The BBC has announced that it's "Sound of 2011" is a young lady called Jessie J. The fact that J's career is owned by Universal, the largest record company in the world, rings alarm bells. I am not suggesting that the BBC is in Universal's pocket, but they simply would not have noticed J if she had been on a true independent label. Having said that, she sounds mildly interesting in a Ms Dynamite kind of way and I predict her career will follow a similar trajectory - mild critical acclaim, a couple of hits, universally ignored second album, followed by occasional reality TV appearances.
But there is something quite depressing about this award. We are asked to view singers like J (and Dynamite, Lily Allen, Rumer, etc etc etc) as true artists striking a blow for female empowerment. But scratch the surface and you inevitably find some middle-aged male musician billed as a "co-writer"/mentor. This isn't an exclusively female phenomena - the same applied to Robbie Williams/Guy Chambers - but the record industry has clearly seen it is onto a good thing with young female "singer-songwriters".
The real shame is that there must be great female artists out there who ARE in charge of their music in the same way as forerunners such as Bic Runga, Tori Amos, Kate Bush & Carly Simon. It would be wonderful to hear that the BBC's "Sound of 2012" is a young woman otherwise unheralded by the industry, and who is producing her own music from scratch. Sadly the reality is that the next 'next big thing' will be another record company mannequin. So much for 'Girl Power'.
Monday, 10 January 2011
Tuesday, 4 January 2011
The Choice Is Yours
A jolly little piece on the BBC today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12075931 proves a great advert for Islam. Of course, like any supernatural belief system, Islam is almost certainly wrong in its fundamental tenets - God, life after death, a timeless and universal moral code and so on. Well, OK, let's not split hairs - it is wrong.
But apart from this failing (which some like myself may see as a fatal flaw) perhaps it has much to offer in the way of personal fulfilment. As convert-to-Islam Aisha says "now I don't have to prove myself to anybody out there... when I became Muslim, I sort of calmed down... And I'm more happy than I was - I'm proud of who I am, I've got a certain identity."
Well, good for you. It was your choice and it appears to have worked out well for you. I'll assume you aren't speaking with forked-tongue and that this is a heartfelt assessment of your state of mind. I honestly have little reason to doubt it. Of course, there is the psychological angle that when one adopts a set of beliefs (for example that Gary Numan is the greatest muscial artist alive today or that Islam is the route to personal fulfilment) it is extremely hard to abandon those beliefs. I am also mindful that it may be difficult for someone who has been embraced by a community (as Aisha apparently has - she lives with her Bangladeshi husband and in-laws) to appear to turn on that community by professing unhappiness (I'm assuming Mr Aisha et famille are also muslims). Having said that, I do assume that Aisha's statements are broadly truthful.
Sure, one persons testimony does not prove a case, as those of a scientific bent are well aware (as an aside, most muslims do not truly understand that - Muhammed's little book anyone? - but that is not the point here). However, Aisha makes a strong case that we should not ignore. Perhaps Islam, and religion in general, does have the power to make certain people happier. Presumably people who's grasp of reality is a little challenged, but there are plenty of those around, so why gripe?
But getting to my point, finally, isn't it wonderful that our socity gave Aisha the freedom to choose to become a muslim? And how wonderful that she will be free in future to choose not to be a muslim any more, should she have a change of heart.
Indeed, even the Koran apparently says - 'there is no compulsion in religion'. Unfortunately, that verse goes on to say that 'truth stands out clearly from falsehood' and some nutters seem to have taken this as a nod that no right-minded person could possibly give abandon Islam and therefore there is nothing wrong with killing them. Hopefully this would not deter Aisha is she wished to renounce Islam at a later date.
“Sharia schools say that they will kill the ones who leave Islam. In the West people get threatened, thrown out of their family, beaten up,” [http://donsingleton.blogspot.com/2007/09/renounce-islam.html].
"Apostasy, or renouncing the faith, is one of the gravest sins in Islam and a very sensitive issue in Malaysia where the Islamic courts have rarely allowed such renunciations and have also jailed apostates." [http://puteri.us/2008/05/08/siti-fatimah-tan-allowed-to-renounce-islam/]
"In Islam, apostasy is called ridda (turning back) and it is considered by Muslims to be a profound insult to God, which deserves harsh punishment. The nature of the punishment, however, provokes passionate debate between scholars, with most believing that it should attract the death penalty for men and life imprisonment for women.
Apostasy is punishable by death in a number of countries, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Sudan and Afghanistan. In other parts of the world they can be shunned by family and friends." [http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/06/uk-new-group-for-those-who-renounce-islam.html]
Strangely the BBC failed to mention these minor points. I would have thought they were fairly fundamental when discussing (encouraging?) conversion to Islam.
But, never mind, hurrah for Aisha! She goes on: "I wanted to stay at home studying on the internet or reading books." Hmm. I wonder what sort of books. Maybe some of the scientific ones that I picked up recently that prove beyond any scientific doubt (science doesn't do that, but never mind) that God caused the Big Bang and that evolution is a lie. Ah, you can't beat a good bit of book learnin'.
To conclude, another muslim, Sarah, says: "British converts have a vital role to play in explaining two sides - Britain's Muslim and non-Muslim communities - to each other.
'[Converts have] authentically belonged to two traditions and should act as a conduit to show each side that we share far more than we differ.' " Right, at this point I will give up the sarcasm and just state the bald facts. Muslims do not see both sides. They are right and you are wrong. Have a conversation with a practising muslim and see just how open they are to different points of view. I'll give you a clue - they aren't.
But that's religion for you.
Footnote - I appreciate that I am open to allegations of hypocrisy here. I say that Muslims will not consider both sides of an argument and yet I state as fact that they are wrong. Ah, but you see I have evidence and rational argument on my side. And that evidence and argument could be the subject for a later post? Damn Dawkins et al for getting there first!
But apart from this failing (which some like myself may see as a fatal flaw) perhaps it has much to offer in the way of personal fulfilment. As convert-to-Islam Aisha says "now I don't have to prove myself to anybody out there... when I became Muslim, I sort of calmed down... And I'm more happy than I was - I'm proud of who I am, I've got a certain identity."
Well, good for you. It was your choice and it appears to have worked out well for you. I'll assume you aren't speaking with forked-tongue and that this is a heartfelt assessment of your state of mind. I honestly have little reason to doubt it. Of course, there is the psychological angle that when one adopts a set of beliefs (for example that Gary Numan is the greatest muscial artist alive today or that Islam is the route to personal fulfilment) it is extremely hard to abandon those beliefs. I am also mindful that it may be difficult for someone who has been embraced by a community (as Aisha apparently has - she lives with her Bangladeshi husband and in-laws) to appear to turn on that community by professing unhappiness (I'm assuming Mr Aisha et famille are also muslims). Having said that, I do assume that Aisha's statements are broadly truthful.
Sure, one persons testimony does not prove a case, as those of a scientific bent are well aware (as an aside, most muslims do not truly understand that - Muhammed's little book anyone? - but that is not the point here). However, Aisha makes a strong case that we should not ignore. Perhaps Islam, and religion in general, does have the power to make certain people happier. Presumably people who's grasp of reality is a little challenged, but there are plenty of those around, so why gripe?
But getting to my point, finally, isn't it wonderful that our socity gave Aisha the freedom to choose to become a muslim? And how wonderful that she will be free in future to choose not to be a muslim any more, should she have a change of heart.
Indeed, even the Koran apparently says - 'there is no compulsion in religion'. Unfortunately, that verse goes on to say that 'truth stands out clearly from falsehood' and some nutters seem to have taken this as a nod that no right-minded person could possibly give abandon Islam and therefore there is nothing wrong with killing them. Hopefully this would not deter Aisha is she wished to renounce Islam at a later date.
“Sharia schools say that they will kill the ones who leave Islam. In the West people get threatened, thrown out of their family, beaten up,” [http://donsingleton.blogspot.com/2007/09/renounce-islam.html].
"Apostasy, or renouncing the faith, is one of the gravest sins in Islam and a very sensitive issue in Malaysia where the Islamic courts have rarely allowed such renunciations and have also jailed apostates." [http://puteri.us/2008/05/08/siti-fatimah-tan-allowed-to-renounce-islam/]
"In Islam, apostasy is called ridda (turning back) and it is considered by Muslims to be a profound insult to God, which deserves harsh punishment. The nature of the punishment, however, provokes passionate debate between scholars, with most believing that it should attract the death penalty for men and life imprisonment for women.
Apostasy is punishable by death in a number of countries, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Sudan and Afghanistan. In other parts of the world they can be shunned by family and friends." [http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/06/uk-new-group-for-those-who-renounce-islam.html]
Strangely the BBC failed to mention these minor points. I would have thought they were fairly fundamental when discussing (encouraging?) conversion to Islam.
But, never mind, hurrah for Aisha! She goes on: "I wanted to stay at home studying on the internet or reading books." Hmm. I wonder what sort of books. Maybe some of the scientific ones that I picked up recently that prove beyond any scientific doubt (science doesn't do that, but never mind) that God caused the Big Bang and that evolution is a lie. Ah, you can't beat a good bit of book learnin'.
To conclude, another muslim, Sarah, says: "British converts have a vital role to play in explaining two sides - Britain's Muslim and non-Muslim communities - to each other.
'[Converts have] authentically belonged to two traditions and should act as a conduit to show each side that we share far more than we differ.' " Right, at this point I will give up the sarcasm and just state the bald facts. Muslims do not see both sides. They are right and you are wrong. Have a conversation with a practising muslim and see just how open they are to different points of view. I'll give you a clue - they aren't.
But that's religion for you.
Footnote - I appreciate that I am open to allegations of hypocrisy here. I say that Muslims will not consider both sides of an argument and yet I state as fact that they are wrong. Ah, but you see I have evidence and rational argument on my side. And that evidence and argument could be the subject for a later post? Damn Dawkins et al for getting there first!
Thursday, 16 December 2010
Here you come again
Professional northerner and ex-Home Office minister Bob Ainsworth is the latest ex-person-in-position-of-responsibility to come out and state the bleeding obvious - all drugs should be de-criminalised. Of course when he was at the Home Office, the drugs laws were a good thing, or at least he believed they were a good thing. Otherwise he would have said so, right? Right?
Anyway, better late than never I suppose. It adds a little weight to the very necessary movement to de-criminalise drugs. Actually, that is a nicety. My thing is for full legalisation, but baby steps, Clarice, baby steps....
Since Ainsworth has brought the question into the public domain once again I note that ex-Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez is also calling for the debate to be re-opened. Gonzalez's specific concern appears to be the violence associated with the illegal drugs trade, particularly in Mexico. He points out that the ultra-violence that prevailed during prohibition-era Amercia ended not with Capone being put behind bars, but when prohibition finally ended. 'Nuff said.
Did I say ten to twenty years? Make that five to fifteen.
Anyway, better late than never I suppose. It adds a little weight to the very necessary movement to de-criminalise drugs. Actually, that is a nicety. My thing is for full legalisation, but baby steps, Clarice, baby steps....
Since Ainsworth has brought the question into the public domain once again I note that ex-Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez is also calling for the debate to be re-opened. Gonzalez's specific concern appears to be the violence associated with the illegal drugs trade, particularly in Mexico. He points out that the ultra-violence that prevailed during prohibition-era Amercia ended not with Capone being put behind bars, but when prohibition finally ended. 'Nuff said.
Did I say ten to twenty years? Make that five to fifteen.
Tuesday, 30 November 2010
Fahrenheit 451
A teenager has reportedly been arrested in the West Midlands for burning a copy of the Quran and posting the video footage on YouTube. This, apparently, is the crime of "inciting religious hatred".
It is silly to burn a book given the symbolic significance of such an act. However, the Quran is exactly that - a book. Burning it is no worse than burning a Dan Brown novel. Well, intrinsically no worse. Obviously, the consequences for the burner may be somewhat different, given the world-renowned tolerance of the faithful. But that is their problem, not ours. I am horrified that the police could consider this a crime.
Presumably if I declare the Guinness Book Of Records to be a holy text it will become a "hate crime" to burn a copy. After all, there is no difference between me doing such a ridiculous thing and Muslims believing in the devine provenance of the Quran. Or perhaps the West Midlands police believe that the Quran is the actual word of god? If so, we should be told. I wasn't aware I was living in a theocracy.
But you may say that this is different. Burning a copy of the GBOR simply says: "people who believe in that are idiots" whereas burning the Quran says: "kill all muslims". And I would disagree.
Saying "kill all muslims" is arguably a hate crime in the same was as saying "kill all tutsis" or "kill all bald people" are (arguably) hate crimes, at least if said with conviction and not satire. At most, burning the Quran says "I'm angry that something that is so obviously a work of fiction is treated with such reverence and that its rather unpleasant instructions are treated as a guide to life for many people (many of whom wish to impose it on everyone else on the planet)." That's just common sense.
It is silly to burn a book given the symbolic significance of such an act. However, the Quran is exactly that - a book. Burning it is no worse than burning a Dan Brown novel. Well, intrinsically no worse. Obviously, the consequences for the burner may be somewhat different, given the world-renowned tolerance of the faithful. But that is their problem, not ours. I am horrified that the police could consider this a crime.
Presumably if I declare the Guinness Book Of Records to be a holy text it will become a "hate crime" to burn a copy. After all, there is no difference between me doing such a ridiculous thing and Muslims believing in the devine provenance of the Quran. Or perhaps the West Midlands police believe that the Quran is the actual word of god? If so, we should be told. I wasn't aware I was living in a theocracy.
But you may say that this is different. Burning a copy of the GBOR simply says: "people who believe in that are idiots" whereas burning the Quran says: "kill all muslims". And I would disagree.
Saying "kill all muslims" is arguably a hate crime in the same was as saying "kill all tutsis" or "kill all bald people" are (arguably) hate crimes, at least if said with conviction and not satire. At most, burning the Quran says "I'm angry that something that is so obviously a work of fiction is treated with such reverence and that its rather unpleasant instructions are treated as a guide to life for many people (many of whom wish to impose it on everyone else on the planet)." That's just common sense.
Friday, 26 November 2010
Plagiarism
People say that you can't criticise something until you have tried it for yourself. Nonsense. I am about to criticise Dan Brown and I have never read one of his novels. So what are my qualifications? Well, a resort to authority, or perhaps pseudo-authority. An over reliance on authority is a terrible thing ("I was just following orders"). However, who would wish to argue with this collection of thoughts on Mr Brown's oeuvre:
Stephen King: "the intellectual equivalent of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese"
John Humphreys: "the literary equivalent of painting by numbers, by an artist who can’t even stay within the lines"
Salman Rushdie: "so bad that it gives bad novels a bad name"
Stewart Lee: "there is nothing of any value in Dan Brown"
Stephen Fry: "complete loose stool-water"
New York Times: "primer on how not to write an English sentence"
Anthony Lane: "unmitigated junk"
Geoffrey Pullum: "(one of the) worst prose stylists in the history of literature"
So imagine how pleased with myself I was this morning when I saw a fellow passenger reading Brown, and thought to myself "something to do while you wait to die." (The smug commuter mentally criticised the bespectacled fat man.)
Did I steal that from somewhere? It came to me unbidden, which is always a hint that something isn't original thought. But it felt original. And it felt good.
Stephen King: "the intellectual equivalent of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese"
John Humphreys: "the literary equivalent of painting by numbers, by an artist who can’t even stay within the lines"
Salman Rushdie: "so bad that it gives bad novels a bad name"
Stewart Lee: "there is nothing of any value in Dan Brown"
Stephen Fry: "complete loose stool-water"
New York Times: "primer on how not to write an English sentence"
Anthony Lane: "unmitigated junk"
Geoffrey Pullum: "(one of the) worst prose stylists in the history of literature"
So imagine how pleased with myself I was this morning when I saw a fellow passenger reading Brown, and thought to myself "something to do while you wait to die." (The smug commuter mentally criticised the bespectacled fat man.)
Did I steal that from somewhere? It came to me unbidden, which is always a hint that something isn't original thought. But it felt original. And it felt good.
Wednesday, 24 November 2010
Que Sera Sera
This question just popped up on Yahoo! Answers:
"How do you think the universe came into existing?
I want your own theories/ideals about how the universe was created within absolutely noting?I know we may never know.. its fun to think about it. Your ideals on anything like this whether it be how planets were made, life, space or anything like that I would like to hear it. so please and thank you for your time"
This is my answer:
"There is overwhelming evidence that our Universe was contained within a tiny, extremely energetic point around 13 billion years ago. Therefore, we can say with confidence that a "Big Bang" happened, in the sense that we know that our Universe expanded extremely rapidly from that point. After that, the reasons for the formation of stars and planets are very well understood (basically gravity), and the cause of life is fairly well understood (if the laws of chemistry applying across ten thousand billion billion planetary systems over billions of years did not lead to the formation of life, it would be pretty surprising).
"However, there is still the rather significant question of what caused the existence of that tiny point of massive energy that became our Universe? There are various theories such as the "Big Bounce" or a series of "bubble universes" within a greater "multiverse", but all are highly speculative and rather unsatisfactory since they leave open the question "but what caused that?"
"One answer can almost certainly be ruled out - God. There are no meaningful reasons to believe in a god other than (arguably) the existence of our Universe. But if we believe that "God" is the cause of the Universe, we have achieved nothing since we are left with the question "but what caused God?" and we are back to square one. In fact, we would be left asking why we bothered suggesting God in the first place since it explains nothing and only adds pointless complication.
"Some people may answer that God is causeless. However, that argument is self-defeating. If something can be causeless then, by definition, the Universe could exist without cause. Using the philosophical argument known as Ockham's Razor, we would then conclude that the Universe just came into existence for no reason and your original question would become meaningless - pretty unsatisfactory, I think you will agree! We would also conclude that there is no longer ANY reason to believe in God and could dimiss his existence for the same reasons that we do not believe in fairies or Darth Vader. So whichever way we look at it, God is a pretty useless explanation.
"I think a far more likely answer to your question is that even within a void, there is some essential 'thing' that makes the existence of Universes like ours either a necessity or at least a possibility. If either of those scenarios is correct, then there is no longer a mystery and we are simply left to work out the precise details (the "how" of your question). Regarding what such a 'thing' might be, I would assume it would be some law of mathematics or logic. However, I appreciate that someone could respond to that with "but why do mathematics and logic exist and why are they the way that they are?" Well I'm sorry, but no one knows the answer to that yet. I expect that given enough time our species will work it out one day, or maybe we will make contact with a more advanced species that can explain it to us."
I'm up against some intellectual giants (sample: "I think that somehow the Universe is the aftermath of erosion/decay/death of something that we will never understand") but I'm hopeful of getting that treasured 'Best Answer' prize.
"How do you think the universe came into existing?
I want your own theories/ideals about how the universe was created within absolutely noting?I know we may never know.. its fun to think about it. Your ideals on anything like this whether it be how planets were made, life, space or anything like that I would like to hear it. so please and thank you for your time"
This is my answer:
"There is overwhelming evidence that our Universe was contained within a tiny, extremely energetic point around 13 billion years ago. Therefore, we can say with confidence that a "Big Bang" happened, in the sense that we know that our Universe expanded extremely rapidly from that point. After that, the reasons for the formation of stars and planets are very well understood (basically gravity), and the cause of life is fairly well understood (if the laws of chemistry applying across ten thousand billion billion planetary systems over billions of years did not lead to the formation of life, it would be pretty surprising).
"However, there is still the rather significant question of what caused the existence of that tiny point of massive energy that became our Universe? There are various theories such as the "Big Bounce" or a series of "bubble universes" within a greater "multiverse", but all are highly speculative and rather unsatisfactory since they leave open the question "but what caused that?"
"One answer can almost certainly be ruled out - God. There are no meaningful reasons to believe in a god other than (arguably) the existence of our Universe. But if we believe that "God" is the cause of the Universe, we have achieved nothing since we are left with the question "but what caused God?" and we are back to square one. In fact, we would be left asking why we bothered suggesting God in the first place since it explains nothing and only adds pointless complication.
"Some people may answer that God is causeless. However, that argument is self-defeating. If something can be causeless then, by definition, the Universe could exist without cause. Using the philosophical argument known as Ockham's Razor, we would then conclude that the Universe just came into existence for no reason and your original question would become meaningless - pretty unsatisfactory, I think you will agree! We would also conclude that there is no longer ANY reason to believe in God and could dimiss his existence for the same reasons that we do not believe in fairies or Darth Vader. So whichever way we look at it, God is a pretty useless explanation.
"I think a far more likely answer to your question is that even within a void, there is some essential 'thing' that makes the existence of Universes like ours either a necessity or at least a possibility. If either of those scenarios is correct, then there is no longer a mystery and we are simply left to work out the precise details (the "how" of your question). Regarding what such a 'thing' might be, I would assume it would be some law of mathematics or logic. However, I appreciate that someone could respond to that with "but why do mathematics and logic exist and why are they the way that they are?" Well I'm sorry, but no one knows the answer to that yet. I expect that given enough time our species will work it out one day, or maybe we will make contact with a more advanced species that can explain it to us."
I'm up against some intellectual giants (sample: "I think that somehow the Universe is the aftermath of erosion/decay/death of something that we will never understand") but I'm hopeful of getting that treasured 'Best Answer' prize.
Friday, 12 November 2010
Don't Pray In My School And I Won't Think In Your Church
Two news stories today with a whiff of the metaphysical about them.
Confirming the conviction of a woman who killed her severely disabled and brain-damaged son, Lord Judge said ".... however disabled Thomas might have been, a disabled life, even a life lived at the extremes of disability, is not one jot less precious than the life of an able-bodied person." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11742526
Hm? I wonder how many people would whole-heartedly agree with that when obliged to consider it rationally. Of course, we don't all think rationally all of the time. I gather Igor Judge is a catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_Roman_Catholics)
And good old Iain Duncan Smith is at it as well (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/11/coalition-backlash-hardship-payments-scrapped).
IDS kindly informs us that it is a "sin" for people to fail to take up work. Well, that may be true in a broad, vague'ish sense, but it may not be the most considered thing the former leader of the Conservatives has said. But then again, he too is a catholic.
IDS is entitled to his opinions and I suppose he is entitled to voice them in his role as a member of Government. But we should be very wary of these opinions when it comes to the next General Election. Obviously the same went for Blair in spades.
However, Lord Judge's catholicism quite possibly disqualifies him morally from passing judgement on matters of life and death. The Vatican's ex-cathedra pronouncements in this area makes it impossible for any observant Roman Catholic to make rational decisions here. And without rational thought, what is left of our society? Might as well hand it over to the mullahs or the bishops.
Confirming the conviction of a woman who killed her severely disabled and brain-damaged son, Lord Judge said ".... however disabled Thomas might have been, a disabled life, even a life lived at the extremes of disability, is not one jot less precious than the life of an able-bodied person." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11742526
Hm? I wonder how many people would whole-heartedly agree with that when obliged to consider it rationally. Of course, we don't all think rationally all of the time. I gather Igor Judge is a catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_Roman_Catholics)
And good old Iain Duncan Smith is at it as well (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/11/coalition-backlash-hardship-payments-scrapped).
IDS kindly informs us that it is a "sin" for people to fail to take up work. Well, that may be true in a broad, vague'ish sense, but it may not be the most considered thing the former leader of the Conservatives has said. But then again, he too is a catholic.
IDS is entitled to his opinions and I suppose he is entitled to voice them in his role as a member of Government. But we should be very wary of these opinions when it comes to the next General Election. Obviously the same went for Blair in spades.
However, Lord Judge's catholicism quite possibly disqualifies him morally from passing judgement on matters of life and death. The Vatican's ex-cathedra pronouncements in this area makes it impossible for any observant Roman Catholic to make rational decisions here. And without rational thought, what is left of our society? Might as well hand it over to the mullahs or the bishops.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)