think that we have absolutely no morality. In spite of all these silly misconceptions and propaganda, almost everyone does know that we somehow manage to live our lives without a god belief, and when they see us living, laughing and loving as open atheists, they will likely be disabused of the fictions about us. In countries where god-belief is causing great damage, as it is in the U.S., we must model a life fulfilled without faith.

Many humanists point out that the word atheist does not suggest any particular morality. Of course, they are right. I think most atheists are, as I am, positive atheists, who hold the same values that humanists claim, although the rationale is different. The humanist says that being pacifist, egalitarian and benevolent is morally right. The positive atheist says that these values are natural, and we deviate from them as a reaction to oppression, including the oppression of religion. I prefer to emphasize that right is natural, noting that these two ideas are mutually reinforcing, and refuting those destructive religious concepts that define humans as innately "sinful."

Possibly my upbringing in the Bible Belt has influenced my thinking. I have heard many people boast "I'm a Christian," claiming that this identification bestows on them a halo of righteousness not shared by those of us whose beliefs are different from theirs. I see the same religious zeal in humanists who disparage us atheists. While this is a minority in the community, it is not as rare as it should be. It takes all kinds, of course, and some atheists do criticize humanists as being "wimpy" in their nonbelief. I have never, however, heard this from the speaker at an atheist meeting nor read an article in an atheist publication telling readers they should avoid the term. I've heard humanist leaders use the power of the podium to tell me I should not use the term atheist, not only in humanist meetings, but also in atheist meetings. This goes well beyond a philosophical difference; it reflects the religious idea that some words are taboo.

Those who attack us often claim that they are simply concerned about the baggage that comes with the word atheist. Indeed, there is baggage, and by silencing some and making others more confrontational, it damages our movement, both atheist and humanist. When our fellow freethinkers show the same prejudices, they reinforce society's bigotry. I have no quarrel with the many good people who attribute their ethics to a humanist philosophy. The variety in American Christianity is a major reason this country has so many Christians, and we would do well to emulate that in the community of reason. I think we can and should to do this without also mimicking the intolerance of their certainty that they have found the one way.

[Thoughts?]

Cartoon Time.

SF Art.

Seneca Quotes (5 BC - 65 AD)

Be silent as to services you have rendered, but speak of favours you have received.

Consult your friend on all things, especially on those which respect yourself. His counsel may then be useful where your own self-love might impair your judgment.

Dangerous is wrath concealed. Hatred proclaimed doth lose its chance of wreaking vengeance.

Desultory reading is delightful, but to be beneficial, our reading must be carefully directed.

Difficulties strengthen the mind, as labour does the body.

He will live ill who does not know how to die well.

I do not distinguish by the eye, but by the mind, which is the proper judge.

If a man does not know to what port he is steering, no wind is favourable to him.

It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity.

It is easier to exclude harmful passions than to rule them, and to deny them admittance than to control them after they have been admitted.

It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare; it is because we do not dare that they are difficult.

It is pleasant at times to play the madman.

It is rash to condemn where you are ignorant.

Cartoon Time.

Why I have Never Lost my Faith in God.

Over the past year or so I have been reading and commenting on Blogs by people who, through one reason or another, have lost their faith in God and have become Atheists. I have read of their painful exit from their earlier beliefs and of their struggle to come to terms with their new viewpoints. In many ways it resembled the grieving process when someone close to you dies. Whenever I read of their pain and their bravery I am thankful that I have never lost my faith in God. Because luckily (and I do think that there was a significant amount of luck involved) I have never believed in God and never had any faith in Him to lose.

It probably had a fair bit to do with an accident of birth. I was born in the 1960’s in the North of England. About that time religion was already in decline in the UK as it had been since the end of World War Two. The Sixties were also a time of rebellion when authority was more likely to be questioned than followed. From those facts alone it didn’t look likely that I would have become one of the faithful.

My family are Irish Catholics not long moved to England. Indeed my father liked to mention jokingly that he was at sea during the war – on the ferry over from Southern Ireland in 1939 then aged 10. Settling in Liverpool (where I lived until the early 1970’s) I would probably have been a practicing Catholic except for my Grandmother. As I have related elsewhere in more detail my Gran, bless her, took serious umbrage at the Church when the local priest refused to help her. Holding a grudge like only the female side of my family can she refused to step inside another church for over 35 years. Because of this none of her five children – including my Mother – were brought up in the Catholic faith. Because of that fact my Mother was indifferent to the church – if not actually hostile – and because of that I spent my formative years in Church of England schools rather than Catholic ones.

Now this fact often confuses my American readership in particular. As far as I know (not having researched it to any extent) the majority of schools in England are nominally run under the auspices of our State religion (which is a version of Protestantism called the Church of England) founded, I believe, by Henry VIII because he wanted to get a divorce which the Pope in Rome wouldn’t grant him. If you’re interested in the details I’m sure there are plenty of resources on-line that you can access. Anyway – not having experienced CofE education you might think that there would be a significant dose of religion handed out with the more Secular aspects of State led education. Not a bit of it. This is why my wise parents decided that in order to avoid any religious indoctrination they would send me to Church of England schools until I was sixteen. Sure there was some religion in the schools I attended – after all Religious Education was and still is a compulsory school subject – but at the time such education was considered to be a very low priority. I don’t actually remember being taught religion per se in school and remember most RE lessons as either ‘free study’ periods or half-hearted attempts at getting us to think philosophically. These were normally taught by student or substitute teachers and they were an almost complete waste of time.

Growing up in this kind of environment it is hardly surprising that I had never developed any kind of faith in God. Likewise my peers were as indifferent to religion as was I. The only time it was likely to come up in school was when the local bully used it as an excuse to beat you depending on your answer to the ominous question: “Are you a Catholic or a Protestant?” to which any answer at all usually resulted in being thumped.

So for a whole host of reasons I’ve never had any faith in God to lose. Any yearnings for an understanding of the Cosmos have been more than adequately met by my science education which, at a fairly early age, basically inoculated me against any possibility of religious affiliation – especially given my above stated indifference. So I consider myself one of the lucky ones as I never had to go through the painful process of waking up to reality. Much kudos to those of you who were not so lucky.

Picture Time.

Hilarious.....

Just Finished Reading: Berserker Man by Fred Saberhagen

Millennia ago in a distant part of the Galaxy a war was waged by implacable enemies. One of the alien races produced what it saw as the ultimate weapon that would finally ensure them total victory. They created advanced machines capable of independent thought and fitted with awesome capabilities for destruction. Long after the death of both adversaries the remaining sentient races who fight them call them Berserkers.

Mankind has been at war with the Berserkers for centuries and are slowly losing the fight. In an act of desperation they devise a super weapon of their own – the ultimate human/machine hybrid. But the person capable of assuming this mantel as mankind’s saviour is a rare creature indeed. Searching among the teeming billions a perfect match is finally found…. in the form of an 11 year old boy. Unfortunately for him the Berserkers know of his existence too.

The Berserkers are great enemies. Evil machines bent on the destruction of all life wherever it is found. They are clever opponents as well as powerful ones and provide a impressive foil for human capabilities – and not just in the military dimension. Like my other favourite ‘bad guys’ the Borg and the Replicators they can be resisted but not (generally) defeated. They test us against the basic forces of death itself.

Berserker Man was apparently the final chapter in the Berserker series and was, maybe because of that, slightly disappointing. Concentrating on the development of the ultimate human warrior rather than the anticipated space combat its slant was more metaphysical than military. Competently written I certainly enjoyed it enough to race through it in three short days. Reasonable.

Cartoon Time.

Poster Time.

These Are a Few of my Favourite Things:

1) Hard Cheese – especially mature Cheddar, Lancashire and Red Leicester
2) Vanilla – both the smell and the taste in ice cream and the much missed vanilla coke
3) Brilliant blue skies – something we don’t get a lot of during some winters.
4) Books and book shops – my signature addiction
5) Movies – especially at the cinema
6) Music – just about all types with only a few exceptions.
7) Computer games – particularly Real-Time Strategy
8) History – especially Ancient at the moment but also the 19th Century
9) Science – there are some areas I know very little about (such as Chemistry) and most Maths just leaves me cold but I do enjoy reading about physics and biology. Quantum Physics in particular makes my head spin in a most enjoyable way.
10) Art – I far prefer representational art (where what you see is fairly close to reality) but I have seen some modern art I actually liked. I don’t really have any favourite artists but I much prefer portraits to landscapes (which strangely is the opposite of what I like to take photographs of).
11) Debate – I love to argue with people.
12) My own bed – always a great pleasure when I get back from somewhere strange.
13) Long hot baths – a luxury in today’s instant gratification culture.
14) The nape of a woman’s neck.
15) Film Noir
16) Cats
17) T-shirts – I have literally hundreds of them.
18) Philosophy – my current obsession (see 4 and 11)
19) The colour blue (see 3) though in recent years I’ve developed a fondness for red and green too.
20) The motoring show Top Gear – though I have never driven a car, never learnt how to drive and have no real interest in any car related activity.
21) Cartoons – especially shows like The Simpsons and Family Guy.
22) Bugs Bunny
23) Red heads.
24) Conifers
25) A rugged coastline with waves crashing on a rocky shoreline.
26) Classical piano and Classical guitar.
27) The female singing voice regardless of musical genre.
28) Google
29) Hot Chocolate
30) My Sister.

Cartoon Time.

Christianity - is it all Greek to us?

By Giles Fraser for Ekklesia

15 Jan 2008

The famous opening of the Gospel of St John — “In the beginning was the Word” - always reminds me that when the early Church spoke about the Word of God, it did not mean the Bible, it meant Jesus. Jesus was the Word — in Greek, the logos. It is a remarkable term, for it draws into the heart of the Gospel a whole world of associations that derive from Greek philosophy. The idea of the logos makes reference not only to the eternal Word that hovered over the waters at the beginning of time (or, at least, at the beginning of Genesis, which the opening of St John parallels); but also, and quite deliberately, to the philosophy of Stoicism and middle-Platonism, in which the idea of the logos was widely employed.

Early Christian intellectuals, especially Justin Martyr and Origen, drew heavily on the philosophy of the logos to explain the mystery of the incarnation: how Jesus Christ could be both fully God and fully human. For them, the logos, or eternal divine wisdom, was like a mediating principle, connecting both into one. Yet something else was going on, too. Early Christianity had a cultural inferiority complex. Snooty Roman intellectuals looked down on the religion of a peasant from Galilee and the idea of God born in a cow shed. They sneered at the shoddy Greek of the New Testament. As Christianity spread deeper into the Roman world, it had to contend more and more with this intellectual snobbery. Theologians such as Justin and Origen were keen to show that Christianity could hold its own in the academy. Logos philosophy was perfect. It explained the incarnation, and claimed intellectual respectability, showing that Christians could think like the Greeks.

Like all inferiority complexes, however, it led to trouble. Many of the founding theologies of the Christian Church were drawn up on the assumption that the Greeks — and that mostly means Plato — were substantially right about philosophy. As a consequence, early Christian thought is deeply impregnated with Platonism. Yet, while Plato seemed self-evidently correct to the Christian apologists of the second and third centuries, the vast majority of today’s thinkers agree that Plato was deeply mistaken, and even politically dangerous. Explaining this is something of a challenge in so short a space, which is why I intend to return to the subject from variety of angles in future columns. I believe a vital part of the intellectual task confronting today’s theologians is to unscramble our theology from Platonism. It is a tricky business. So close have they grown that attacking Plato while affirming Christianity is the intellectual equivalent of operating on conjoined twins.

[No philosophy or religion springs full grown into existence. Every ideology has antecedents and Christianity is not alone in this. Borrowing (or stealing dependent on your point of view) liberally from Greek and Roman philosophy and as well as the Pagan religions of the day it is hardly surprising that there are clear parallels between them. To many the Bible is the word of God but as the article above shows it is much more likely to be the word(s) of Plato and others like him.]

I so wanna be a cowboy.

Just Finished Reading: The Dream of Reason – A History of Philosophy from the Greeks to the Renaissance by Anthony Gottlieb

This is the main course book for the philosophy unit I’ve just started so I had to read it. Fortunately for me it was very good and I managed to read the vast majority of it over Christmas at my Mum’s house. As you can imagine from the title it outlined the development of Western philosophy from its earliest beginnings in the Greek world. I didn’t know much about the pre-Socratics (such as Zeno of the Arrow fame) and to be honest they don’t interest me very much – being mainly concerned with mistaken interpretations of Cosmology and such. Things got more interesting in general (for me anyway) with Socrates and his two successors Plato and Aristotle. I haven’t read any Plato yet but I think that Aristotle rocks – even after being rather harsh on him in my first essay.

What I actually found most interesting was the later Hellenistic philosophers known as the Stoics and the Epicureans (and of course the Sceptics). You’ll be hearing more about them later I’m sure. The final section (which I didn’t need to read as it’s outside the timeframe we’re covering) was on the Medieval philosophers – of which their where precious few of note. All in all this was a very comprehensive (though not rushed) study of 2000 odd years of the human attempt to reason about the world and our place in it.

Gottlieb appears to really know his stuff and writes about it very well. He exhibits what can only be described as a love of his subject matter and not only manages to get this across to his readership – at least to me – but actually made me laugh out loud on more than one occasion with his sense of humour which I think must be pretty rare in historical philosophy books! This is definitely a book for the general interested reader and is, as one reviewer says, quite superb. Highly recommended for anyone interested in the history of reasonable thought.

Cartoon Time.

Pulp Fiction.

Monsters of Our Own Making

By Rosa Brooks for the Los Angeles Times

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Happy Frankenstein Month! Yes, this month marks the 190th anniversary of the publication of “Frankenstein,” Mary Shelley’s novel about a man who dreams of reshaping humanity but ends up creating a monster. And you’re probably wondering: Just how should I observe Frankenstein Month? Hallmark seems to be slacking off here — I couldn’t find a single Frankenstein’s 190th anniversary card. Fortunately, you can still mark the occasion just by skimming the week’s newspapers, which contain an above-average number of “Oops We’ve Created a Monster!” stories from the world of foreign policy — many starring the U.S. government as a modern-day Dr. Frankenstein.

Start with this week’s big story from Pakistan. According to Tuesday’s New York Times, Islamic militant groups funded and nurtured for years by the Pakistani intelligence services — with U.S. backing, in the 1980s — are now completely out of control. The Pakistani government, which hoped to use militant groups to further its own interests in Afghanistan and the Kashmir region, now finds that the militants have instead “turned on their former handlers,” carrying out “a record number of suicide attacks last year, including some aimed directly at army and intelligence units.” Making matters worse, many analysts say that the Pakistani intelligence services are riddled with agents who support the militants and their extremist agenda. Despite this, the Bush administration continues to shower Pakistan’s military and intelligence services with aid, even as Pakistan sinks further into chaos. Long-term U.S. strategy? None. Score: Monster, 100; Frankenstein, 0.

Next door in Afghanistan, six years after we “liberated” the Afghans from the Taliban yoke, Frankenstein re-enactments are also taking place. Tuesday’s Washington Post fronted a major story about the deteriorating situation: “After more than six years of coalition warfare in Afghanistan, NATO is a bundle of frayed nerves and tension over nearly every aspect of the conflict.” Warlords — some supported by us — control many Afghan regions, the Taliban is resurgent and a new “Taliban offensive [is] expected in the spring, along with another record opium poppy crop.” Suicide bombings are up by 30%, and there are signs that Al Qaeda is regrouping.On Wednesday, this newspaper reported that the death rate for U.S. troops in Afghanistan was higher in 2007 than ever before. Defense Secretary Robert Gates now predicts a need for at least 7,500 additional troops in Afghanistan. And — though we’ve already found reason to regret our 1980s policy of arming the Afghan militants who later became the Taliban (we liked them when they were fighting the Soviets) — the U.S. is now contemplating arming additional southern Afghan tribes to help fight the resurgent Taliban. Exit strategy? None. Score: Monster ahead, eroding early gains by Frankenstein.

Then there’s Iraq. Deaths are thankfully down somewhat, but the lack of political progress has left a tenuous, still-violent stalemate, sustainable only if U.S. troops remain indefinitely. On Tuesday, Iraq’s defense minister said Iraq couldn’t provide internal security until at least 2012 and wouldn’t be able to defend its borders until at least 2018. Iraq was supposed to be a beacon of peace, democracy and stability. Instead, it turned into a recruiting beacon for Islamic militants, a black hole for taxpayer dollars and a quagmire for our troops. Even our apparent successes have bred new problems. Arming local tribal and religious leaders has undermined efforts to strengthen Iraq’s fragile central government, and Iraq’s greatest success story — the relatively stable Kurdish region in the north — has been marred by escalating conflict with Turkey over claimed Iraqi havens for Turkish rebels. This week, Turkey bombed targets inside Iraq for the fourth time in a month. In Iraq as elsewhere, we have no exit strategy; the monsters we created continue to run rings around us.

So here’s my proposal: Let’s join together to mark Frankenstein Month, a national period of reflection on foreign policy hubris and unintended consequences. President Bush has established National Mentoring Month, National Farm-City Week and Great Outdoors Month — so why not Frankenstein Month? Shelley’s Dr. Frankenstein built his monster out of body parts pilfered from corpses, and the monsters created by our reckless foreign policies also reek of the charnel house. Of course, in Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein is tormented by guilt when he realizes what a horror he has unwittingly unleashed on the world, and he tries desperately to undo the damage he’s done. There might be some lessons here for the White House.

[Whilst we are in the unfortunate position of fighting monsters we created in years gone by maybe we should also be giving some attention to the monsters we are creating today. Because sooner or later those monsters will come looking for us with payback on their minds. We should really be thinking about getting out of the monster making business before they come knocking at our front door - again.]

Cartoon Time.

Just Finished Reading: Gates of Fire by Steven Pressfield

This was the tale of the battle of Thermopylae – arguable one of if not the most important battles in Western history - where the 300 Spartans and their other Greek allies fought the combined armies of Persia (rumoured to be as many as 2 million men) for three days. Told from the point of view of a surviving Helot slave it related events leading up to the battle as well as the awful reality of hoplite warfare itself. Often brutally bloody but brimming with dark humour – as well as an impressive amount of swearing – this was a very well written piece of work.

Pressfield had obviously put a great deal of time and effort in making this book as accurate as possible. Speaking to experts in the field he put together a believable world and populated it with real historical characters and others to bring alive a long dead age of heroes and the Gods they worshiped. Although he did not shirk from the harsh realities of the time and place the author presented the Spartans in a highly sympathetic way as the admirable warrior elite of their day. Though ruthless by today’s standards Sparta was in many ways ahead of its time in its treatment of women and the treatment of its citizens. But like every other city state of the time it had a huge slave population with everything that entailed.

This was an immensely enjoyable book. If you liked (or in my case loved) the movie 300 you will most certainly like this book. Gripping, moving, exciting and heart wrenching it is almost guaranteed to start a love affair with the Ancient world that you may not recover from. An excellent novel and highly recommended.

I Wanna be a Cowboy......

Losing our religion?

By Alister McGrath for The Telegraph

26/12/2007

The decline in British church attendance continues. Parents who go to church are less and less likely to pass on their faith to their children. The "Decade of Evangelism" seems to have done little to reverse this trend. As many congregations grow older, there is no sign of young people queuing to fill the empty pews.

The figures hide significant variations. About 50 per cent of British church congregations are slowly dwindling - but 15 per cent are holding their own and 35 per cent are even growing. There are important surges in attendance at Christmas services, especially at cathedrals. Organised religion may be in decline, yet a concern for spirituality remains important for many. Some believe the decline in church attendance mirrors something deeper within society. Changing patterns of work and leisure are disrupting traditional Sunday worship patterns. Sociologists including Robert Putnam and Grace Davie have argued that churchgoing is to be seen as a marker of a general decline in social participation.

Many aspects of social participation, they point out, have declined at similar rates over similar periods. The latest statistics vividly demonstrate the impact of immigration on the shape of British religious life. It is widely agreed that major ethnic minority populations are more religious than British-born whites. Two years ago, who could have imagined that Catholicism would be enriched by a surge of Polish members? The statistics particularly highlight the dramatic rise of Pentecostalism, a recent and vibrant form of Protestantism now thought to have 500 million adherents. Its emphasis on religious experience, its exuberant styles of worship and its commitment to social outreach have given it a massive following among the urban poor in Asia, Latin America and Africa.

It is now a growing presence in England within the Asian and African diasporas, especially in London. The long-term impact of this development on the face of English Christianity will be considerable. The Church of England has been overtaken in attendance by Catholicism. While the Church of England can rightly point to the weight of history, the importance of cultural memory, the largest number of church buildings, and a large penumbra of nominal church members in defence of its continued status as the established church, there is clearly a problem emerging. What happens if the established church becomes a minority church? But for all Christians, the statistics raise a question of whether dwindling congregations mean a crisis of faith in Britain. The response to recent atheist works, such as Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion, suggests not.

There is a new appetite for discussion and debate about the place of faith in personal and public life. Dawkins and others have given Christianity a wake-up call, highlighting its need to demonstrate its intellectual roots and cultural relevance. So can the churches recapture the imagination of our culture? If not, many will conclude that they deserve to fade away. Never have Christian leaders been under such pressure to prove their worth to their people. We need visionary leadership. Will we find it?

[An interesting point of view I thought. Does the continuing decline in Church attendance – despite the influx of immigrant believers - reflect a decline in faith or are things rather more complex than that? Are we witnessing the death of Christianity (at least in Europe) or is the method of counting the modern faithful just too simplistic to cope with the complexity of contemporary religious practice?]

Cartoon Time.

SF Art.

To Coin a Phrase

One of the things that interest me (sad I know) is the origin of words and phrases. I do sometimes hear or even use phrases and find myself wondering where they come from. One I have used down the years is “To give someone the whole nine yards”. Sometimes I’ve heard a variation on this of “Going the whole nine yards”. Initially I thought that this sounds like a term used in sport – maybe golf or even American football. Then some years ago I discovered that its origins are quite different.

Apparently the phrase “Give ‘em the whole nine yards” comes from the First World War. Back in those days the weapon of mass destruction was the belt fed machine gun used by both sides to deadly effect. The ammunition belts came in, you guessed it, 27 feet lengths – nine yards. So when the shout went out to give ‘em (the enemy that is) the ‘whole nine yards’ it basically meant don’t stop firing until you run out of ammunition.

Today it more usually means tell someone everything you know – give ‘em everything.

Interesting eh?

Cartoon Time.

Things that Matter.

I've just added a new Blog onto my Blog list. It's called Matter - Antimatter and it mainly (though not exclusively) deals with reviews of various films, TV shows & books.

It's really good (OK, I happen to agree with much of what is said there) so please give it a visit. It's worth your time believe me.

Picture Time.

Just Finished Reading: Nightlife by Rob Thurman

Cal & his brother Niko are on the run in New York. They’re not running from the authorities though. If only it was that simple. For four years the brothers have been running from the Auphe – creatures out of millennia of human nightmare. Their target is Cal, a human-Auphe hybrid bred specifically to open a doorway and bring humanity to its knees. It’s only a matter of time before the Auphe find them and then hell will literary break loose!

This was obviously Thurman’s first book. It had that feel to it. The author was both trying too hard by throwing in everything including the kitchen sink (presumably not knowing if he was ever going to get another book published) as well as producing some very unbelievable characters and situations.

It wasn’t all bad however. Some of the dialogue was snappy; some of the jokes were actually funny and he had a reasonable feel for the visualisation of various locations. It was readable but dragged a bit in places especially towards the end (which didn’t make a whole lot of sense). Over all this book was a very average affair. I do hope he gets better though – as I’ve already bought the sequel!

Colour me Sceptical.

Those who read this Blog regularly probably see me, at least in [large?] part, as an Atheist. But my Atheism is only one aspect of a deeper philosophical position. I am at heart a Sceptic.

What this means is that I generally do not take things at their face value. I do not tend to hold entrenched beliefs about, well, anything really. I think of myself open to having my mind changed on any subject if someone can come up with facts or arguments that can convince me to change my position. This also means that I experience a great deal less pain when I am forced to abandon a ‘belief’ because I hold that all knowledge is at best provisional in the first place. I suppose that’s one reason why I consider myself to be a ‘scientist’ or at least to have a scientific mindset (not having scientific qualifications nor ever worked as a scientist).

As far as I am aware no truths are self evident. Indeed I’m not exactly sure if Truth is anything more than a concept or an aspiration. I think that we can work towards having knowledge about something but that any knowledge will be imperfect and open to being challenged. What people generally think of as Truth, hold onto as True and sometimes die for are basically beliefs about things rather than the truth about things. That being the case I contest that ideas (or Truths) are hardly worth dying for. I mean, what if you're wrong?

Of course some people say (or will say) that you can take scepticism too far and are indeed sceptical about a sceptical approach. This is a good thing. Having a basically sceptical attitude (even to having a sceptical attitude) is a healthy way to be. But is it possible to go too far though? Indeed, how far is too far where scepticism is concerned?

To show how far you can take things here’s an example: I got into a debate with some people recently about a strange sounding philosophical question: Do Other People Exist? The immediate response is – Well, of course they do! But then my scepticism kicked in and kept on going. At the end of an hour or so (I’m relentless when I get going) the other people looked at me in complete incredulity. They had started out with the belief that people as sceptical as I am could not actually exist. By the time we had partially exhausted the topic I had changed their minds. I had basically shown them that definite knowledge of other people’s existence was impossible. I went on to show that not only can we doubt that other people exist but that we can doubt that anything actually exists – including the three of us having the debate. I couldn’t help but be amused by their bemused looks. It appears that you can’t take scepticism too far after all.

Cartoon Time.

Poster Time.

Research Shows That War Isn’t Caused by Instinct

by Bill Wickersham for The Missourian

December 27, 2007

When writing or speaking on issues of war and peace, it is not unusual for pundits and others to make the case that war is due primarily to a human instinct that causes nation-states to engage in large scale warfare. Underlying that idea is the notion that human beings have pugnacious inner drives that require an outlet for aggressive behavior if they are to achieve their full potential in a highly competitive world in which people have to dominate others to guarantee their own survival. This theory is often linked to the psychologically and physiologically induced fight-flight reaction process, which provides the necessary adrenaline rush when we are aggressively confronted or personally attacked and enables us to stand and fight or, alternatively, to quickly flee the scene.

Conventional wisdom often cites this reaction as the underlying cause for the violent, deadly, large group activity called war. In 1986, an international team of biologists, psychologists, ethologists, geneticists and others adopted a statement that rejected biology as the primary cause of war. The “Seville Statement on Violence” has been endorsed by innumerable scientific and scholarly organizations around the world. The following are excerpts from its text: “It is scientifically incorrect to say that we have inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors. … The fact that warfare has changed so radically over time indicates that it is a product of culture. Its biological connection is primarily through language, which makes possible the coordination of groups, the transmission of technology, and the use of tools.

“War is biologically possible, but it is not inevitable, as evidenced by its variation in occurrence and nature over time and space … It is scientifically incorrect to say that war is caused by ‘instinct’ or any single motivation. … Modern war involves institutional use of personal characteristics such as obedience, suggestibility and idealism; social skills such as language; and rational considerations such as cost-calculation, planning and information processing. The technology of modern war has exaggerated traits associated with violence both in training of combatants and in the preparation of support for war in the general population. As a result of the exaggeration, such traits are often mistaken to be the cause of war rather than the consequences of the process.”

If war is not the direct result of instinct, what is it? According to the late anthropologist Margaret Mead, war is a human invention, and the abolition of large scale international violence requires a replacement invention. For the development of that new invention to be undertaken, people and their leaders must be helped to fully understand the nature and characteristics of the old invention. Only then can a new one be created. Scholars have assumed or determined numerous factors that contribute to the onset and prosecution of war. Some of those factors include: the economic benefits of war profiteering; worst-case philosophy war planning which assumes “there will always be wars and rumors of wars;” evil leaders who seek imperial conquests of other nations; mass frustration of basic human needs of large populations, some of whose members engage in systematic terrorism; strife between and within various religious communities; and several other variables. Given the variety and complexity of these factors, it would seem virtually impossible to ever achieve true peace under the rule of law with justice. Clearly such conditions will not be realized in my lifetime or that of the baby boomers. However, we can sow at least one seed of peace for our children and grandchildren.

One of the world’s finest peace theorists, the late Dr. Randall Caroline Forsberg, believed that “a single ‘modest’ change could serve as an initial step toward the abolition of war and, ultimately, the permanent abolition of war.” That single modest change would be the development of a commitment in the great majority of the world’s public “to the democratic value that violence is never morally or politically acceptable except when used in defense against violence by others who have not accepted this principle, and who have in fact initiated acts of violence.” Based on this underpinning premise, she and other colleagues have developed a creative step-by-step systematic plan for world disarmament education known as Global Action to Prevent War. Space will not permit a full explanation of how this plan relates to some of the aforementioned theoretical causes of war. However there is no question in my mind that it provides a sound basis for the initiation of the war replacement invention of which Margaret Mead spoke.

[Interesting. I remember collecting data on this subject for my first degree dissertation – which I ended up never writing. I think that there are definitely genetic/evolutionary components that make us so very good at warfare some of which are mentioned in this article. But I agree that war itself is a cultural phenomenon and because of that it is within our power to stop wars happening. As weapons get more powerful and more widespread it is in everyone’s best interests to stop wars and to find a more civilised way to resolve the inevitable conflicts that arise on a crowded world. Such a thing is surely not beyond us especially as it becomes increasingly obvious that we must end our incessant warfare before it ends us.]

Cartoon Time.

My Favourite Movies: The Bourne Trilogy.

I know that it’s kind of cheating but I thought it appropriate to mention these three movies in the same post. I must also mention that I’m not exactly a fan of Matt Damon.

I went to see The Bourne Identity because of the trailer. I must admit that I wasn’t disappointed as the movie easily made my DVD list. I have never read any of Robert Ludlum’s books so didn’t have any preconceptions which probably helped as on attempting to read the book I found it turgid in the extreme (as was the original movie which I later struggled through). What made this movie above the average was a mixture of unfolding mystery – never fully resolved in the first film – the depiction of the CIA as a Byzantine organisation at war with itself and above all else the jaw dropping fight scenes between Bourne and his almost equal adversaries. Another thing I loved about this movie was the car chase across Paris which was one of the best I’ve seen. I also liked the lack of gadgets that normally litter James Bond movies (or at least used to until his latest incarnation) instead relying on the heroes training and use of often household objects. All in all a trilling film.

The sequel The Bourne Supremacy was, in my opinion, the weakest of the three movies but still managed to make my DVD list. Starting in India it brought the still largely amnesiac Bourne out of ‘retirement’ in an attempt to clear his name and exact revenge on the killer of his girlfriend. This was a very convoluted film revolving around Bourne’s first unofficial ‘assignment’ and the theft of $20 million of CIA money. It also introduced a new character Pamela Landy (played by the superb Joan Allen) who impressed me greatly. As we had come to expect from the first movie there were the usual jaw dropping fight scenes – I particularly liked the fight between Bourne and the last surviving Treadstone agent where he basically defeated him with a rolled up magazine. Again we were left breathless by another car chase this time through the streets of Moscow. With his name cleared and his girlfriend avenged (as well as more of his memory recovered) Bourne again disappears into the night.

The last in the trilogy was The Bourne Ultimatum. This cleverly starts within minutes of the previous film ending with Bourne making his was out of Moscow with the cities finest hot on his tail. Avoiding the police yet again Bourne vanishes only to reappear on reading that a British journalist has uncovered information about the operation Bourne was part of. Heading to London he meets up with the journalist only to see him killed by a CIA sniper. Deciding that the only way to be finally left alone Bourne decides to bring down the CIA covert-ops section once and for all. This I thought was the best film of the three. Both clever and knowing it referenced the first two movies wonderfully. Damon seemed to be completely wrapped up in the role and was at his believable best. You could almost see his character thinking as he calculated tactical outcomes and planned his next devastating moves. Again the fight scenes – particularly in Waterloo station when he ‘took out’ six or eight agents in a matter of seconds – just blew me away. It was also nice to see Julia Stiles (playing Nicky Parsons in all three movies) get more of a meaty role. Bourne finally recovers his full memories, completes his mission and survives after coming full circle this time in the Hudson River. Leaving some nice loose ends for the audience to chew over this was an excellent end to an excellent series of films. As a treat I watched all three almost back to back (separated by a bit of online gaming) on New Years Eve. It was a very good way to end the year.

There but for the Grace…..

I mentioned recently that I’ve been watching My So-called Life on DVD. One episode in particular prompted a memory. In it Angela Chase’s mother Patty (played by the talented Bess Armstrong) thought she had become pregnant for the third time and confided this to her husband Graham (played by the equally talented Tom Irwin). A few days later it transpired that she was mistaken and, with more than a little relief, told her husband to stop worrying about it. He then managed clearly to convey an array of emotions including relief, disappointment and a sense of loss.

Some years ago a similar situation happened to me. My then girlfriend Carol uttered those haunting words designed to drive terror into every man alive: I’m late.

After the initial shock we both put a brave face on things and attempted as much as possible to go about our normal daily routines. Three or four days later she was delighted to tell me that the panic was over and that she’d had her period. Like Graham in My So-called Life I went through a whole range of emotions. Initially I was indeed very relieved. We were at a fairly early stage in our relationship and I don’t think that either of us was looking to have children just then – indeed Carol told me from the very start that she didn’t want children (which I thought rather strange at the time). But what surprised me was that after the relief a wave of real disappointment washed over me and for a good few weeks afterwards I felt sorry that she wasn’t actually carrying my child.

Of course if she had been pregnant our lives would have been very different than they actually turned out. I wonder sometimes what being a parent would have been like. Would I have been a good father to what by now would have been an 8 year old child? It’s actually quite weird to think about it. Imagine Cyberkitten with a kitten of his own? Too weird…. Far too weird. But there but for the grace of… Fate… I almost went.

Vatican blasts "Golden Compass" as Godless and hopeless

By Philip Pullella

Dec 19, 2007

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican on Wednesday condemned the film "The Golden Compass," which some have called anti-Christian, saying it promotes a cold and hopeless world without God. In a long editorial, the Vatican newspaper l'Osservatore Romano, also slammed Philip Pullman, the bestselling author of the book on which the family fantasy movie is based.

It was the Vatican's most stinging broadside against an author and a film since it roundly condemned "The Da Vinci Code" in 2005 and 2006. "In Pullman's world, hope simply does not exist, because there is no salvation but only personal, individualistic capacity to control the situation and dominate events," the editorial said. The film, which premiered earlier this month in the United States and stars Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig, is an adaptation of Pullman's acclaimed novel "Northern Lights". The Vatican newspaper said "honest" viewers would find it "devoid of any particular emotion apart from a great chill."

In the fantasy world created by Pullman's trilogy, 'His Dark Materials', the Church and its governing body the Magisterium, are linked to cruel experiments on children aimed at discovering the nature of sin and attempts to suppress facts that would undermine the Church's legitimacy and power. In the film version all references to the Church have been stripped out, with director Chris Weitz keen to avoid offending religious cinema goers. Still, some Catholic groups in the United States have called for a boycott, fearing even a diluted version of the book might draw people to read the bestselling trilogy. The Vatican newspaper said the film and Pullman's writings showed that "when man tries to eliminate God from his horizon, everything is reduced, made sad, cold and inhumane".

The U.S.-based Catholic League, a conservative group, has urged Christians not to see the movie, saying that its objective was "to bash Christianity and promote atheism" to children. The Vatican newspaper called the movie "the most anti-Christmas film possible" and said that it was "consoling" that its first weekend ticket sales were a disappointing $26 million. New Line Cinema, a unit of Time Warner Inc, had hoped the film would pull in between $30 million and $40 million. It is doing better overseas but New Line sold the foreign distribution rights to help cover the movie's cost.

[The Vatican making itself look stupid again. I guess they will never learn that these polemics against books and films only encourages people to see what all the fuss is about. Silly people.]

Cartoon Time.

Pulp Fiction.

Video Advert Time.