Angels, demons and tedium

Posted on May 21, 2009 by David

I watched the film “Angels and Demons” this evening. If you are tempted, don’t bother: the religion is wrong, the science is more or less wrong and it commits the cardinal (not a pun, really) sin of being boring: the hero played by Tom Hanks is Indiana Jones on a valium overdose. The supposed contention between religion and science is part of the plot, but in such a ham-fisted way that even the casual viewer will come away convinced that there is no contention. There is an anti-matter bomb whose only reason for being in the film, as far as I can tell, is so the heroine can talk about the God particle. The Higgs boson actually has no more to do with God than any other particle; nevertheless, its appearance is portrayed as somehow challenging God since it was present “at the moment of creation”. The anti-matter bomb also blows up, of course, but, really, an anti-matter bomb isn’t terribly practical:

Antimatter is a real substance, first theorized in 1928. “Every time you squeeze a lot of energy into a small space, you produce equal amounts of matter and antimatter,” Landua explains. “Nature doesn’t like to create just one sort; it always produces both to keep a balance. I compare it to digging a hole in the sand, and then you have a pile next to it. You can’t do one without the other.” The first antielectron was produced in 1932, and particle accelerators helped scientists create the first antiproton in 1955. Antimatter was first produced at CERN in 1995, though not by the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). But unlike in the movie—where CERN has produced a gram of antimatter—the facility has actually only produced a small amount of the substance. “In the movie, we switch on the LHC and it produces a gram of antimatter in a few minutes,” Landua says. “That’s not possible for two reasons: It would need much more energy to do it—with present efficiency, it would take 10 ^ 22 joules—and the reality of how quickly antimatter can be produced … it would take about a billion years to produce a gram. We can make about a billionth of a gram in a year.”

All of this I could forgive if I had been entertained: alas, the film is dull. The acting is stilted, the characters unconvincing and the plot silly. The worst part is the Tom Hanks character wasn’t killed, so he could be back.

Lost in translation

Posted on May 20, 2009 by David

For reasons that are not apparent to me this article:

Some of the few things that can still scandalise: Bible quotes
The fear appears to be that, in spite of the fact that the US was at war and embroiled in all the horror and mess that accompanies war, the last thing it could afford to do was offend those who are being bombed – or liberated. Could America’s standing in the Arab world be any lower? After this, I suppose Obama will have refine his ingratiation technique and bow to the Saudi King – even lower.

Saddam’s gruesome little tyranny was secular not religious so billing the Iraq war as a crusade, bible verses or not, does not hold water; the mixing of politics and religion is often a recipe for disaster, but those who are most prone to do it – the religious left – will be the noisiest critics of this discovery.

appears to have been translated into some other language, then back into English and re-emerges here:

Some of the not overflowing things that can in any case scandalise: Bible quotes
The cowardice appears to be that, in bitchiness despite of the information that the US was at warfare and embroiled in all the repugnance and around that accompanies warfare, the endure junk it could slacken off on d See to do was embarrass those who are being bombed – or liberated.

The rare junk is not the information that it happened – something that is in reality one mildly surprising – but the pother its disclosure is creating. Could America’s duration in the Arab in all respects be any farther down? After this, I as read Obama purpose be in latest thing hone his ingratiation procedure and curtsey to the Saudi King – equable farther down.

Saddam’s horrid scant dictatorship was terrene not meticulous so billing the Iraq warfare as a struggle with, bible verses or not, does not back water; the mixing of diplomacy and belief is many times a procedure disparage a brave against of cataclysm, but those who are most predisposed to do it – the meticulous left-wing – purpose be the noisiest critics of this disclosure.

I’m still trying to decide which I prefer, the bitchiness of the original or its Borat inspired replacement.

I left my heart in San Francisco

Posted on May 19, 2009 by David

When I was in Italy a few years back I remember visiting the basilica where St. Anthony’s tongue, larynx and associated parts could be inspected. A book has been written about scattered holy body parts:

They are scattered all over the world – holy little odds and bits: St. Anthony’s shrivelled tongue in Rome, a tooth from the Buddha in Sri Lanka, the finger of St. John the Baptist in Florence.

More than isolated curiosities, these pieces of the dead have always attracted reverence from the religious who find in the smallest, and often grossest, body parts, evidence of holiness.

Why else would an English bishop take a bite out of St. Mary Magdalene’s bones? And how did a hair from Muhammad’s chin end up in Kashmir?

These are the kinds of questions that inspired author and scholar Peter Manseau to embark on a journey around the world to investigate relics and the people who adore them, which resulted in the book Rag and Bone: A Journey Among the World’s Holy Dead.

I saw quite a few relics while in Italy but they did not, unlike many of the churches that housed them, inspire reverence. In fact, after a while I found myself humming Spike Milligan’s version of, “I left my heart in San Francisco”:

I left my heart in San Francisco,
I left my knees in old Peru.
I left my little wooden leg
Hanging on a metal peg,
And my eyeballs I gave to you.
I left my teeth on Table Mountain,
High on a hill they smile at me.
When I come home to you, San Francisco,
There won’t be much left of me.

Some of the few things that can still scandalise: Bible quotes

Posted on May 19, 2009 by David

It’s instructive to ponder the whips with which a navel-gazing super-power chooses to flagellate itself. In this particular case it is the printing of bible passages on Bush’s Iraq briefings:

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was sold as a fight for freedom against the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

But for former U.S. defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his elite Pentagon strategists, it was more like a religious crusade.

The daily briefings about the progress of the war that Mr Rumsfeld gave to President George W Bush were illustrated with victorious quotes from the Bible and gung-ho photographs of U.S. troops, it has emerged.

A photograph of Saddam Hussein included a quotation from the First Epistle of Peter: ‘It is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.’

The religious theme for briefings prepared for the president and his war cabinet was the brainchild of Major General Glen Shaffer, a committed Christian and director for intelligence serving Mr Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In the days before the six-week invasion, Major General Shaffer’s staff had created humorous covers for the briefings to alleviate the stress of preparing for battle.

But as the body count rose, he decided to introduce biblical quotes.

However, many of his Pentagon colleagues were reportedly opposed to the idea, with at least one Muslim analyst said to be greatly offended.

A defence official warned that if the briefing covers were leaked, the damage to America’s standing in the Arab world ‘would be as bad as Abu Ghraib’ – the Baghdad prison where U.S. troops abused Iraqis.

Since Christopher Hitchens supported the Iraq war, one wonders what he will make of this. The curious thing is not the fact that it happened – something that is really only mildly surprising – but the fuss its discovery is creating.

The fear appears to be that, in spite of the fact that the US was at war and embroiled in all the horror and mess that accompanies war, the last thing it could afford to do was offend those who are being bombed – or liberated. Could America’s standing in the Arab world be any lower? After this, I suppose Obama will have refine his ingratiation technique and bow to the Saudi King – even lower.

Saddam’s gruesome little tyranny was secular not religious so billing the Iraq war as a crusade, bible verses or not, does not hold water; the mixing of politics and religion is often a recipe for disaster, but those who are most prone to do it – the religious left – will be the noisiest critics of this discovery.

I wonder if anyone would be surprised to find verses of the Koran on the plans that led up to 911?

I’m a lumberjack and I’m okay

Posted on May 18, 2009 by David

The only thing that will be more confused than this is the Anglican Church theological commission’s report on why it is perfectly normal:

Here come the brides… transvestite groom cuts the cake as ‘Susan’ after taking wedding vow as Ian

With long blonde hair, flowing ivory wedding dress and proud smile, Susan looks every inch the blushing bride.

Only Susan is really Ian Platt, 51, who performed the incredible feat of being both the bride and groom at his own wedding.

The transvestite father-of-three appeased his future in-laws by sporting a conservative dark grey morning suit for the registry office ceremony.

But after tying the knot with fiancee Lisa, 42, in a traditional wedding he left to perform a quick costume change.

And by the time guests arrived at a hotel for the wedding reception Mr Platt had transformed himself into a radiant bride.

The 100 guests roared with approval as the two brides cut their two wedding cakes – one saying ‘Ian and Lisa’ and the other saying ‘Susan and Lisa.’

The newly weds also had their first dance as brides and gave speeches thanking family and friends before jointly throwing a bouquet of flowers over their heads towards guests.

Mrs Platt, a mother-of-three, from Leeds, West Yorks, said: ‘Some people might not understand our relationship but it works perfectly for us.

‘I truly believe that people should be themselves and enjoy life, and that is what Ian, Susan and I do each and every day. There are three people in this marriage – Ian, Lisa and Susan – but I wouldn’t have it any other way.’

Mrs Platt said: ‘I met him as Ian first, he was really nice – he would always say he was quiet as Ian. Then he said I should meet Susan. I just thought it was brilliant. She was so confident and had the best legs I’d ever seen on a girl, let alone a man.

‘Ian said that when he was a boy he loved dressing up in women’s clothes and had gradually developed his alter ego – Susan.

‘She was confident and flamboyant and loved dolling herself up for a night on the transvestite scene in Leeds and going out with her transvestite girlfriends.’

A Fresh Wind – Part 2

Posted on May 18, 2009 by David

Part 1 should be read first.

For the unconvinced who simply cannot smell what the Anglican Church of Canada is shovelling, there is this:

Nose Wax
‘We only do one nostril at a time,’ she explains. ‘In America, they tend to do both at once.’ I am grateful for this British tweak, because I’m claustrophobic and even with one nostril blocked I feel slightly panicky and take big gulps of air through my mouth.

After about 30 seconds the wax is cool and set. Time for take-off. With one deft movement, Busi swipes away the paper, taking the wax and my nose hair with it. It’s not really painful, but it certainly smarts for a second or two.

I peer at the nostril-shaped pink lump with horror. It is porcupined with hideous thick hairs that stick out and resemble a pig’s snout. It is very disconcerting.

Now there is no excuse.

A Fresh Wind – for those whose nostrils are plugged

Posted on May 18, 2009 by David

The aphorism, “there’s a fresh wind blowing” makes a regular appearance in the Anglican repertoire of routine banalities that pose as prophetic or creative insight: for example here:

As the Primate puts it, “there’s a fresh wind blowing through our church!”

and here:

there’s a fresh wind blowing in the life of the Anglican Church of Canada to engage us again in this important reflection on God’s mission and what it is we’re called to be and do.”

and here:

open to the fresh wind of the Spirit who inspired scripture in the first place.

Its main purpose is to help justify tossing out 2000 years of biblical thinking to make room for a recently resuscitated heresy. Those whose olfactory organ is still functioning recognise the wind for what it is: a putrid stench.

Which makes me wonder why the Anglican Federation – a body of orthodox Anglicans which has decided to remain in the ACoC – has chosen to use this phrase:

I’m happy to report that a fresh wind is blowing through the Anglican Essentials Federation. We have a rejuvenated Federation Council, including new clergy and two bright senior students from Wycliffe College.

There has been little sign of life from the Federation in the last few years; occasionally it rouses itself from hebetude to make a pronouncement like this:

Look for a significant name-change coming soon, reflective of new realities!

Over all, there is a feeling of excitement and expectation as we continue to bear witness from our stance WITHIN the Anglican church of Canada.

The capitalised emphasis is theirs, appears to be the main obsession and perhaps explains why they are reusing ACoC boilerplate.

Pretty exciting.

Obama sounds like Rowan Williams

Posted on May 17, 2009 by David

A modern foible is to take two irreconcilable viewpoints, either of which could conceivably be correct, and pretend to synthesise them into a middle ground which almost certainly is not. This is peddled as some kind of virtue: it’s common in the Anglican Church and appears to be an Obama preoccupation:

President Obama used the controversy surrounding his Notre Dame address Sunday as a lesson on the need to bridge cultural divides in America, as he urged graduates to seek common ground on issues, like abortion, that stir passion on both sides.

What common ground could there possibly be between those who believe life begins at conception and therefore should be protected, and those who believe a foetus is a cluster of disposable cells. This apparently:

On the specific issue of abortion, Obama urged the public to at least agree that it is a “heart-wrenching” decision for any woman, and that the country should work to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies and making adoption more available.

“When we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe — that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground,” Obama said.

Rowan Williams expresses similar sentiments in trying to bring together those who agree and disagree with same-sex blessings in the Anglican Church:

The challenge is, “how can those who share that cost, that sense of profound anxiety about how to make the Gospel credible, how are they to come together for at least some measure of respect to emerge, so that they can recognize the cost that the other bears and also recognize the deep seriousness about Jesus and the Gospel that they share?”

In both cases, the common ground has nothing to do with the actual issue, but is merely the intensity with which each side holds its belief. In reality this is little more than a sleight of hand on the part of liberals to pacify the opposition while the real agenda continues unimpeded.

Both Obama and Williams have placed a higher value on attaining a bogus middle ground than on truth: it explains how the West has lost its way and how the Anglican church – hot in pursuit – has too.

Blimpophobia

Posted on May 17, 2009 by David

Just as mandatory tolerance increases for every conceivable moral perversity, so mandatory intolerance is increasing for every physical foible: smoking; not wearing seatbelts; not wearing bicycle helmets and now being too fat:

Bias against obese people increasing, study says

Yale University scientists who searched through medical studies on weight bias published between January 2000 and May 2008 found:

More than half of 620 doctors surveyed view obese patients as “awkward,” “unattractive,” “ugly” and “non-compliant.” A third went further, painting the obese as weak-willed, sloppy and lazy. Even dieticians, personal trainers and doctors who specialize in treating obesity exhibit fat phobia.

There must be a correlation. I suspect that humanity has a natural inclination to condemn – one which must be indulged for a happy, balanced life. Since little remains that can be condemned as ethically wrong – other than telling someone what they are doing is ethically wrong – we have to take it out on the fatties, smokers and non-exercisers.

The most pernicious phrase of the month

Posted on May 17, 2009 by David

The winner is a staple of all authentic Anglican Machiavellianism. It is:

The Listening Process.

The winning phrase combines all the necessary qualities:

It beguiles the naïve into taking it at face value; really, no-one is listening because they are either asleep or talking.
It is more disingenuous than Fred Hiltz’s smile.
Its potential to stun is rivalled only by a taser.
After half an hour it causes a nose-bleed.
Like any phrase ending in “process” it is designed to prevent the previous word of the phrase occurring.