Blog Doubt

Currently visitors are unable to leave comments and the archive system isn't working properly. Sorry. i'll sort it out when I can. Blogger Help are aware of the problem. In the meantime, here's some music.

The Secret of My Late Development

NEW SCIENTIST HAVE reported on a study that says children who watch more TV at night not only find it difficult to get to sleep, but they also reach puberty faster. Since I’m now well into my 30s and still showing no signs of “growing up a bit”, I can now put this tragically late development down to lack of Eastenders and Holby City. It’s great to be able to finally find a reason for my persistent worry about getting changed for the shower at school. It’s now clear that all that angst was caused by a simple case of sitcom deficiency.
Now that I know the truth I’ll be sure to make sure the kids grow up with a healthy amount of Allo Allo and Keeping up Appearances. That way they’ll be sure to get a head start in life, and bestride the changing room like giants every sports day.

String Theory

IT WAS RAINING on Saturday morning. The wind was up and the sky was black. Ten-Year-Old Tom and I looked out of the window and smiled. It was perfect weather! We put on our boots and waterproofs and head off up the hill, promising faithfully that we’d be back in a couple of hours.
Four hours later and I finally looked at my watch. We’d been standing so long in the rain that we hadn’t noticed the time. Eventually I managed to persuade Tom that since he couldn’t feel his fingers any more, it might be a good time to head back to home. He agreed with a very long sigh, and asked something that was lost in the high wind.
“What did you say?” I asked, blinking the rain out of my eyes.
“I said - Can we come back tomorrow?”
That really made me smile. By the time we had our soaked things in the back of the car we were already planning our next trip.
I Never knew kids loved rain so much.



The Scimitar GRP is a novice/intermediate kite that generates up to 65lb pull. It is made by Spirit of Air and available through mail order at The Kite Shop



Tom is flying an "Alto" by Axxion Kites

Fun With Statistics

“THE PREVALENCE OF teenage pregnancy and venereal disease in Britain and the US is generally blamed on lax morals and a permissive welfare state. Teenagers are in trouble today, the conservatives who dominate this debate say, because of the sexual liberation of the 1960s and '70s and the willingness of the state to support single mothers. Denny Pattyn, the founder of the Silver Ring Thing, calls this "the cesspool generation -suffering the catastrophic effects of the sexual revolution".

“Were we to accept the conservatives' version, we would expect that the nations in which sex education and access to contraception are most widespread to be those that suffer most from teenage pregnancy and STDs. The truth is the other way around. The two countries at the top of the disaster league, the US and Britain, are those in which conservative campaigns are among the strongest, and sex education and access to contraception among the weakest. The US, the UN Population Fund's figures show, has 53 births per 1000 teenagers - a record worse than those of India, the Philippines and Rwanda.
“In Britain the figure is 20. The nations the conservatives would place at the top of the list are clumped at the bottom. Germany and Norway produce 11 babies per 1000 teenagers, Finland eight, Sweden and Denmark seven and the Netherlands five.”

“Abstinence leads to Pregnancy” 26 May 2004 An article published at www.youthcoalition .net
click here for full text.

Don't Ring Us

I WORRY ABOUT the Silver Ring Thing movement. Well, I would, wouldn’t I? If ever there was a prime candidate for me to get on my High Horse about it’s something that’s run by American Evangelists and supported to the tune of $120 million by President Dubya’s administration.
But it’s not the fact that ultra right wing bible qouting red-necked morons that are pushing this that upsets me. What really bothers me is that it’s just plain wrong.
I can't see this doing good to many people at all. What I can see is a lot of young people being emotionally blackmailed into buying these $12 silver rings to please their anxious parents. And I can also see this turning out badly for girls and boys who don't want to wear one. Can you imagine a thirteen year old defending that point of view at Sunday school without being called a lot of names?
Last night I watched as a group of manicured, American Virgins told us that there were a terrible number of fatal deseases that we could contract, that if we slept around we would probably have babies born with all kinds of illnesses, and that all we had to do to save ourselves and our unborn babies was to wait for the right person. They quoted data on fatalities from AIDS from African and South American studies to drive the message home, adding that, after all; abstaining is what God wants us to do.
I don't doubt that there is a strong argument that increased sexual activity leads to an increase in sexually transmitted diseases, and I also don't refute the fact that teenage pregnancy is an epidemic in this country. What I do object to is the use of figures based on South America and Africa data to get the point across to British kids. That's just scare tactics and it's wrong.
All that aside, I don’t like the way we’re suddenly being faced with an Anti Sex League. It’s far too 1984 for my liking.
Virginity, sex, when to have sex and who to have it with is a matter for individuals and partners to decide. Wearing a virginity ring on your finger won’t help. It’s in the wrong place. The very last thing I want to know about is somebody else's sexual history, so I don't find it at all appropriate when somebody wears a badge, ring, T-shirt or Sash proclaiming their virginity. It's simply nobody else's business. What am I supposed to do? Clap and cheer? or keep watching every day to see when the thing comes off?
What I think is particularly sad is the girl or boy who will take the ring off at night while they’re having sex, and then slip it back on for their parents before going home. We don’t need to enforce dogmatic standards on our kids that leave them no way out but duplicity. They’ll get enough of that when they’re older, too.
For the record, I believe if somebody is of legal age and is has decided it’s what they want to do, and is with a consenting partner (Who hasn’t been pressured into it, either) then sex is not a matter of morality. It’s a matter of recreation. I find the Silver Ring Thing movement more offensive than what it sets out to prevent.
I was having a conversation with a friend who I won’t name, and we both said that the one bit of advise we’d offer our kids would be to take precautions and enjoy sex while they could.
We’re a long time dead. Wait if you really want to, but not because George W Bush thinks you should.

Cloud Burst on Chapel Street

YOU CAN TELL Wimbledon's started. I turned up today looking like a drowned rat. How much do umbrellas cost? And when will I get "Cloud Burst on Shingle Street" by Thomas Dolby out of my mind?

When I was young,
I was in love.
In love with everything.
And now there's only you.




The tune stayed in my head all day long, even now when I'm safe and warm and ready for bed.

Do Not Adjust Your Site

IT'S CRUNCH TIME in Westminster, and everything I’ve been working on is getting handed in at the end of the week. That’s a lot of work, and a lot of last minute changes.

So: Normal Service Will Be Resumed.

I’ve just got no idea when.

ALBUM REVIEW - The Streets - A Grand Don't Come For Free (679)

ANYONE WHO ENJOYED ”Original Pirate Material” will know what to expect with this new release. There are no real changes of direction here, but a lot of improvement. What’s particularly nice about “A Grand Don’t Come For Free”, is that it’s an old fashioned concept album, where each track reveals part of a story.
As usual, Mike Skinner's word play can be hilariously funny while at the same time being delivered in quick fire rhymes so forced they would make Pam Ayres wince.

“Rushing to the cash machine, still a bit mashed and lean
Then of course a mandatory car, drives by and splashes me
Get there the queue's outrageous, ladies taking ages
My rage is blowing gauges, how longs it take to validate your wages?
At last my turn comes, press the 50 squid button - Insufficient funds “

The story – You’ve lost a grand, which means somebody has taken it from your flat. And that can only mean that one of your mates must have pocketed it. Who do you trust? During the course of the Album, Mike finds time to fall in love, get mashed, have a holiday fling and get dumped. “Dry Your Eyes, Mate” is simply heartbreaking.
There is no shortage of urban beat and funky loops to keep your foot tapping, but it’s the detail that makes this work great. The whole story is presented as a series of incidental clues that you can either use to work everything out or ignore. The small snippets of observation about his friends, what he’s thinking, signs that he almost notices but doesn’t pick up on. It’s not easy to write so with such subtlety about the complexities of life while at the same time pretending you haven’t noticed them.
Buy this CD – or at least borrow it. Either way, you really should hear to it. If only for the brilliant twist at the end of the last track.

Visit The Streets' Website

A Brief Time of History

I MISSED THE England game, although I usually enjoy watching them. I decided that it would be best to be out of Paddington before the match had ended, just in case things got nasty.
But even though I couldn’t see the match, I was still aware of the score. Just about every mobile either rang or beeped every time England scored. The part that really made me smile was when PM presenter Eddie Mair said “We’ve had lots of letters asking us not to go into detail about the football match, so in the spirit of that, let me just tell you that the score is currently one – nil.”
Anyway. By the time I got off the train I was pretty certain that England had beaten Switzerland. Red crosses hung from windows fluttered as the cold front brought in darker clouds, and the first spots of rain spattered on the tarmac as I walked past a pub which was crammed full of people watching the last few minutes in expectant silence. A few minutes later, a text message from Karen said, “England now 3-0! This is better!”
I thought about the millions of people who would be glued to their television sets across the country and wondered why I hadn’t finished work early. Would it have hurt to have a couple of pints? I walked on under a darkening sky as the rest of the country waited for the final whistle.
Here’s the moment captured:



Somebody let off a signal flare behind me, and I recognised the sound before I even saw it. It was a beautiful angry ball of red fire against the cold dark grey of the rain soaked evening sky. It’s not like being present at the assassination of Kennedy. It doesn’t compare with pictures of tanks rolling into Baghdad, but it’s there, captured for all to see: A brief little moment in time when the nation felt proud.
Of course, there’s always the chance that this really was a distress flare from a ship in trouble, but I don’t think there’s much danger of hitting an iceberg on the Kennet and Avon Canal.
I’m doing my best not to be superstitious. But I can’t help wondering if maybe the England team had done better this time because I hadn’t been watching…

Both Barrels for Aukana

"SCIENCE WITHOUT RELIGION is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), from Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium, 1941

The world has moved on a great deal from the days when the Church, as an integral part of the state, couldn't be criticized. (At least it has in many civilised parts of the world.) The public persona that scientists were forced to adopt was one of such duality that it bordered on the ridiculous. Scientists were obliged to renounce atheism in much the same way that Muslims in America were forced to fly the Stars and Stripes.
Just as intellectuals in 1950s America were quick to denounce their links with Communism during the Witch Hunts, so too were scientists eager to point out that, despite their acceptance of logic and sense, apart from their understanding of facts that were diametrically opposed to biblical accounts, they still had a spiritual, God-fearing heart that transcended the need for Reason.

I prefer the frank honesty of Reith Lecturer Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, who when pressed and put on the spot about whether or not he believed in God, replied that while he respected the faith of others, he chose not to believe. Again the questioner pushed deeper, demanding to be told why, as if exposing Rama as an atheist would somehow invalidate his theories. Rama sighed, and said, "It's just simple common sense."

Science can be regarded as the quest for answers, but I’ve heard it said on more than one occasion that it’s more properly described as the search for funding. Carl Sagan’s book/film “Contact Illustrates the point brilliantly. Ellie Arroway (As played by Jodie Foster in the film) is about to be selected to make first contact with an alien species. She fails the interview royally by admitting that she’s “spiritual but not religious”, and the selection process turns into a sham as the rival contestants play the Holy card to be sure of better marks. Her (losing) argument was that it would be better to send a mathematician.

GM projects are curtailed by lobbying groups who chant slogans and provide only emotive arguments without facts. Embryologists are accused of “Playing God” (Just as heart transplant doctors were). Slipping into Islington mode for a moment, I would suggest that “Playing God” is something we do every time we turn on a light, get in a plane, microwave a meal, or take a cold cure. Why does the line only get drawn when we look at genetic science?

Einstein's words may have been eloquent, but it was the very convergence of science and religion, religion and state, that led to the holocaust. Books produced under Hitler, such as My Biblical and Scientific Proof that the Negro is Not a Member of the Human Race didn't happen by accident.

I'm not suggesting that Christians can't be scientists. I'm simply saying that there is no room for religion, dogma, or politics in science. There is simply no place in the practice of science for anything supernatural.

But is there a place for science within religion? In my opinion the two really are mutually exclusive. This is probably an immature black-and-white stance that will soften as I learn more about both. But I genuinely believe that while right wing fundamentalists have the ear of the President of the USA there isn’t much place for anyone who doesn’t play the banjo and enjoy a good linching. (Note that President Dubya has insisted that (secular) Iraq collaborated with its (fundamentalist) sworn enemy Al Qaeda to bring about the 911 massacre, despite a complete lack of evidence to support the claim. The USA, as a nation, can only get away with this sort of baloney because the oil rich blue bloods in the bible belt control the nation’s government, industry, media and church. American citizens have spent so long being preached at that they can no longer tell fact from fiction.)

I’ll let Michael Shermer have the last word, as it deals with the reaction of Christian students to a hardened skeptic. This extract is taken from his account of a debate with Kent Hovind, Young Earth Creationist and Defender of the Faith. It is an entertaining, well written article and worth a click.

“After the debate I was surrounded by a mob of Bible-totting students, most of whom were exceptionally polite, friendly, and desirous to know “why did you give up your faith?” The question is genuinely asked out of curiosity, but there is often a substrate inquiry implied in the voice and revealed in the eyes: “this couldn’t happen to me, could it?” When I answer in the affirmative that, indeed, it could happen to anyone who is intellectually honest in their search for answers to life’s most ponderous questions, I am sometimes accused of a false faith ab initio: “You were never really a Christian.” How convenient, and cognitively bullet-proof. But tell that to my annoyed siblings and non-Christian friends, who tolerated my nonstop evangelizing for seven years. The sentiments were quite real.”

Dr Michael Shermer is the Author of Why People Believe Weird things and writes regularly for www.skeptic.com

Football Violence

APPARENTLY, THE THUGS in England shirts aren't real football fans. Big deal. Who cares? Would enjoying football preclude them from acts of mindless violence? Since just about 99% of the male population of the country follows football, what evidence is there that these idiots don't follow the game? I never realised a love of football turned people into reasonable pacifists.
Minority spoiling it for the majority? As if. I'm a patriot and love England. It really pisses me off that the only time the world sees the flag of Saint George is when it's wrapped around the fist of a nationalist thug.

A Guest Appearance from Islington

A child walks into a room and there’s a lego set in a bucket. The first thing he does is up-end the whole lot onto the floor and start putting the bits together. Okay, maybe a few go into his mouth, a few will inevitably end up down the cushions of the sofa, and one or two are also duty bound to find their way into the vacuum cleaner. But at some point you can guarantee that Junior will plop an assortment of shapes on your knee and say – “Look: I’ve made a dog/house/car/mummy/tree.*” (*delete as appropriate)
So it is with man and science. We’ve got very good at playing with our little building blocks. We like what happens when we mix X with Y. We like learning what it is that makes Z tick. We’ve learned that if we put a bit of scorpion DNA into a bit of wheat DNA we can get something out the other end that can fight of predators. We’ve learned that if we smash atoms together hard enough we can get a very big explosion, and we’ve learned something about the mind-bendingly complicated maths that dictate the way the universe works.
But all we’re doing is playing with building blocks. We’re not creating anything. We’re so carried away with our clever little brick piles that we’ve forgotten who it was that put them there in the first place. For all its glorious achievements, mankind has still not created anything other than mutations. You might argue that we “made” dolly the sheep, but we didn’t create it. We just copied the blue print laid down long before our meddling hands saw fit to try and unravel it. The poor creature died anyway, after several miserable years of infirmity. As clever as we are we can’t create as much as a hamster.
We also can’t cure the common cold, or cancer, or a broken heart. We can’t distribute food to the hungry, or make it rain where we need to, or invent a fuel source that doesn’t choke the planet that was given to us.
But still we put our faith into science as if God had been made redundant by our cleverness. To Quote Brian Appleyard in Understanding the Present “When a person stops believing in God, he or she starts believing in anything.” Is it any wonder that so many New Age cults have sprung up? If we’re so clever, why is it that so many people are searching for something to believe n? intelligent, soulful people are lapping up books full of Positive Platitudes and thinking it will change their lives.
We already have a book that will change your life. People have died to preserve its message so that you can read and accept it. They even give it away free. But it’s old. And in this age of “fresh ideas”, “smart thinking” and “power lunches” we haven’t got time for old.
We’ve all joined the Flavour of the Month Club. Is it any wonder? Science has supplanted religion, but look how inconsistent it is. Einstein comes along and turns everything Newton told us upside down. Hawking came along and did that to Newton. To say nothing of Gullick, Darwin, Dawkins and Pinker. Science has become the Cult of Celebrity, where every five years, a new wave of thinking casts aside everything that had once been fact, and gives us a new set of rules to believe in. If we’re lucky enough to buy the book, we can include ourselves in this new Progressive Thinking Elite of the enlightened. Note I said “buy”. How many copies of A Brief History of Time were ever actually read past chapter two?
Science has not made us happier. It has not fulfilled our lives or purified our planet. In a world where even the smartest minds in science cannot agree on the basic building blocks of physics, to whom do we turn for the truth? In a world where the laws of physics seem to be in daily flux, isn’t it actually better to have something that doesn’t change? The message of the Bible may be old and unfashionable, but at least it’s consistant.
Ultimately, I expect this short term fixation with Chaos Theory and DNA splicing will pass. Because at some point, most of us are going to be old, and many of us are going to be alone. And when that time in our life comes, it would be nice to think there was more peace available than a book of equations.
Science may be entertaining, but science doesn’t love us.

The Truth Is Supposedly Out There (part 2

FOR ANYONE WHO didn’t read the comment left by Rabid Bowelslop in response to part 1, here it is again:

"How grim.

Personally (subjective), science has never offered a satisfactory explanation for my experiences in life.
It seems to me that science is really good at pigeon-holing things and dividing reality into little boxes with labels. Although not without its uses I feel it is generally an 'unwholesome' tool capable of reducing the magic of the universe to a set of lifeless 'facts'.
Although not a religious fundamentalist I agree with them that Darwinism is just another 'theory'. Neither do I believe in the story of creation as presented in the Old Testament.
Science works by postulating a theory, then testing that theory to see if it breaks. If it holds for a considerable time then it is pronounced as 'fact'. This seems just a little presumptuous to me.
For as long as I survive a little part of the land of faerie lives on in me. For scientists to believe that they can truly discount the spiritual dimensions is nothing short of arrogance.
Solve et coagula!”


Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

I DON’T REALLY think there is anything grim about a scientific viewpoint. I’m happy to embrace a scientific way of reasoning and find that it really does explain the things that seemed so mysterious to me before. Everything I ever needed to know, I learned from geeks in white coats! Science isn’t about stuffy, soulless, arrogant, misfits who club together to invent new ways of killing each other. Science is the practice of understanding and embracing workings of the universe, the world and the mind.

(The fact that people who do understand those things are so often employed to invent new ways of killing each other is something we’ll have to discuss later!)

Guilty until proven innocent

I agree with you that bad science is often presented as “fact”. You only have to look at the blunder the government made over CJD. It was a tragic mistake when they presented graphs which demonstrated that just about half the population would be in a vegetative state by now. The ill thought-out concept that that BSE could readily transfer to humans was based on conjecture and speculation, but it was presented to ministers as fact.

But the principle of science is that you should first attempt to disprove your own argument. Scientific study works counter to a legal trial. All good scientists assume their work to be wrong until every attempt to disprove it has been exhausted. The two scientists who first identified the echo left behind after the Big Bang (Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson) tried everything they could to eliminate the noise from their sensors, even to the point of cleaning all the bird droppings from the antenna array with a scrubbing brush. Only when they were absolutely certain of what they were listening to was there any sort of announcement made or paper written.

Nothing Butism

As for your insistence that science is an unwholesome matter of putting things into little boxes, do you think it diminishes the beauty of a rainbow to talk about light rays passing through water droplets?

Explaining something in a scientific way does not cheapen it. Genuiniely understanding how and why something works provides a wonderful sense of completeness that no non-scientific explanation can match. Accepting science isn’t about saying it’s all nothing but this and nothing but that. Does it diminish the wonder of the pyramids to say that they were built using nothing but cord and sticks? Even the slightest error would have resulted in a collapse, and yet they still stand to this day – breathtakingly perfect shapes built with nothing but simple tools.

So is a rainbow nothing but. A trick of light and water? Look at it another way – out of something so simple and unpromising comes a sight beautiful enough to inspire poets.

And if we look at animals and plants, and all the mind blowing structures and variety they have, why reject a scientific explanation on the grounds that it makes them nothing but the products of a blind evolutionary process? Why not turn and face it head on, and embrace the wonder and complexity of what that process implies?

The lioness that brings food for her cubs may be nothing but the result of evolution by natural selection, but what a result! Just like us, the lioness owes her existence to instructions carried on DNA molecules which carry the instructions for building her body, just the same as ants, goats, people. But the importance of molecules doesn’t just stop there. Every thought you have or movement you make depends on dozens of molecular reactions taking place.

Life depends on energy, and that energy comes from molecules like glucose. It can provide that energy because three different types of atoms make it up. Carbon, hydrogen and oxygen are kept together by energy rich links between the atoms. If some of these chemical bonds are broken so that the atoms split apart into smaller molecules of water and carbon dioxide, a lot of the energy which once went to hold them together is released. The body smashes these molecules apart and plunders the energy for itself. But of course, this miraculous process is nothing but digestion. What’s so bad about knowing just what an exciting transformation is taking place to the honey in your tea?

Elementary, my dear Bowelsop

How do we know what we know? Why is it that we no longer think that the night sky is a blanket and the stars are pinpricks in it? Why are no right wing groups trying to lobby schools to denounce Nicolaus Copernicus’ work as “just a theory”? I return to my point earlier. The difference I’m talking about is ”evidence”. Astronauts have seen the earth from space and sent us pictures, so we know it’s round. Similarly, we can look through a telescope at Venus and see for ourselves that it’s a round object too. We can see the way the sun lights it at different times. The light falling on it is evidence of its shape.

Crime scene detectives work in exactly the same way. They gather evidence. They collate what they know and then put these pieces together in a great big jigsaw until their understanding reaches a new level. This is what leads them to suspects, where they gather more evidence based on questions and scientific tests like forensic analysis. Small clues lead to big clues.

Science works the same way. A hypothesis leads to a prediction. This prediction is tested by looking at the evidence. When a doctor diagnoses meningitis, he doesn’t have X ray Microscopic vision. He looks at the symptoms and makes an informed decision. He weighs up the evidence based on what he sees and hears.

My Dad Says

Traditional belief is counter intuitive and robs individuals of their right to choose. Go into any playground and ask the children what they believe. The Muslim child will tell you one thing, the Hindu child another, the Christian child will tell you something else. Each one will tell you what their parents have told them they should believe. These beliefs are based on the beliefs of their parents, and theirs were based on their grandparents, and so on. Even though their beliefs were based on no more evidence than the beliefs of their great grandparents. Like I said before, writing down conjecture doesn’t make it true.

Stories handed down through the generations on ancient books are no more or less true than they were when they were first written down, or first recited from grand parent to child around the camp fire. Age makes these stories special. It gives them weight. The stories become sacred teachings.

I was born into the Church of England, so I believe that Her Majesty the Queen is God’s Representative on Earth. But I could have been born into any number of Christian Faiths. Methodists have different beliefs to Mormons. Catholics don’t agree with the beliefs of Baptists. Wars are fought over the differences in these beliefs – without any one person in the middle of it even thinking to ask for any evidence to support even their own claims.

Take the Roman Catholic belief that Mary, Mother of Jesus did not die, but was lifted bodily to heaven. The Bible makes no mention of this, but it was added to Catholic mythology in the sixth century. It was just a story. A nice little add-on for when children ask “What happened to Mary?”

But old stories gain weight. Conjecture mixed with authority becomes Truth. In 1950, the Pope gave the order that this story would be written down as official Catholic Doctrine. The order was given. Now, if you’re a Catholic, you have to believe this, because the Pope, (God’s Representative in Earth) said so. At no point was any evidence provided. But the order was clear: You Will Now Believe…

Just as the modern Catholic church is teaching in Africa that condoms provide no protection against HIV and AIDS, and that it is sinful for families to limit the number of babies they have.

I’ll admit that I can’t always see the scientific evidence first hand. At some point, I have to “take somebody’s word for it”. I’m happy to accept that light travels at 186,000 miles a second because the books I get the information from are written by people who can explain why this is true. They present the facts to me. And the evidence is made available for me to conduct the research for myself.

Science isn’t about revelation. It’s not about “I’ve got a theory so it must be true.” A scientist with a hunch has the makings of a great experiment. Nothing more. Scientists use feelings all the time, but they back them up with evidence.

Blotting Paper

Children are sponges when it comes to information. They soak up facts tirelessly, but there is no hidden mechanism that allows them to sift out the real from the false. Muslim children grow up with different “facts” to Christian children. ”Teacher says…” is the ultimate form of Authority Learning, which is why it’s so vital to present facts and not just idle revelation that has been around for too long for people to question it.

Myths like creationism must not be taught as science.

I learned a good deal from Genesis. The Garden of Eden was a story about our act of separation for a Godlike state. It was an allegorical explanation to the question of why we’re not perfect. Its use as a carbon dating process for biblical scholars to put the age at the Earth at 10,000 years was never intended.

People get afraid of evolution because it tells us that we’re Nothing But monkeys. I’d much rather turn it on its head, and look at the enormous line of ancestors behind me, who struggled, fought, starved, learned, improved and reached beyond the grasp of their parents to become something more.

Some how, by some miracle, every one of your ancestors, no matter how hard times became, no matter what dangers they encountered, managed to find the time and the energy to conceive and raise a child to maturity.

The end result of all that struggle and endeavour is you.

I look forward to hearing ALL your comments on this matter. Comments posting has now been opened up to everyone.

Tipping the Scales

NEW SCIENTIST THIS week (Issue 2451) has a lot to say about how much we've underestimated the way the minds of animals work. Apparently it's all down to evolutionery snobbery. ( The long held prejudice which declares that since we're obviously more evolved than they are, they can't possibly think how we think.) Pick of the essays was Culum Brown's essay on the secret thoughts of fish.
"Fish are more intelligent than they appear. In many areas such as memory, their cognitive powers match or exceed those of 'higher' vertibrates, including non-human primates. Best of all, given the central place memory plays in intelligence and social structures, fish can not only recognise individuals but can also keep track of complex social relationships."



What next, I wonder? Civil Servants with initiative?

The Lengths We Go To

IN A BID to confuse the enemy, I cunningly boarded the wrong train yesterday afternoon. I watched in horror as Newbury station flashed past the window while I continued West. An hour and twenty minutes later we stopped and I was finally able to get out.



Taunton was just lovely, and I decided that since I was there it would have been a shame not to enjoy a genuine West Country Cider in a genuine West Country beer garden. Living proof that you should always try and make the best of any situation.




Next week – Off to Dublin for a Guinness.

The Nicest Thing About Working In London

...IS STILL BEING able to live in Hungerford! Here's a snap from my phone I took while I was out cycling at 8 O'clock tonight...


(I might have messed about with it a bit though. Just a little!)

The Truth is supposedly Out There. (part one)

THERE'S A PRETTY good horror story I always fancied writing where everyone suddenly realised that all the “made up” stuff wasn't real. No Loch ness Monster, no JFK Grassy Knoll gunmen, no Little Green Men or Bug Eyed Monsters. No Turin Shroud, nothing. What sort of world would it be if we simultaneously exorcised all our ghosts and accepted only that truth which could be proved with hard evidence? No longer would we be able to blame fate for our tough breaks. No more would we be able to claim something was meant to be, or that we were destined to be with our partners.
Imagine if we lived in a universe free of the guiding hand of fate? Imagine if the only person you had to blame for your screw-ups was yourself? How many of us would rather believe in a Supreme Being that watches over us to guide our actions, even if He doesn’t seem too interested in us most of the time. How many of us claim that the invisible presence of the God figure, or the Divine Mother, or the Holy Fridge Magnet is something we take comfort from.
What is it about us as a species that allows us to simultaneously embrace learning, science, understanding and discovery, while at the same time fuelling the fires of superstition, hearsay and folklore.
As a man of science I’m conscious of the need to verify claims with proof. I’m aware that any unproven theory is just one man’s idea with no more credibility than the ramblings of L Ron Hubbard or David Ike. Repeating conjecture doesn’t make it any more true. Neither does writing it down.
But yet, as we hairless apes look out into the night sky and make faces in the clouds, we can’t help but look into the void and wish that our fantasies could be true. We want to believe that there are pixies in the wood, just as much as we want to believe there are greys under the bed.
Fox Mulder’s poster didn’t declare “I want the truth.”
There is a major crisis in American schools, especially in Republican governed states, where the teaching of Darwinism and evolution has been outlawed. or at best, it has been ruled that evolutionary science should be presented as “just one of many theories”. Creationism is the “official” government line of the most technologically advanced nation on earth. How can science prosper when the most fundamental building blocks of creation have been reduced to a fairy story?
We don’t just want to believe, we need to.
Ever since our most distant ancestors sat around the first camp fires, we have shared stories in the darkness. We’ve been terrified by demons, stalked by phantoms and plagued by gremlins, but however scary these tales might be, believing in the supernatural is much less disturbing than the alternative:
Accepting that we really are all alone, our faith is just make-believe, and that there is nothing Out There but the endless night.

Walking Down Praed Street

IT WAS THE hottest day of the year, and it was showing. Fat men shuffled by like Buddhas with their bellies held over their belts like badges of authority. Girls showed off their legs with skirts short enough to slow down the traffic, while the bleach white sun and the endless barrage of noise beat down on Praed Street. The diesel scented breeze offered little comfort. Horns blared as cars stacked up, snarling and shimmering in the ripples of haze they gave off. An angry queue of mirage makers, waiting to get home.
It was different somehow. The heat can bring out the best in people if you’re in a park, or at the beach. But at five in the afternoon when the streets are packed tight, you started to see a different face. Cars pushed through box junctions to block off pedestrian crossings, so that we swarmed around them, fists clenched, eyes angry, daring them to match our glare. Ready to meter out punishment for the crime of thoughtless and unnecessary delay of an office worker.
That’s when I heard her. At first, I thought it was a political rally. But she sounded angry. Really angry. Vote for me, you bastards! It was a repetitive mantra. Slogans being chanted. Accusations shouted above the roar of transit vans.
People were stopping to stare, and it didn’t take long for me to pick her out. She was of average height, with average dark hair. She was wearing unremarkable clothes with instantly forgettable shoes, and she was standing in the middle of Praed Street yelling and swearing at the top of her voice.
In no time at all she had a little crowd. The traffic backed up and squeezed past slowly. Nobody there wanted to be the first to risk sounding their horns and bringing her wrath crashing down upon them. The T-Shirted casuals drinking cold lager outside the Fountains Abbey pub sat uncomfortably close at hand, trying to ignore her, investigating their shoes or playing with tattered beermats.
She swore and she ranted as the man she was with tried his best to stem the tide of abuse. “What caused all this f- problem was YOU, you f- shit! You could have kept your f- mouth shut! But no – YOU had to f- tell every f- one! YOU had to stick your f- nose into other people’s f- business…”
And so she went on.
I passed by unnoticed, but close. She had the most beautiful golden brown eyes, and she was shaking. The sunlight caught in her hair and sparkled as she took another deep breath and let fly a fresh volley of profanity.
I carried on my way, listening to the rhythmic meter of her abuse which showed no sign of letting up. The sun still shone. Shadows crisp edged on dusty pavement. I passed the lock makers, then the jewellers, the sandwich shop and the news stands. And even when I drew level with Paddington Station almost five minutes later, I could still hear her voice, carried over the sea of impatient bodies on the gasoline flavoured wind.

A Better Still Lemonade Recipe

Ingredients
3 large whole lemons, scrubbed to remove wax
125g/4oz sugar
1.5ltr/2 pint boiling water
3 mint sprigs
4 lemon slices
ice cubes

method
1. Cut up the lemons and put them into a large stoneware jug,
2. Add the mint and sugar and pour over the boiling water,
3. Leave over night, stirring the mixture at bed time,
4. Strain in the morning and decant,
5. Serve with ice when the sun is shining.

Good News for Fat Chicks in Westminster

Further evidence of the Nanny State

Still Lemonade Recipe

Ingredients

½ lemon, juice only
2 tsp icing sugar, sifted
¾ glass water
3 mint leaves
ice cubes, for serving

Method

1. In a jug, whisk together the lemon juice, sugar and water.
2. Stir in the mint leaves.
3. Place some ice cubes in the base of a glass and pour the still lemonade over the top.
4. Serve.

Interview with a Cotton Farmer

”I TELL YOU sir, it just ain’t right. You betcha, boy. Here we are, workin’ hard in the Alabama sun, tryin’ our darndest to scratch out a livin’ from the dust an’ soil an’ all. An’ then we hears about the goldarn subsidy that them forn bew-rockracies is payin’ to their nylon farmers.
“I mean it just ain’t right. Here I am wi’ just a few dozen nig – sorry - casual workers on mah farm, an’ we’re pickin’ top quality Aye-merican cotton day in, day out. An these yoo-row-peans flood our markets wi’ their nylon. I seen ‘em on TV. Great big yeller fields all full o’ nylon flowers, growin in the sun like they had a right ter be there an’ all!
“I called muh wife on account of the fact that it was still early an’ she was still purdy sober. An I says: Marlene – will yer jus’ take a look at them good fer nothin’ Limeys plantin out their goldarn unholy nylon farms?
“So Marlene looks at the TV through her good eye, and she says; that thar aint nylon. That thar’s rape.
“Darn right. I says ter her. Yer darn right.
“Anybody seen muh shotgun?”

Letter of Complaint

TO WHOM IT may concern.
Having heard a great deal of fuss being made over the impending convergence of Venus and the sun, I went to great lengths to purchase a very powerful telescope so as to witness the event at first hand.
Imagine my disappointment when the powerful magnification force of my extremely expensive hardware managed to incinerate not just my right eye, but also to fry a substantial part of my thalamus and cerebellum.
As a result of which, I am no longer capable of rational thought or decision making, and will be voting for Robert Kilroy Silk in the upcoming European elections.
Please warn your listeners of the dangers involved when using precision optics to view the sun. Apparently I have had a lucky escape. Another millimetre to the right and I would have been taking out a subscription to the Daily Mail.
Yours,
Impaired of Hungerford

A warning to all Liberal Suckers

A REPLY TO my comments at the BLINK website

"It's all very well David Steele saying we should buy 'fair-trade' commodities, but these products are more expensive than those on the free market of global reality - and only people of Mr Steele's financial standing can afford to buy these items.

"'Fair-trade' is simply a device for one set of liberal cynics to rip off another set of liberal suckers. If our economy goes bad and these liberals can't afford the high 'fair-trade' prices, the 'fair trade' farmers/manufacturers, who have been taken in by the 'fair-trade' offer of a free lunch, will be priced out of the market and begging their former buyers to give them business again. A farmer/producer, who is desperate for a contract, is completely prone to exploitation and, basically, up shit-creek without a paddle - is that fair?

"The poor people of third world countries depend on this trade to feed themselves and their children - unlike in this country, their children understand that one must work and create a commodity in order to feed oneself. In contrast, 'fair-trade' is just a quick buck for opportunist pseudo-liberals who feel guilty about making money and wish to hide behind the facade of charity. If these liberals sweated on the free market like the rest of the world, they would have no reason to feel guilt about their profits.

"The only real solution to this problem is for the poor countries to become less dependent on trade with the rich countries - through improved self-developed reality-relevant skills (not meaningless and expensive Western education) and diversification of their economies.

"Of course, the liberals do not really want the poor to liberate themselves; they want the poor to be dependent on our trade and, especially, dependent on liberal generosity - sub-versive wrecking policies, such as 'fair-trade' will ensure this. Only the hard realities of the free market and hunger will act as an incentive for poor countries to reorganise their economies.

"Once in a stronger position, the poor of the world can make the liberals, and their philosophy, redundant - and explain to David Steele what he can do with his liberal surplus of 'fair-trade' coffee beans!

"Ordinary people have the right to buy on the free-trade market of reality so that ordinary people in distant countries can have the right to a real and free future."

Name
Jim W Penner
Date Posted
6/1/2004 12:23:38 AM

Letter to Ken Weston

Dear Ken,

I’M SORRY IT'S taken me so long to get around to this. Please don’t take my long silence as a sulk or an insult. I suddenly find myself joining the ranks of the “time poor”, where every little job in the world suddenly seems to conspire against my having a little fun with a keyboard. First the coving in the spare room, then the long battle with blown vinyl wallpaper that somehow never seems to make a room look like the one on the packet.

Events seem to be happening more rapidly than either of us can comment on at the moment. Prices rise, protests loom, prises fall again, Politicians spout a lot of hot air, and people drone on about how the planet is going to choke. Perhaps we can all breathe a collective sigh of relief now that the whole thing seems to have blown over. But I rather think this was just the prologue to what will become the single most important issue of our time.

On reading your letter I realised that you were not the instigator of the protest letter I received. However, you had put you name to the document, and had forwarded the email on to people who had repeated the process until it arrived on my screen. post hoc, ergo proctor hoc You pinned your colours to the mast. If you put a collar on a barking dog and let it loose on the street, does it become your dog? Answers on an email, please…

My argument is that at best, the protest cannot hope to achieve
its goal, and at worst, it could damage a reputable British company. At no point in the email was there any mention of the need to cut back on fuel use, or to change long established and unsustainable practises that we should all be doing our best to curb.

The idea that British consumers can effect the opinion of OPEC by not buying from a couple of brand stations is about as realistic as the idea that I can persuade the water company to cut my water rates by showering with just my left hand. The “when” and “where” of your petrol consumption are of no interest to Arabian nations at all. They are not even of interest to BP or Esso. Every litre that they don’t collect gets auctioned off to the lowest bidder anyway. Companies like Tesco and Sainsbury get to sell cheap petrol because they go around and siphon off the dregs that the oil giants leave behind. It’s a process known as selling “analogue” fuel. Chances are that if you’re filling up in a supermarket, there’s still a mark-up for BP somewhere along the line.

The point I’m making is quite simple: Market Forces dictate the fact that people will try to shop where ever fuel is cheapest. I’m not going to shop where fuel costs me an extra 5p a litre if I can help it, am I? But BP still manage to keep going, even though they charge more than Safeway… How strange…

So why do BP charge more? Well, unlike most other companies, BP (and shell, to be fair) are investing heavily in alternative fuels. They are working to break the stranglehold that the OPEC nations are able to place us under. Have you never seen the Dereks in the North sea, sucking up Brent Crude? Britain isn’t a major player on the world market, but we make enough to relax the choking grip of the Arab states.

BP may well be investing in Iran. But your argument was with OPEC, and Iran (for all their faults) are not members of that little mafia. BP will continue to have their finger in any pie that looks like it could be oil rich. Critisizing them for investing in these areas is as short sighted as the American Bumper sticker demanding: ”How did OUR oil get under THEIR sand?”

As well as speculating for oil, BP are world leaders (literally) in researching alternative fuel sources, such as hydrogen cells, wave power, blah blah blah.

I’m not saying they’re angels and saints. They’re just as greedy as the next mega-corporation. To quote their futures director in New Scientist: “The world is moving on and people will be using alternative sources of energy. It’s our business to be able to provide it for them.” They’re a British company. They’re a major source of income for the treasury, and a great source of worthwhile British jobs.

According to Newsnight on Tuesday the 1st June, only about 2.5 pence on a litre of petrol is profit for the fuel company. Which do you think would be the cheapest option for BP if this protest actually worked? Reduce the price of fuel, or simply not bother selling in the UK?

I’m not going to bother defending Esso. Their “tough shit” approach to the Exxon Valdez disaster didn’t exactly win my undying affection, and any company that supports the American Republican Party on the world stage needs to get its arse kicked. Exxon rate at number four in The Economist’s “Most Boycotted Companies” list. If you think you’re going to dent their armour then crack on.

The UK plays such a small part in all this that our argument (no matter
which mast we pin our colours to) becomes academic. When a seventh of all the world’s crude is burned on American Roads, even the most concerted protest from our little island carries about as much weight as the man on the cruise liner who hands out the deckchairs. Everyone might recognise him, but nobody asks him how to steer the boat.

The real reasons for the rise in fuel prices have been spelled out to us all week. I won’t insult you by detailing them all now, apart from to mention that they’re been blamed on the most part by a rise in industrialisation in China and the “fear factor” that investors are having about the sudden instability of the Middle East since the occupation of Iraq. Last Wednesday, OPEC leaders met, and were persuaded to increase production to bring down the price of crude yet again.

What we saw was a nice bit of cosmetic window dressing. It was a global PR exercise without substance. The facts are rather more worrying. OPEC will not risk a significant increase in the price of oil so close to a Presidential Election. They simply cannot afford to make George W Bush appear to have lost control of the economy when his position is so unsteady. They will increase production and rally privately around him, all the while reminding him what loyal friends they all are.

The OPEC cartel is a collection of despotic dictatorships who (if oil were removed from their economy) would export less to the world than
Finland. (Source – Radio 4 “Moral Maze” Aired Wed 02 June). They do not represent a democratic partnership of like-minded, progressive businessmen. The Saudi Monarchy is an oppressive regime with a history of human rights abuse. It is an autocratic dictatorship, which keeps the vast majority of its subjects uneducated and living in poverty. Just as the benefits of Oil Wealth are not passed on to the ordinary people of UAE, Oman, Kuwait, etc.

Religious intolerance and fundamentalism grows where poverty is at its most severe. And the oil-rich dictatorships have been amongst the worst culprits of this. America put these regimes in power, gave them weapons, granted them authority. Rigged their elections and turned a blind eye to their oppressive tactics. Now, our future prosperity, some would say survival, depends on our relationship with Saudi Arabia, where most of the world's oil is to be found. It's also where Osama Bin Laden finds support among Saudis who - conservative, xenophobic and intolerant - see the House of Saud as having betrayed the country and religion to the secular West. Meanwhile, the ruling family itself can't survive without either its alliance with America, or its appeasement of puritanical Islam. It’s a volatile combination that we all endorse and support worse every time we fill up.

You wrote in your email to me that you could quote the percentage rise of fuel over the last 20 years. That’s great. Now can you quote me the increase in the price of a barrel of oil since 1976? It’s not that long ago. I think Luke Skywalker was just unveiling his Light Sabre at the time. Now tell me how much the price of a car has increased. Or the price of a three bed roomed detected house. Fuel prices have been kept artificially LOW by OPEC because that’s the way the Americans have wanted it.

But it can’t last forever. The cracks in the dam wall are beginning to show, and there’s very little we can do about it. Fuel is a finite resource, and it’s going to become scarcer. I’m not talking about wishy-washy green issues. This is a simple scientific fact. Many estimates say that fuel will run out within fifteen years. Personally I think that’s an alarmist view. I can see fuel becoming more and more expensive, and eventually rationed. Within thirty years I can’t see it being used for much other than textile manufacture.



The fuel protest is a knee jerk reaction to a market blip by somebody who has absolutely no concept of the Big Picture. And that is precisely why I took issue with it.

Our relationship with OPEC has been compared to a crack addict’s relationship with his dealer. We don’t like him, we don’t like paying him. We know what he’s doing is wrong, but we can’t afford to do anything about it because we need the drug too much.

Africans working the oil drills are being paid tokens which can only be
exchanged in company stores.. Workers in the Middle East are being kept in misery and poverty and fired up to join groups like Al Quaeda. Trade Union leaders disappear for organising strikes in the UAE.

Ken, I’m a military man. I’ve spent time in Bosnia, in Kosovo, in Africa, in Kuwait, and in Iraq. I didn’t get my opinions from Google. I got them from living amongst poverty and hatred. From helping evacuate refugees from the Sierra Leone, The Congo and Kurdistan. I’ve seen the worst that mankind can offer, and I promise you that England, even in the most derelict zone of the most run down estate, is nothing even close to what you could seriously call third world.

But all of this is a waste of type. I’m sure you’re not doing much more than making a mental list of the points I’ve got wrong. It’s my guess that since you made a point of criticising voters, you are part of the majority of citizens who take no part in the political process at voting time and only turn out to be counted when there’s a demonstration to join. Like most people, you’ve not worried about the fuel consumption of your vehicle but are still quite happy to contribute to a campaign aimed against British jobs. It is my assumption that you’ll go on using just as much fuel as before, as long as none of the money you spend goes to fund research into clean fuel.

Here’s the rub, Ken. Pass this message to everyone who’ll listen: If you want to spend less money on fuel, you have to use less fuel.

Walk more (The majority of car journeys are less than 10 minutes long). Not twenty miles to work, but share your car with somebody else if you can. Shop locally. Use Park and Ride. Get involved with Safe Routes For Schools (60 % of UK car journeys are school runs), Slow down. Drive at off peak times. Turn your nose up at SUVs and help make them naff!

In closing, I’d like to thank you for your input. And also for your lesson in spelling. I appreciate the thought, but I feel duty bound to inform you that there is more than one “s” in the word “buses”.

Recipe of the week - Boiled commuter

Ingredients

Class 20 Locomotive
48 Commuters
36 Seats
1 Disinterested Conductor
4 Heating units

Method

1. Take one Class 20 FGW Diesel Locomotive with 36 seats per carriage
2. Pre heat carriages to 82F (27C)
3. Gradually add more commuters until all seats are full
4. Ensure conductors shrug their shoulders and ignore requests for heating to be turned down.
5. Add more commuters until all remaining oxygen has been used up
6. Simmer for 90 minutes until arrival at Paddington Station

serving suggestion

As an added treat, why not let everybody wait for an additional 10 minutes at the ticket check barrier while everyone has their documents examined in minute detail by a group of surly muppets with no manners?

Fuel Protest - Ken Watson Replies

KEN:Thank you for your kind reply,which I trust you have also sent to the peerson who forwarded the message to you, for it was not I. Some comments:

David: 1 - BP (British Petrolium - British) and Esso (Exxon - American) Are not
representitive of OPEC exporters. At worst they are investors and re-sellers
of common OPEC product. OPEC treaty countries are: Algeria, Indonesia, Iran,
Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Venezuela

KEN: Subsidiaries of both of these companies operate internationally prospecting and producing oil. Both are active in Iran even.

David: 2 - The government charge close to 80 pence in the pound on fuel, but only
spend a third of this on transport. If OPEC charged 75 pence per litre, then
a litre of petrol would cost us about £3.75.

KEN: The tax burden on petrol is in the region of 80% and this of course includes VAT. The present government has seen the tax on petrol rise quite considerably, as with the taxes on most other things. OPEC do not charge by the litre, nor do they supply petrol. They provide crude oil which the oil companies refine into whatever product they require.

David: 3 - If you really want to save money on fuel, share your car, organise
school "walking busses", take a bus and slow down to 70MPH on the motorways.

KEN: Now, the walking bus idea, and the sharing idea are great BUT...

I can't find anybody to walk with me the 20 miles or so to work, and I rather think that somewhere in the region of 5 hours walking each way is a little beyond most folk anyway. Would you do it? Especially to start work at 6am, or as today to finish at 2am. By the way, buses only has one 's'. Public transport would be a good option too, except that buses and trains do not run at the times I have already mentioned. and over the past three weeks of working in connection with surveying buses and staffing of them, pre-selected buses (selected by the PTE) have failed to materialise in 30% of the booked journeys. Rather unreliable, don't you think.

David: 4- The Association of British Drivers has a table you should look very
carefully at. Showing where your money is going.

KEN:I am aware of the ABD website and visit it from time to time. The site is rather biased however, andnot all it's 'facts' are facts. One needs to be reminded, inany case, that the present government, as with those for many years before it, were elected by folk like yourself. This is not the place for a political discussion, so I will not labour the point, if you will forgive the pun.

David: 5 - Researching this reply took me forty minutes with Google. Part of what
makes this country great is that you get to say what you like. That doesn't
mean you shouldn't check your facts before you fill 300,000,000 mail boxes
with useless spam.

KEN: Now, I rather think that, as with the majority of 'researchers' you have chosen to go along the line which gives the answer you want and ignores anything which does not meet your criteria. 40 minutes is not really very long at all, is it? Can you tell me by what percentage petrol prices have risen in the past 20 years? I can tell you that. I have not filled 300,000,000 mailboxes with anything. would that I knew that many addresses. The e-mail did not originate with me: I merely passed it on whilst deleting the previous hundred or so recipients in order to not fill the mailboxes of those who I sent the message to, some of whom have phoned to express support. You have your opinion, which is opposed to mine. You do not have to pass on the message. the world will not end if you don't pass it on, and neither will you become rich if you do. Perhaps, of course, you have never sent an unwanted e-mail? in which case congratulations on being no. 1 paragon of rectitude. As regards this country being great, only it's name is Great. Have you not noticed that we are now becoming a third world country? Don't ask Google. Look around you, and see what is really happening. Oh, and by the way, you are telling me that I should not say what I want, and then you go on tosay that freedom of speech is what made the country great. You can't have it both ways, now, can you?

Ken Weston

Bottom Shelf Pawn

I'VE GOT ABSOLUTELY no brains at all when it comes to chess. A couple of lads in the office are running a chess game, and they swap moves through the day. It looked like fun, so I thought I’d have a go. Half a dozen straight defeats later, I realised that maybe it would be less embarrassing if I stuck to a computerised opponent. At least Pentium processors aren’t programmed to gloat.
So, I spent a few minutes with my mobile, and downloaded a chess program from Vodafone. My logic was pretty simple: Practice for a while on the basic chess game, and when I’d outstripped it’s ability and gained some level of experience I’d be free to move on to playing against people.
After all. It was a 43Kb program. How hard could it be to beat?
I tried “normal” skill level and it wiped the floor with me.
Fair enough. Perhaps I started too ambitiously. I selected a lower skill level, rolled up my sleeves, and got trashed again. I notched the skill level down to “beginner”, and then to “novice”, only to be systematically insulted and humiliated every time my rook showed its battlements.
Having slipped down through the skill levels past “child”, “moron”, “earthworm” and “carrot” I finally admit defeat. It seems there is only one skill level I can possibly hope to successfully pit myself against, but unfortunately nobody has installed “George W Bush” mode as yet.

Lost for Words

I'M IN ONE of those busy, transient states at the moment, where I don't seem to have the time to even think of things to write, let alone write!

To re-cap: Marris and Wade is now fully re-written and I'm looking for an agent who knows a good thing when he sees it. I'm pushing it under the rather wordy title of "Marris and Wade - and the man who kept a demon under his hat", although my friend Alan Wall made a rather helpful suggestion of "Marris and Wade and a Total Croc of Shite." Always nice to meet a fan...

No time at the moment to talk about the two films I went to see this week. But I really must. The Day After Tomorrow was so terrible that it would be a shame to let it escape my poison pen. But by contrast, the new Harry Potter was a gem - despite sharing the cinema with the rudest and most ignorant bunch of simpletons I've ever known.

Also no time to print the rather acidic reply that the author of the fuel protest chain letter has sent me - no time even to reply to him personally.

So much to do! So little time to write it all up!

Where do all those little minutes go?

Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible...

Fame At Last - Published by the BBC

YOU CAN FIND the highly sanitised and abridged version of my Iraq Essay here. Evidently it got a lot of hits. I wonder what the BBC calls a lot?