February 12th looms once again which is, as any fule kno, the birthday of the man who had the most exciting idea, Charles Darwin.

2009 was the 200th anniversary of his birth, and we saw a rash of sciency TV programmes, some good, some... meh! There was also a feature film, 'Creation', about the life of this man and his family. Two very good books appeared, 'Why Evolution Is True', by Jerry Coyne, and of course 'The Greatest Show On Earth' from our own Richard Dawkins. Jerry's book is published by the Oxford University Press, and is well worth its cover price. Richard's book is just beautiful (great colour illustrations) — do take a look at them if you haven't already.

Creatards, such as those involved with the Discovery Institute, and the Turkish crackpot Adnan Oktar, continue to ignore the evidence and brandish their 'holy' books, as though they are in any way relevant. I honestly don't know what's in it for them... The same few pathetic, long-refuted notions are produced over and over. You know the sort of thing 'If we come from monkeys (!) why are there still monkeys?' When they ask about evolution, it's always plain to see that they have no idea about what it is and how it works. It's tempting to ask if we have 'come from' children, why are there still children? But they have their fingers firmly in their ears, and they sing 'Lala lala — I can't hear you' so there isn't much point…

3rd February, 2010

The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science has set up a way for the non-religious to contribute to Haiti Earthquake Relief.

When donating via Non-Believers Giving Aid, you are helping to counter the scandalous myth that only the religious care about their fellow-humans.

It goes without saying that your donations will only be passed on to aid organizations that do not have religious affiliations. In the case of Haiti, the two organizations are:

• Doctors Without Borders (Médecins sans Frontières)
• International Red Cross

You can choose either organization, or both, split 50%-50%.

17th January, 2010

OK that's it, we got through another Christmas, and, in case you weren't paying attention, it's a different year now. Mind you, '2010' doesn't look like a year, somehow. Years look like '1947', or '1976', whereas '2010' looks like something else entirely. Maybe something painted on the scenery in a Science Fiction TV show? Some kind of firearm designation? Still, 2010 is when we are, and that's all there is to be said. I suppose it's better than '2009' — I prefer the even numbers.

I'm not getting into the controversy about 2010 being the end of a decade or the beginning of a new one (although I incline to the former). I just want to know who ordered all this white crap that's lying around making the idea of leaving the house impractical, uncomfortable and dangerous. And the first one to say how pretty it is gets this free boot on my right foot up their nether regions.

I don't like snow. And another thing I don't like is 'designer stubble'. Meant to give the impression of a kind of devil-may-care casual approach, it must actually take a large amount of attention by the narcissistic twit behind the fuzz, in order to maintain it at the exact right length. They are even advertising a special shaver for the job. I say: either grow a beard or don't — otherwise you just look like something the cat coughed up.

OK, that's got 2010 off to a grouchy start. And I haven't even mentioned tattoos. Yet. But I do feel better now.

By the way, if you are using a modern browser, you may notice some small, presentational changes to these pages. CSS3 has provided us with the means to make rounded corners and drop shadows, without jumping through hoops in the process — but of course you won't notice any difference using, say Internet Exploder, which is only just catching up with the late '90s… It's all purely cosmetic, of course and everything should still work — just not quite so prettily.

7th January, 2010

In the animation series, Family Guy, the moronic Peter Griffin is taken on at the local TV station where he does a weekly rant, about things that 'Grind My Gears'. Well here's something that grinds my gears. People who waffle about how they miss the hiss, pop and crackle of the gramophone record. I quote a DT column: "When the compact disc was launched in the early 1980s, we were told it would never wear out, and would produce sound without the hiss and crackle associated with vinyl recordings. Yet the hiss and crackle of vinyl were for many of us part of the experience." (My emphasis.)

True, the durability of the CD was exaggerated, but what the hell, people, how can the distortions of static and physical wear improve the experience of listening to music? OK, it hardly matters with pop and rock, but for anything else? Is the Mona Lisa lovelier seen through a layer of tobacco tar and fly-specks? Should Michelangelo's David be covered with dust, cobwebs and tattoos? Well, should it? Eh?

My first records were all 78rpm shellac, played with a needle like a nail. If played often they became, with each spin, not enhanced, but closer to unlistenable... Not too long ago I had a demonstration of an Edison "hill-and-dale" recording that was amazingly clean and unsullied by noise -- that was because the signal was all at the bottom of the (square-section) groove, and the wear caused by the playback head was on the sides of the groove. But it's the sides of a V-shaped groove that carry the programme — and the wear — when playing a vinyl LP or EP.

It seems to be true that audiophiles hear what they want to hear, which is why it's a prime target area for con men with highly expensive gimmicks to sell. Like power cables costing thousands of dollars that "improve the sound", even carved wooden volume control knobs that — you guessed it: "improve the sound". But nobody has yet come up with a package guaranteeing enhancing additional hum, crackles, pops, whistles, farts and raspberries... perhaps I'm missing an opportunity here!

I'll take my music neat, please... on a well-cared for CD. For me, the absence of extraneous racket is a most desirable "part of the experience".

7th December, 2009

On an unlabelled tape cassette I discovered a copy of the LP Songs for Swinging Sellers, which someone had made for me a good fifteen or sixteen years ago. I was delighted to find that one of the sketches was Shadows on the Grass, featuring Peter Sellers in uncharacteristic supporting mode as a lonely, bird-feeding, Frenchman, allowing the spotlight (if there is such a thing as an audio spotlight, which is, I grant you, unlikely) to fall on the lady who played his wife, in the film All Right Jack, the strangely wonderful Irene Handl.

My understanding is that Miss Handl ad libbed much of the sketch — the mispronunciations are kept to a minimum, with 'pruerile', 'cronscious' and 'bringit it in' (which may well have been a real slip of the tongue), and the characterisation, of a widow with aspirations to a somewhat higher social niche than the one she actually occupies, allied to healthy 'appetites', is beautifully conveyed. 'Do you know Dalston at all?' she enquires 'Ah well, they call it the Frinton of East 8, so that'll give you some idea'.

The clues to her availability are subtly dropped throughout, and the sketch ends with the lady and her equally lonely French acquaintance heading off for 'din-dins' at her little private hotel residence, where 'they keep a smashin' table… We nearly always have a second vegetable and always croutons with the soup…' And doubtless nature will thereafter take its course. We find ourselves hoping for their sakes that it will…

Anyway, I set to, and transcribed it, and added it here to my Scripts & Transcripts section.

30th November, 2009

From Atheist Cartoons

13th November, 2009