Delayed.

In what is an echo of a previous excuse, no writing due to debating commitments stands as the famine of this blog limps along. In the same competition as the one previously noted, Davin and I debated the motion 'This House rejects the use of nuclear power as a solution to the energy crisis' - we opposed this motion. The speech was as follows;

Ladies, gentlemen, esteemed adjudicator, members of the proposition and of the audience. Mr. Clarke and I strongly advocate that nuclear power not be disregarded as part of the solution to our oncoming energy crisis. Not only do we vehemently criticise the naive position of the proposition, and the consequential beliefs by pure association, but we also accuse them of illogical, alarmist and biased ideas. To justify this I will first focus on the current coal, natural gas and oil situations with their nuclear answers, followed by the questions of nuclear waste and nuclear proliferation. Mr. Clarke will then further expound on this by addressing some seemingly forgotten facts of the so called renewable energy sources, again with their relative nuclear answers, followed by exploring our ever increasing understanding and improvement of the fission process. He will then finish with the always fragile topic of terrorism.

Commonly held assumption one; radiation from Nuclear Power Plants is infinitely worse for your health than current CO2 emissions. Ladies and gentlemen, in the course of this debate alone each person here will be struck by roughly 60 million particles of this same type of radiation. And this is lauded simply as ’background radiation’ - because it has no discernable affects. For someone living close to a nuclear plant, their radiation exposure goes up by 1%. The reality is, for a given amount of energy produced, coal ash, for example, is far more radioactive than nuclear radiation. This is because the quantity of coal ash is literally millions of times greater. If the skull and cross-bone dangers of radiation card is to be played, I ask you to cast your eye on the abundantly present coal industry we currently face. Therefore, this argument is a non-starter.

Commonly held assumption two; this is nuclear technology, and it can explode! Ladies and gentlemen, this statement is founded on zero evidence other than the attendance of the word nuclear. Mr. Clarke is going to go into further detail about how nuclear power plants are extremely safe in his speech but a key point to be made is that the uranium enriched in nuclear plants cannot explode, it is not even nearly weapons grade. But, if this argument is to be allowed - consider a natural gas tanker - which transports natural gas cooled and liquefied to around -160 degrees Celsius overseas in an extremely expensive and extremely fragile procedure. These glorified thermos flasks have the explosive potential of a hydrogen bomb. Why do the proposition not speak out about the deadly killing potential of such a device, which harbours on our ports regularly? The paradoxical hyprocritical double standard is obvious for all to see.

The third assumption I will address is the propounded ‘unsolved problem’ of nuclear waste. Nuclear waste comes in what are called spent fuel rods. Of which only 5% is ‘high-level waste’ ie stuff that is actually debatably dangerous. Debatable because when controlled, parts are also be used for medical purposes. The other 95% is the same uranium you dig out of the earth, and countries such as France and Canada recycle parts of this to extract energy from the waste.

To put the scale of nuclear waste into perspective, if ALL the electricity you will ever use in your lifetime were to come from nuclear, the waste would fill a coke can. In contrast, in one day a coal plant (1 GW) uses 8,000 tonnes of coal, translating into 19,000 tonnes of CO2 with no containment method, pumped into our breathing air. Many often hark and scowl at the proposal that nuclear waste be stored for a thousand years, but compare this to solid wastes through coal burning, such as arsenic and chromium - these don’t have ‘half-lives’ and cannot be stored until it is safe, they last forever. And there is no conceivable way to isolate waste that pumps out roughly three tonnes of ash per second. Nuclear waste, to the contrary, is extremely controllable and myths of green goo seeping into our drinking water is only propounded by the anti-nuclear priesthood. Is it not logical that the waste from our energy be stored rather than littered into our air? Taking France as an example. In a 50 year period, the most nuclear intensive country in the world has all their waste stored in one room, in 50 years.

Can the proposition really be telling us that nuclear energy, a huge branch of scientific technology, be disregarded whilst we wait it out, during which time coal plants continue to make our air unfit to breath, during which time we continue to rely on corrupt political regimes for our energy, during which time price volatility for energy fluctuates in the rising pattern it has in the past decade, until comparably inefficient and unreliable renewable energy is optimised? Even then it would not be enough. Therefore, this is not good enough! I remind the audience that we, the opposition, are not cancelling out renewable technology, but we are advocating that nuclear is the greenest alternative to coal, natural gas and oil that can support the base load of our growing electricity consumption as countries such as China and India continue to grow, and they can do this reliably, comparatively cheaply, and are not temperamental.

On the issue of nuclear weaponry, I simply ask the proposition what their supposed plan would be for the decommissioning of nuclear weapons. Whilst enriching uranium to weapons grade is extremely difficult, using it for fuel is simple. As an example, half of the nuclear energy used by the USA comes from the decommissioning of outdated Cold War Russian warheads, without which, they would still be a threat to us all. No other technology is so strongly an advocate of nuclear non-proliferation than nuclear energy.

Ladies and gentlemen, the proposition have signed their subscription and joined this auction of hyperbole and credulity surrounding nuclear energy propagated falsely by the mass media. They are putting illogical principles before facts in an aprioristic style. We must polemicise our way out of this religious type taboo where it is blasphemic to correlate nuclear with progress and good. The point is ladies and gentlemen, not that non-renewable energy sources are bad, or even that renewable energy sources are inadequate, but that the very criticisms of nuclear energy are ill-founded, propagandist tripe used to manipulate your interpretations of the technology. And we, the opposition, ONLY ask you to not disregard it completely, to fit it into the equation somewhere, as the proposition refuse to do, in our own energy crisis. Thank you.

The debate took place on the 15th December and Davin and I defeated the motion and advanced to the next round.

Thought on theism(with an a at the start)

Today in what is more or less a discussion class in school(Social Religious Education) we had to position ourselves in accordance with our own view, or supposed view, on the idea of the existence of a deity, not primarily focusing on the school's most humble Roman Catholic one(hmm). Ironically enough, non believers were told to sit on the right wing of the room.
We went, or nearly went, around in a circle when people gave their reason(s) for their respective position. Two things stick in my head which I will get of the way briefly.
(i)The first being one particular persons' claim that whether or the not there is a god, that we should act as if there is, as it gives us someone, or something, to answer to with regards our morals. The teacher proceeded to then say he would have no moral qualms with robbing a bank should he not harbour the aforementioned belief. Though he admitted this was a reductionist claim to make. I thought it polite not to give my own personal response on a degree too insulting as I would eventually, as the saying goes, get my turn. Though I will outline my position here nonetheless - Is it not an insult to human solidarity to say that we need a divine judicial court to prevent us from doing wrong? I am by no means a moral exemplar but the idea that I was any more discouraged from commiting any sort of atrocity when I did have a certain belief would be an insult not just to me, but to my family. I feel this is the kind of response everyone should adopt when told, more or less, that they are immoral without biblical supervision. We must be aware of the moral zeitgeist innate in our own perception of society, not the so called moral code set down pre-medieval times.
(ii) Another class member also stated that whilst the theist belief may not be one he finds plausible to adopt, his outview leaned towards a karma-type system wherein this could be a way of deciding morality and non-morality. My own response to this would be that while it is impossibe to disprove "justice" as a universal law which irons throughout society scientifically, it is one that can be disproved in the sense that we can see the injustice around us and before us. An easy example is that surely Hitler deserved a more horrifying death than the one he did suffer? The idea of karma simply doesn't hold up in my perception primarily because it poses that our own universe actually cares about us, which I simply cannot see any degree of evidence for. It is in fact, a direct contradiction to my own sympathy towards Camus' Adsurdism which whilst my knowledge is limited on, I find it both compelling, morally superior and above all, rational. I would not say this of the person who said this in the class, as it would not be true, but I feel there is an arrogance in saying that the laws of physics and nature vibrate towards justice.

The main point of this was to outline a thought that entered my head on the subject. It can be said that we are all, more or less, agnostic. In that we cannot prove or disprove 'God' in the same way we cannot prove or disprove pink unicorns, Santa Claus, the flying spaghetti monster, a tea pot in space, and so on(shamelessly plucked from 'The God Delusion'). Though I will say this, does it not depend on how you define God, to say whether or not it can be proved or disproved? My own aim here is to outline how I believe it is feasible to disprove a Catholic, or Christian God, for example.

Let us take into account a god which cannot be disproved. The god of many of the Founding Fathers of the American Constitution. I am talking in particular about Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and Paine. This god, in simplified terms, flicked the first domino of our existence, but has since found more consuming things to occupy itself with. It cares nothing for our continued existence, much less about whether or not some of us are homosexual, or whether we eat pork, or whether or not our foreskin has been bladed off, or more commonly hacked off with a stone. This god cannot be disproved by its' very definition. To say that this god set the laws in place but has since taken no interest is a losing game from the outset. A deist could say the proof exists in us, and the lack of any other form of proof, is in fact further proof. It is what I call a logical circle. This god cannot be proved, or disproved. We can be nothing but agnostic towards deistic beliefs.

A Christian God is a bit different, is it not? A Theism such as this has the inherent arrogance to say not only that the Deist God is there, but he is infact still here, and takes great interest in the things I mentioned above. That is to say, a Christian should believe that the deists are partly right, but would go one step further to say he has revealed himself through the prophecies, the scriptures, the magificence of the Earth, and so on. This is why I believe, very plainly, why it is possible to be an atheist with regards this God.
Those who are raised Christian, as I was, are told that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent(yet of course we still have free will, privacy and there is still a lot of evil in the world). The main reason I say that He can be disproved is because of the obvious lies, and obvious contradictions, within the book He supposedly penned. I will be brief and touch only on the points which are most obvious; there is no recognition of dinosaurs existing, there is no reason to believe that there was a Noah's Ark, or that there were ever Jewish slaves in Egypt, or that there ever was a Jesus of Nazareth, I could go on but I won't. As well as this, Jesus claims in the New Testament that his return, admist galactic warfare and chaos, will come soon, "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." [Luke 21:30-32]. As well as this, very simple things like the Virgin Birth are only mentioned in two of the Gospels.
My point is this, if the God of the Christian religions is what they claim him to be, then why is his own book littered with lies, contradictions, fallacies and obvious tripe? In other words, why do the claims he make not stand up? This is not a scientific attempt at a disproof by any means but I feel that the points I have raised are something which have to be considered when judging your own definition of god, atheist and agnostic.

This is why I believe it is possible to be both an atheist and an agnostic.

Neglectful update on 12/11/09

Having neglected the lonely chronicling of my own thoughts I felt it necessary to update this after well over two weeks of avoidance. Indeed I can claim excuse in the fact that a lot of my recent time was completely consumed by preparation for the first round of the 'Northern Ireland Schools Debating Competition' in which my good friend Davin, and I, opposed the motion, "This House believes Student Debt is a fair price to pay for an education." Here is a near final draft of what my speech was(having discarded the tangible final version after the debate itself);

Ladies, gentlemen, esteemed adjudicator, members of the proposition and of the audience, not only is it inherently obvious that for the vast majority of graduating university students today and for the foreseeable future, that their prospective debt ailments dominate their lives, career options and indeed happiness, but it is also the conviction of Davin and I that the system in place is an intrinsically corrupt, class based and chasm creating one. I will begin by outlining the failings of this unfair system and then focus on the misleading tales of post-graduate prosperity. Davin will then follow by focusing on how our government have failed to improve social mobility and the economy to the extent where this can really be deemed a fair price.
Let us primarily take into account the student loan system in and of itself, which the proposition have so stoutly defended as a beacon for social mobility, the emancipator of class struggle, leading to the educational liberation of minds from lower middle class families, is this the case? Certainly not. Whilst the proposition would have us believe that this infallible system works as an ironing board in the quest for a productive, intelligent and broad society, I pose that whilst our government has displayed a screen of supposed commitment to this issue, that after over a decade since Labour introduced the means-tested system and with it, imposed the idea of University fees upon us, that higher education is still dominated by white, upper and upper middle class students. Why is it the case that students from the richest 2% of households dominate the top universities? Why is it the case that they are twice as likely to go to university at all? Why is it the case that the poorest 25% of households make up less than 6.3% in these universities? The answer, ladies and gentleman, lies firstly in the fundamentally flawed Student Loans Company, the red brick stumbling block on the hazy road that is a University education.
Hazy because we, the opposition, think it illogical to suppose that it is a ‘fair price’ that students be fed the propaganda of the equality interests of student loans. Let us realise that student loans are not earmarked by a fixed interest rate, indeed it is a variable one that is more often than not in line with the Retail Price Index inflation figure. The example I propose is that a student who leaves University with a general degree, which has no direct career path, for example strikes lucky and finds a job at a starting wage of £17,000 per annum, now compare this to a student who graduates what I will call a ’platinum’ degree(which falls under the banner of Law, Medicine, Actuary and so on), this student will have more job opportunities and will of course earn more money when he/she acquires this job, and will pay off their loan in bigger instalments than the other student, in proportion to what each earns. With the addition of interest rates though, we have a system which punishes those on lower wages, since the student with a general degree is paying in smaller instalments, the interest builds up and over time they end up paying off more money to the Student Loans Company than the graduate who did a higher powered degree and earns a substantially greater amount of money. This is simply prejudiced and unjust.
The proposition will no doubt enlighten us on how students have to be aware of the interest added on to their loans, but what incentive is it, to take out a loan that can be at a similar level to some of the best fixed rate mortgages currently available? The best rate that new borrowers can hope for is 3.98% in a mortgage, while students in the past couple of years have had to deal with interest rates as high as 4.8%. How can it be justified that the average student in Newcastle for example, should he/she take out a loan each year to cover simply their tuition fees starting a three year degree, will have just under £10,000 of debt once they graduate. This figure may be harrowing but it is also kind, as it does not take into account possible loans for maintenance fees, which is just as much of a reality as loans for tuition fees are, using the proposition‘s logic. This is not fair, when just a few miles north, Scottish students have the opportunity to attain third level education free of charge. Let me also clarify, that since the Labour government refuse to pay tuition fees, that any English, Welsh or Northern Irish student who goes to Scotland does have to pay fees. The proposition believe this to be fair?
It is not in the nature of our argument to suggest that all third level education should be free, or indeed that third level education is a birth right. But the government simply aren’t rewarding the academic excellence of students who show the capability and capacity to excel, they are turning University education into a yearned for right, instead of an earned one.
What then, of the argument of the job market? The housing market? Surely, you would assume, graduates, having been sold University as a route to employability, are flourishing and will be the cogs, pulleys and gears to pull us out of our current economic depression? Indeed I would claim that the antithesis is harder to falsify. ‘Out of school and on the dole’ is the latest cry from students as they face a harsh job market simply trying to economise. It is believed that after the class of 2009 graduated, under 25 unemployment hit the one million mark. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development released figures that nearly half of employers had no plans to recruit graduates in the summer just past. meaning one in ten of the class of 2009 will be unemployed as a result. Ladies and gentlemen we are faced with a lost generation, the class of 2009 were the first set of students to leave University with unprecedented levels of debt, and the job market has been slashed by roughly 25% amidst extremely optimistic and unctuous predictions at the time in which the fees were bumped to around three thousand pounds per year. They graduate to find very few jobs in the market. They could not join the First Time Buyer market during the boom because the prices were too high, and now the Student Loans Company have made it clear that there are plans to give their credit files to banks, so any missed payment on the student loan system will show up as a black X beside their name, making a mortgage near impossible for graduates when also taking into consideration the mortgage rates. I will say it again, somehow the are trying to tell us, that this is fair?
It is a sad state of affairs ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubting that Universities are economically driven, but at increasing rates the economic benefits which they offer are limited. Ladies and gentlemen student debt is not a fair price to pay for an education.

Suffice to say, we won the debate by an anorexic margin of one point. Though simply by not being embarrassed on a public stage such as that was a small victory in itself for me. I am now sick of the very topic of student debt, let alone prepared to face it once this school year ends.

Dizzee Rascal - Tongue n' Cheek, Review

It's been an interesting year for Dizzee Rascal. Prior to his first #1 with Calvin Harris and Chrome, he was still considered by many to another grime act who will refuse to stop making music. Then he discovered how to make a pop song. Hence Tongue n' Cheek. There are times on the album where I hope that's all this is for Dylan Mills, a temporary spin into the mainstream just to show how easy it can be for someone so talented. Even one of the b-sides of this album, the electro-grime Live Large n' in Charge still displays his ability to pen original, innovative grime.

But that's exactly what this isn't. First singles Bonkers, Dance Wiv Me and Holiday stand out on early listens. Road Rage is a slightly more in tone with his roots effort. Sometimes you struggle to decipher what exactly Dizzee is trying to say on this album, whereas Boy in da Corner is an album that refuses to die and is certainly considered the definitive grime album, you can see this LP not lasting the distance and it most certainly has lost him a lot of people who would have considered themselves 'loyal' fans - and he has replaced them with chart fans, who will like anything which they find easy to listen to.

Despite this, this pop effort is still a lot better than what 'serious' pop artists will put out this year. His ability for finding clever rhymes still prevails and saves some of less tasteful numbers, such as Freaky Freaky. And the Tiesto produced Bad Behaviour is an impressive album closer. But that is the problem with this album, it could easily be considered a collection of possible singles, there's little direction, little reason to justify why a song like Freaky Freaky made the cut and Live Large n' in Charge didn't other than its potential acceptability to chart audiences.

It's easy to call this album Dizzee's "sell out" album, but most of his fans will certainly find this a enjoyable, laid back listen. Powerful numbers from his old days such as Stop Dat, Paranoid and Hype Talk are replaced for chilled out offerings such as Chillin' Wiv Da Man Dem and Dirtee Cash and it's fair to argue that he's simply expanding his musical horizons with a bit of experimentation, it just so happens that his experiment seems to be reaching out to the pop world, rather than usual route of the other way about. Listenable, but not memorable.

RATING: 6.9/10

"Land belongs to the Jews,"

Again today whilst reading The Guardian, I came across an article that reeks of the same sort of self-righteous, ill-founded and immoral tripe that yesterday's creationist article stank of.
Major Adrian Agassi, who is an Israeli army judge and military judge is a man who only emigrated to Israel(or the "State of Jews" as he prefers it to be called, which he feels would have avoided confusion) from England after he had been born, bred and educated there. Yet he still feels that there is weight in his sentiment that Jews have God-given, Bible certified right to lay claim to Israel and increasing the amounts of 'settlements in the West Bank' - which is effectively stealing Palestinian land and leaving thousands homeless. In his opinion, the land is Jewish inherently, but peace is not even an aim that can be considered, calling the idea, "against nature," seeing as Jewish-Arab conflict dates back to Biblical times. A little argumentum ad antiquitatem in true religious fashion. Indeed he doesn't even try to deny that this is a war based on so called pages of 'holy scripture', "Is this not a religious war?"
What can we take from this though? This Englishman, from London, comes from a family of Rabbis from Baghdad. Is it unfair to assume that his family would coax his mental development of opinions to think in way he displays? This idea of the 'promised land' is leading to increased conflict, death and religious hatred. No signs of it shoring up are evident from the observable tide.

The Maccabees - Wall of Arms, Review.

I have been wanting to review this album from the first time I listened to it. The Maccabees have taken the gauntlet of being just another 'indie' band(even though there is no such thing as an 'indie' genre, two bands can be 'indie' whilst having completely different styles) and ripped through this preconditioned label. There is no doubting Markus Dravs(producer) played a vital role in this, developing on Colour It In's youthful, carefree sound and making it bigger, larger, grander, whatever you want to call it.
Wall of Arms is a seamless album, no track sounds out of place and no lyric is not well written. Just as Dravs input has given The Maccabees increased street cred, and has widened their compositional abilities, Orlando Weeks' development as a lyricist runs parallel to this. What was "Latchmere's, got a wave machine," in Colour It In becomes, "Your carbon makes a star/ Your carbon makes a star/ And after all that's all we are." in Wall of Arms. While their theme was carefree and relationship based in their debut, epitomised by what is still probably their biggest hit, Toothpaste Kisses, Weeks delved lightly into serious themes, singing in All in Your Rows, "So here's your church, and here's your steeple/ And you're locking your doors to keep in all the people." - But in Wall of Arms he goes all out, "Through these eyes/ There's no god above me/ No devil below me, no purgatory, no pearly gates/ The worms are what await me." The maturing of lyrics has also been matched with the development of the actual musicianship, big sounds with horns, spacey guitar riffs and intricate progressive drum beats as well as stints of acapella break songs up and build songs up with a skill that wasn't apparent on their first effort.
While what makes this album such an achievement is the sheer amount by which they have improved, they have raised expectations greatly and to follow this up with a third album of 11 similar songs would be a major disappointment. They have set the bar very high, hopefully they have some more tricks up their sleeves for whenever #3 comes about. One of the best albums, if not the best album, of 2009.

RATING: 9.6/10

Mr Hudson - Straight No Chaser, Review.

In Kanye West's 808's and Heartbreaks at the climax of 2008, he offered us what I believe to be his best work. The album's style an experiment in itself, and the subject matters more in line with what Mr Hudson and his highly talented Library played to on their first album, he(Kanye) developed what he believed to be a 'new genre' of music, and he deemed it 'Pop Art'. Mr Hudson's album is highly influenced by his time with Kanye, whether or not this has to do with Hudson's musical style actually changing, or whether or not it outlines his versatility in being able to write for both American and British audiences is debatable. I would lean towards the latter and I find myself quite impressed with this offering.

The first(notable) single, Supernova, opens up the album with a powerful, chaotic chorus and lyrics. What's interesting here is Hudson's new found liking to the use of the Auto-tune device, whether this is a move to keep Kanye happy I'm not sure, because Mr Hudson's voice certainly does not need this assistance, a fact you would know if you ever had the pleasure of listening to the first album he was involved with, A Tale of Two Cities. He uses the device for the most part of the album, and whilst sometimes you find yourself feigning enjoyment because of his singing talent without it, other times you would rather he discarded it.

Mr Hudson's ability for penning noticeably English lyrics is charming, "Anyone but him/ I'd rather hear you had the whole football team...With schoolboy fists we can take this outside/ But knowing my luck that fuck would win." - And it gives the album a character that Kanye almost sucks out of the album with his horribly out of place verse on the quoted song above, Anyone but Him. Having said that, that would be the only thing Kanye does wrong in this record, his influence cannot be avoided on every song, highlight moments of Knew We Were Trouble, Straight No Chaser, Central Park(which could easily be a Mr Hudson & the Library track, Joy Joseph's input is beautifully done) and Everything is Broken combine the two artists' differences and similarities to a point of alternative-folkish-quasi-hip-hop-electro which is original enough to separate itself from 808s and close enough to gain it comparisons which should garner more listeners.

Whether or not this album will do the job of endearing American audiences to his English accent, which seems to be his unique selling point to many, is hard to say. His intelligent wordplay and consistently clean production make this an extremely enjoyable listen if you can live with the auto-tune's omnipresence(for the most part). If he is just, "Another imposter on a major label roster," then it's fair to say he's as good an actor as we're going to get this year. An honest and thoroughly well done album.

RATING: 8.2/10

"54% back the teaching of creationism."

The headline is taken from an article from today's issue of The Guardian written by Jessica Shepherd. It outlined a few harrowing but unsurprising facts(unsurprising that is, if you have been following headlines like this). The poll was taken from 10 countries and it encompassed just under 12,000 people(it was an Ipsos Mori survey). 973 were Britons and around 54% agreed with the statement, "Evolutionary theories should be taught in science lessons in schools together with other possible perspectives, such as intelligent design and creationism." Note that this figure is higher than the US figure, where 991 were surveyed and 51% agreed with the statement.
What is to be taken from this though? Is this an expected figure considering that the vast majority of the populous would still identify themselves with a particular faith should they be questioned on it, and a response leaning towards intelligent designed(ID) is to be expected?
It is becoming increasingly less embarrassing to submit openly that you are a history denier(Richard Dawkins' coined term for those who submit that they do not 'believe' in evolution). A peek at Dawkins' new book "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" gives us a wealth of evidence on why it should be embarrassing to claim to the contrary. As far as things becoming 'facts' in science go, evolution is as close to the line as something is likely to get.
I myself was debating with a fellow pupil from my school just last week along a similar tangent. I was referred to as an 'evolutionist' simply by citing that it is foolish to consider creationism a theory at all without opening up the entirity of The Bible to scientific scruntiny, including evidentially bogus events such as Noah's Ark, slavery of Jews in Egypt, and all 'miracles'. Creationism claims that the entire Universe came into existence after the domestication of the dog, and that we are all inbred(I've always been interested in the idea, that if human existence began with one man and one woman, where did the point arrive where skin colour started differing, I've never heard what the creationist approach is on this issue).

Regardless of what your 'opinion' is on the matter, it is still a wholly worrying statistic. Save the bogus religious theory for the church. Scientists, intellectuals and activists are not complaining that 'equal time' is not given to evolution in Sunday mass. Knowing how one sided I appear on the matter, I invite criticism of whatever facts I pointed out, and whatever ones I seemed to have omitted. Also, the picture has little relevance to the topic, but it is hilarious.

First

Ehh yeah this would be my first blog. I fully expect 0 readers, followers, subscribers etc simply because I have no real ambition to make that number grow. Planning on using this mainly to channel my own thoughts so I can refer to it myself, with articles on music, culture, current affairs, literature and religion, or whatever I can think of, and if someone reads something here and gets something out of it, that's always a bonus.