..what it might look like if characters from The Matrix played table-tennis*?
No, I hadn't, either. But now I know.
Bear in mind that there are no computerised special effects, here. It's all filmed live. And it's hilarious. So low-tech, yet such genius.
*Yes, American readers, that is "ping-pong".
19.5.06
18.5.06
It's what?
Mrs Doombreed and I just purchased a new bed. Bigger, more comfortable, more cool headboardy, and, apparently, the frame came with everything needed to put it together including - vital for attatching that headboard - all the required "nust and bolts."
Can't forget those nust. Nust are a must.
16.5.06
Atheism Online
I just wanted to introduce Atheism Online to you, gentle reader. I'm already listed there (hence the linky graphic down there towards the bottom of the page with my other campaign ribbons*), but it's a great resource for people looking to read atheist blogs, opinions, forums or websites.
It's through Atheism Online that I discovered Bligbi's blog (a fascinating read, well worth the effort) and this fascinating, if long, discussion about why various atheists are - well - atheists (a question I have already answered here).
*See below the Firefox and Thunderbird graphics are two columns of little retangular graphics? They're not there for decoration, y'know. But they do remind me of those little medal ribbons that military uniforms usually have.
It's through Atheism Online that I discovered Bligbi's blog (a fascinating read, well worth the effort) and this fascinating, if long, discussion about why various atheists are - well - atheists (a question I have already answered here).
*See below the Firefox and Thunderbird graphics are two columns of little retangular graphics? They're not there for decoration, y'know. But they do remind me of those little medal ribbons that military uniforms usually have.
15.5.06
Creationism dismissed as 'a kind of paganism' by Vatican's astronomer
Here's an intriguing article. Apparently, the Vatican's astronomer has dismissed creationism and declares it "a form of paganism":
And kudos to him for this wise quote:
I didn't even know the Vatican had an astronomer.
This, however, makes me a little suspicious of the whole thing:
Actually, I thought that was precisely what we were supposed to believe.
Anyway, if true, it's a nice hint that maybe the Roman Catholic church might make it into the 20th century before the rest of us leave the 21st.
"BELIEVING that God created the universe in six days is a form of superstitious paganism, the Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno claimed yesterday.
Brother Consolmagno, who works in a Vatican observatory in Arizona and as curator of the Vatican meteorite collection in Italy, said a 'destructive myth' had developed in modern society that religion and science were competing ideologies.
He described creationism, whose supporters want it taught in schools alongside evolution, as a 'kind of paganism' because it harked back to the days of 'nature gods' who were responsible for natural events."
And kudos to him for this wise quote:
"Knowledge is dangerous, but so is ignorance"
I didn't even know the Vatican had an astronomer.
This, however, makes me a little suspicious of the whole thing:
Brother Consolmagno, who was due to give a speech at the Glasgow Science Centre last night, entitled "Why the Pope has an Astronomer", said the idea of papal infallibility had been a "PR disaster". What it actually meant was that, on matters of faith, followers should accept "somebody has got to be the boss, the final authority"."It's not like he has a magic power, that God whispers the truth in his ear," he said.
Actually, I thought that was precisely what we were supposed to believe.
Anyway, if true, it's a nice hint that maybe the Roman Catholic church might make it into the 20th century before the rest of us leave the 21st.
14.5.06
The Atheist's Nightmare
This is absolutely stunning. Incredible. Amazing. I hereby renounce my atheism and swear eternal loyalty to Jesus Christ, our Lord.
As soon as Whacko McStupid here can answer this question:
If the banana is so perfectly made for us, because of its shape, texture, peel, taste and colour, why aren't all fruits the same?
Seriously. Why are oranges round and - er - orange? Why are melons too big to hold in one hand and covered in that thick skin? Why don't mangoes have three ridges on the top and two on the bottom? Why don't apples have the easily removed peel?
And why can I eat the peel on some fruit, but not on others, hmmmm?
Isn't it just that the idiot picked the one fruit that his arguments would work on?
Hat tip to Bligbi.
As soon as Whacko McStupid here can answer this question:
If the banana is so perfectly made for us, because of its shape, texture, peel, taste and colour, why aren't all fruits the same?
Seriously. Why are oranges round and - er - orange? Why are melons too big to hold in one hand and covered in that thick skin? Why don't mangoes have three ridges on the top and two on the bottom? Why don't apples have the easily removed peel?
And why can I eat the peel on some fruit, but not on others, hmmmm?
Isn't it just that the idiot picked the one fruit that his arguments would work on?
Hat tip to Bligbi.
How Sinful Are You?
S. Setterbo over at AtheistExposed2 pointed out this fun little game. I'm a little offended, I think. Though, that Star Trek thing was a little close to home...
| Your Deadly Sins |
| Sloth: 60% |
| Gluttony: 20% |
| Wrath: 20% |
| Envy: 0% |
| Greed: 0% |
| Lust: 0% |
| Pride: 0% |
| Chance You'll Go to Hell: 14% |
| You will die with your hand down your underwear, watching Star Trek. |
Can't buy me love...?
Further proof, as if it were needed, that America is not so different from England. Here, too, money may not be able to buy love, but it can buy a different set of legal standards. Here, too, rank hath its privileges.
Dr Ernie Fletcher, Kentucky State Governor, was indicted for his part in the state's recent discriminatory hiring practices scandal on three counts, one of criminal conspiracy, one of official misconduct in the first degree, and one of political discrimination. Fletcher's office, it's alleged, hired, fired and promoted people based upon whether they supported Fletcher or his Democrat rival in the election. State laws make this a crime, as positions within the state government are supposed to decided on merit only. Fletcher maintains that the investigation has been politically motivated (which seems a given, seeing as the crime was politically motivated, but there ya go) and has filed to have the State Attorney General removed from the case, but admits "mistakes were made" by his administration.
In America, after the indictment comes "the arraignment", where the charges are read before a judge, the defendant is formally asked to enter a plea, and either pleads guilty or not guilty and, if necessary, the question of bail is addressed.
Fletcher, however, as of yesterday, still hadn't made up his mind whether he's going to bother turning up to the arraignment hearing because doing so would provide his political opponents with "a dramatic perp walk."
Most normal people are led to their arraignments in handcuffs by burly, armed court officials, and those aren't face contempt of court charges if they don't voluntarily appear.
Dr Ernie Fletcher, Kentucky State Governor, was indicted for his part in the state's recent discriminatory hiring practices scandal on three counts, one of criminal conspiracy, one of official misconduct in the first degree, and one of political discrimination. Fletcher's office, it's alleged, hired, fired and promoted people based upon whether they supported Fletcher or his Democrat rival in the election. State laws make this a crime, as positions within the state government are supposed to decided on merit only. Fletcher maintains that the investigation has been politically motivated (which seems a given, seeing as the crime was politically motivated, but there ya go) and has filed to have the State Attorney General removed from the case, but admits "mistakes were made" by his administration.
In America, after the indictment comes "the arraignment", where the charges are read before a judge, the defendant is formally asked to enter a plea, and either pleads guilty or not guilty and, if necessary, the question of bail is addressed.
Fletcher, however, as of yesterday, still hadn't made up his mind whether he's going to bother turning up to the arraignment hearing because doing so would provide his political opponents with "a dramatic perp walk."
Most normal people are led to their arraignments in handcuffs by burly, armed court officials, and those aren't face contempt of court charges if they don't voluntarily appear.
The Evolution Of Dance
This is hilarious. Watch as comedian Judson Laipply takes us on a journey through six decades of dance.
Oh, yeah, and don't forget to cringe when you see those dances that you did in your youth.
Hat tip to Wreckage-Elite at AP for the link.
Oh, yeah, and don't forget to cringe when you see those dances that you did in your youth.
Hat tip to Wreckage-Elite at AP for the link.
13.5.06
Friday Rodent Blogging
This is the cuteness that is Selene trying to enjoy a pumpkin seed in peace. Foiled again by the mad human with the flashing silver box.
12.5.06
The Da Vinci Deception Deception
Before I commence, here's a little info:
In order that I should not spoil, for anyone that has not read it, the "twist" in The Da Vinci Code, I shall, henceforth, refer to it simply as "The Theory."
Anyone who has read The Da Vinci Code knows what The Theory is, and exactly why it's caused the Vatican to get its knickers in a twist, not to mention getting Christian apologists everywhere foaming at the mouth.
In response to The Da Vinci Code, several of these apologists have published books claiming to refute it. Titles like The Da Vinci Deception, The Truth Behind The Da Vinci Code, The Da Vinci Hoax: Exposing The Errors In The Da Vinci Code and Cracking Da Vinci's Code stand in bookstores, often sharing displays with the book which was their inspiration.
Firstly, let's examine the dichotomy here. Christian apologists are falling over themselves to remind us over and over that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. Now, why are these people spending so much time and effort in refuting a work of fiction, and a self-admitted work of fiction at that? Why are they searching its pages for even the tiniest of errors so that they may trumpet its fictional status from the rooftops?
Okay, I always remind myself to look for the lowest common denominator. Some of these authors, at least, are likely to be simply jumping on the bandwagon, using the hype surrounding the upcoming movie release in order to make money or increase their literary standing amongst the Christian bookbuying public.
But at least some must be doing it because they genuinely believe that The Da Vinci Code represents a genuine threat to the Roman Catholic church - and to Christianity in general - and desperately want to refute it.
But that's not what prompted this entry, per se.
I was in Waldenbooks today, where I picked up a copy of Deception Point by Dan Brown and The Massianic Legacy by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
Both of these books were on a display with various books related to The Da Vinci Code including the Christian apologist books named above.
What startled me is that most of the books that seek to refute The Theory contain, on their back-cover blurb, the same error. Most describe The Theory as being "Dan Brown's wild theory", or some variation thereof.
But it's not Dan Brown's theory, wild or otherwise.
The Theory was first advanced in the pages of Holy Blood, Holy Grail which, remember, was first published in 1982.
Dan Brown even mentions Holy Blood, Holy Grail in The Da Vinci Code as being the first place that The Theory was brought to the attention of the public.
But it's easier to undermine The Theory if it's the work of one novelist than if it's the product of three highly respected historians' years of painstaking research.
And if these apologist authors cannot even get the basic facts straight for the back-cover blurb, what makes them believe we'll trust them with what's inside the book?
In order that I should not spoil, for anyone that has not read it, the "twist" in The Da Vinci Code, I shall, henceforth, refer to it simply as "The Theory."
Anyone who has read The Da Vinci Code knows what The Theory is, and exactly why it's caused the Vatican to get its knickers in a twist, not to mention getting Christian apologists everywhere foaming at the mouth.
In response to The Da Vinci Code, several of these apologists have published books claiming to refute it. Titles like The Da Vinci Deception, The Truth Behind The Da Vinci Code, The Da Vinci Hoax: Exposing The Errors In The Da Vinci Code and Cracking Da Vinci's Code stand in bookstores, often sharing displays with the book which was their inspiration.
Firstly, let's examine the dichotomy here. Christian apologists are falling over themselves to remind us over and over that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. Now, why are these people spending so much time and effort in refuting a work of fiction, and a self-admitted work of fiction at that? Why are they searching its pages for even the tiniest of errors so that they may trumpet its fictional status from the rooftops?
Okay, I always remind myself to look for the lowest common denominator. Some of these authors, at least, are likely to be simply jumping on the bandwagon, using the hype surrounding the upcoming movie release in order to make money or increase their literary standing amongst the Christian bookbuying public.
But at least some must be doing it because they genuinely believe that The Da Vinci Code represents a genuine threat to the Roman Catholic church - and to Christianity in general - and desperately want to refute it.
But that's not what prompted this entry, per se.
I was in Waldenbooks today, where I picked up a copy of Deception Point by Dan Brown and The Massianic Legacy by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
Both of these books were on a display with various books related to The Da Vinci Code including the Christian apologist books named above.
What startled me is that most of the books that seek to refute The Theory contain, on their back-cover blurb, the same error. Most describe The Theory as being "Dan Brown's wild theory", or some variation thereof.
But it's not Dan Brown's theory, wild or otherwise.
The Theory was first advanced in the pages of Holy Blood, Holy Grail which, remember, was first published in 1982.
Dan Brown even mentions Holy Blood, Holy Grail in The Da Vinci Code as being the first place that The Theory was brought to the attention of the public.
But it's easier to undermine The Theory if it's the work of one novelist than if it's the product of three highly respected historians' years of painstaking research.
And if these apologist authors cannot even get the basic facts straight for the back-cover blurb, what makes them believe we'll trust them with what's inside the book?
11.5.06
Post-op care, Doombreed style
No blog yesterday because I was looking after Mrs Doombreed, who had surgery on her arm.
It was less fun for her than it was for me, and it was pretty much no fun for me. We did have some darkly funny moments because Mrs Doombreed was dosed up with a drug called "versed" (pronounced ver-said) which works by temporarily blocking the mind's ability to create new memories. The upshot of this is that when you talk to someone, you can't remember the conversation. So Mrs Doombreed asked me the same series of questions at least five times in a row, because she couldn't remember the answers.
Anyway, I'm keeping track of Mrs Doombreed's meds, making sure she sticks with doctor's orders, making dinner, fetching and carrying, and basically looking after She Who Is The Centre Of My Universe.
Pretty much everything I signed on for when we got married. Doing the husbandly duty. Being a man. Stepping up to the plate. Doing what any good spouse would.
Okay, yeah, so I'm enjoying looking after The Most Wonderful Woman In The World. So what?
I also want to thank Mrs Doombreed's mother. Mrs Doombreed's mother is the remedy to all the comedic mother-in-law jokes. She's a great person. She drove us over to the surgery centre, stayed with me whilst Mrs Doombreed is in surgery, even bought me dinner (Arby's chicken salad wraps are incredible).
Finally, of course, thanks to the doctor who performed the surgery, and all the staff who gave her such good care, before, during, and after.
The operation was minor and routine, but any time general anesthetic is used, it carries with it a risk that the patient might not come out.
Still, she came through with flying colors, and now a combination of the pain meds and lingering after effects of the anesthetic have sent her off for an afternoon nap, allowing me to indulge in a rare and forbidden pleasure.
I'm watchingZulu.
It was less fun for her than it was for me, and it was pretty much no fun for me. We did have some darkly funny moments because Mrs Doombreed was dosed up with a drug called "versed" (pronounced ver-said) which works by temporarily blocking the mind's ability to create new memories. The upshot of this is that when you talk to someone, you can't remember the conversation. So Mrs Doombreed asked me the same series of questions at least five times in a row, because she couldn't remember the answers.
Anyway, I'm keeping track of Mrs Doombreed's meds, making sure she sticks with doctor's orders, making dinner, fetching and carrying, and basically looking after She Who Is The Centre Of My Universe.
Pretty much everything I signed on for when we got married. Doing the husbandly duty. Being a man. Stepping up to the plate. Doing what any good spouse would.
Okay, yeah, so I'm enjoying looking after The Most Wonderful Woman In The World. So what?
I also want to thank Mrs Doombreed's mother. Mrs Doombreed's mother is the remedy to all the comedic mother-in-law jokes. She's a great person. She drove us over to the surgery centre, stayed with me whilst Mrs Doombreed is in surgery, even bought me dinner (Arby's chicken salad wraps are incredible).
Finally, of course, thanks to the doctor who performed the surgery, and all the staff who gave her such good care, before, during, and after.
The operation was minor and routine, but any time general anesthetic is used, it carries with it a risk that the patient might not come out.
Still, she came through with flying colors, and now a combination of the pain meds and lingering after effects of the anesthetic have sent her off for an afternoon nap, allowing me to indulge in a rare and forbidden pleasure.
I'm watching
10.5.06
From The Da Vinci Code to..
I've gotten into the habit of reading two books at once recently. One book stays at home, and the second is kept, usually, in my backpack or in the back pocket of my jeans (if it fits). This is because I like to read on my breaks at work, and I know that if I take my "work" book out of my backpack tonight, tomorrow I'll leave without it.
Anyway, this moment's "work" book is Angels & Demons by Dan Brown, he of The Da Vinci Code fame (or should that be infamy?). Angels & Demons is the book that came before The Da Vinci Code, also featuring Robert Langdon as the lead (yeah, Tom Hanks' character), but this time he's defending the Vatican against a dastardly plot by The Illuminati.
Brown again delves deep into the we'd-rather-you-kept-that-secret history of the Roman Catholic church, and reveals some surprising architectural and historical insights. So far it's keeping me enthralled and has almost made me late returning from break on two occasions.
Yes, it is fiction. I get it.
My "home" book is currently Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the book that, apparently, inspired The Da Vinci Code. This book is not fiction. It is the account of a number of scholars who, through researching various mysteries and trying to put together documentaries for the BBC, stumbled across clues to what might be the most startling secret in history.
If you've read The Da Vinci Code, you know what it is. If you haven't, I won't spoil it. And if you have, and liked it, you'll enjoy Angels & Demons. Holy Blood, Holy Grail is less entertaining, but then, it's not a novel.
Anyway, this moment's "work" book is Angels & Demons by Dan Brown, he of The Da Vinci Code fame (or should that be infamy?). Angels & Demons is the book that came before The Da Vinci Code, also featuring Robert Langdon as the lead (yeah, Tom Hanks' character), but this time he's defending the Vatican against a dastardly plot by The Illuminati.
Brown again delves deep into the we'd-rather-you-kept-that-secret history of the Roman Catholic church, and reveals some surprising architectural and historical insights. So far it's keeping me enthralled and has almost made me late returning from break on two occasions.
Yes, it is fiction. I get it.
My "home" book is currently Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the book that, apparently, inspired The Da Vinci Code. This book is not fiction. It is the account of a number of scholars who, through researching various mysteries and trying to put together documentaries for the BBC, stumbled across clues to what might be the most startling secret in history.
If you've read The Da Vinci Code, you know what it is. If you haven't, I won't spoil it. And if you have, and liked it, you'll enjoy Angels & Demons. Holy Blood, Holy Grail is less entertaining, but then, it's not a novel.
8.5.06
England Germany '06 squad finalised
Sven-Goran Eriksson has named the England squad for Germany 2006, leading to a slight storm-in-a-teacup over bringing Theo Walcott up to the world's premier sporting event, even though Sven's never seen him play.
I say good luck to the kid. England's most dazzling players have always been the ones that nobody thought should be there, so maybe Sven's got the right idea.
I was especially chuffed to hear that four 'Spurs players made it to the squad.
I say good luck to the kid. England's most dazzling players have always been the ones that nobody thought should be there, so maybe Sven's got the right idea.
I was especially chuffed to hear that four 'Spurs players made it to the squad.
7.5.06
There's no such thing as flying saucers
Well, now we can lay all that speculation to rest. The Ministry of Defence says so, according to Auntie Beeb.
Just one question, y'know, call it my need to know, but just how much did this frigging ridiculous project cost us?
Just one question, y'know, call it my need to know, but just how much did this frigging ridiculous project cost us?
The real creationist agenda
I stumbled across a very telling quote today. The Grauniad ran a piece about John Mackay, an Australian creationist who is visiting England in order to show his support for forcing religion on people and forcing the taxpayer to pay for it (hat tip to Red State Rabble for the link). In the article is a quote from Kurt Wise, author of In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation.
The quote goes:
If you don't get why it's so ominous, read it again carefully, and think on this:
Can a person who feels this way accept anything less than total victory? Could this person be happy with "teaching the controversy"? Would he be content with a brief aside in science class about how some won't accept evolution as fact? How about "opposing viewpoints"? A section of the syllabus dealing with creationism as an idea?
What about, when you get right down to it, "equal time"? Is this person, who openly admits that he rejects all evidence that doesn't fit with his religion, going to be happy with his religion being presented as equal to evolution?
In a word, no.
Such a person is not likely to be happy until every trace of evolutionary theory is wiped from the schools, the libraries, from the world.
Sure, they tell you they just want kids to get a well-rounded education, that things should be fair. But fair isn't even on the agenda.
And we can see how good Mr Wise's word is by his quote. All the evidence in the universe already does point to evolution and yet, he wasn't the first to admit it.
Now will he, apparently, ever admit it.
It reminds me of a show that I was unfortunate enough to catch the arse-end of on one of the US religious television networks. On the show was a self-described "paleontologist" who said that, although he's willing to admit that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that humans and dinosaurs lived together (and, failed to admit the absolute mountains of evidence that they didn't live together) he still believed it was true because of what he called "scriptural evidence."
It's the same thing. Evidence is irrelevant. What's real doesn't matter. Whether or not evolution is true is immaterial because the creationists don't care - they already have their Truth and nothing can change their perception of that.
And, in the face of that, is meaningful dialogue between scientists and creationists even possible?
The quote goes:
"[i]f all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand."
If you don't get why it's so ominous, read it again carefully, and think on this:
Can a person who feels this way accept anything less than total victory? Could this person be happy with "teaching the controversy"? Would he be content with a brief aside in science class about how some won't accept evolution as fact? How about "opposing viewpoints"? A section of the syllabus dealing with creationism as an idea?
What about, when you get right down to it, "equal time"? Is this person, who openly admits that he rejects all evidence that doesn't fit with his religion, going to be happy with his religion being presented as equal to evolution?
In a word, no.
Such a person is not likely to be happy until every trace of evolutionary theory is wiped from the schools, the libraries, from the world.
Sure, they tell you they just want kids to get a well-rounded education, that things should be fair. But fair isn't even on the agenda.
And we can see how good Mr Wise's word is by his quote. All the evidence in the universe already does point to evolution and yet, he wasn't the first to admit it.
Now will he, apparently, ever admit it.
It reminds me of a show that I was unfortunate enough to catch the arse-end of on one of the US religious television networks. On the show was a self-described "paleontologist" who said that, although he's willing to admit that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that humans and dinosaurs lived together (and, failed to admit the absolute mountains of evidence that they didn't live together) he still believed it was true because of what he called "scriptural evidence."
It's the same thing. Evidence is irrelevant. What's real doesn't matter. Whether or not evolution is true is immaterial because the creationists don't care - they already have their Truth and nothing can change their perception of that.
And, in the face of that, is meaningful dialogue between scientists and creationists even possible?
5.5.06
Friday Rodent Blogging
We don't know where Selene got these from. A new, bigger wheel and this weird crawl tube just suddenly appeared in her cage one day. Presumably she's building some sort of obstacle course in order to maintain fitness.
Mighty Optical Illusions
Seeing as I missed yesterday's blogging, because the damn computer wouldn't connect to the internet, I'll post last night's tonight.
This is just a quick link to Mighty Optical Illusions. An excellent site with some amazing optical illusions.
This is just a quick link to Mighty Optical Illusions. An excellent site with some amazing optical illusions.
3.5.06
The Da Vinci Code
Nope, I haven't seen the movie (it's not out yet), but I did finally get around to reading the book. And boy, I can understand why various Christian organisations are pretty pissed about it.
The book - and, presumably, the film - brings into the popular consciousness many facts about the Roman Catholic church that they'd rather remain hidden.
Author Dan Brown brings together a staggering array of church history and weaves a tight little story around them, often leaving one wondering exactly where the facts end and the fiction begins.
The book begins with two facts and a kind of "inverse-disclaimer":
Firstly, that the Priory of Sion is an actual organisation, a so-called "secret society", formed in 1099, which has had, apparently, amongst its members Sir Isaac Newton, Boticelli and, of course, Leonardo da Vinci.
Second, that Opus Dei is, also, an actual organisation which claims over 80,000 members worldwide. A very powerful sect within the Roman Catholic church, Opus Dei (lit. "work of God") is ultra-conservative and is rumoured to have had a strong hand in the election of conservative Benedictine XVI as successor to the relatively liberal John Paul II.
The author then goes on to state that all descriptions of "artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals" are also factual and accurate.
What the author studiously avoids stating is whether the little tidbits of background on the church are also accurate.
Now, I'm not going to go into detail here, because that would spoil the book and/or the movie - but there a few facts - that may, or may not make it into the movie - which might cause more than a few people to draw in a startled breath.
Opus Dei is already preparing a response to The Da Vinci Code, and has repeatedly taken great pains to remind people that the story is fictional.
(Yeah, we know that. But if I write a story about a guy who drives a Ford Mustang, lives in Tampa, Florida, and shoots people with his H-K PPK, does the fact that it's fictional mean that Mustangs, PPKs and Tampa, Florida do not, in reality, exist?)
The book is outstanding, and it's amazing to be able to go send Google off to find actual pictures of the buildings, carvings, pictures, and places that the characters are dealing with.
And, yes, you have a choice. Either let the book spoil the movie, or let the movie spoil the book.
I've already done the former.
The book - and, presumably, the film - brings into the popular consciousness many facts about the Roman Catholic church that they'd rather remain hidden.
Author Dan Brown brings together a staggering array of church history and weaves a tight little story around them, often leaving one wondering exactly where the facts end and the fiction begins.
The book begins with two facts and a kind of "inverse-disclaimer":
Firstly, that the Priory of Sion is an actual organisation, a so-called "secret society", formed in 1099, which has had, apparently, amongst its members Sir Isaac Newton, Boticelli and, of course, Leonardo da Vinci.
Second, that Opus Dei is, also, an actual organisation which claims over 80,000 members worldwide. A very powerful sect within the Roman Catholic church, Opus Dei (lit. "work of God") is ultra-conservative and is rumoured to have had a strong hand in the election of conservative Benedictine XVI as successor to the relatively liberal John Paul II.
The author then goes on to state that all descriptions of "artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals" are also factual and accurate.
What the author studiously avoids stating is whether the little tidbits of background on the church are also accurate.
Now, I'm not going to go into detail here, because that would spoil the book and/or the movie - but there a few facts - that may, or may not make it into the movie - which might cause more than a few people to draw in a startled breath.
Opus Dei is already preparing a response to The Da Vinci Code, and has repeatedly taken great pains to remind people that the story is fictional.
(Yeah, we know that. But if I write a story about a guy who drives a Ford Mustang, lives in Tampa, Florida, and shoots people with his H-K PPK, does the fact that it's fictional mean that Mustangs, PPKs and Tampa, Florida do not, in reality, exist?)
The book is outstanding, and it's amazing to be able to go send Google off to find actual pictures of the buildings, carvings, pictures, and places that the characters are dealing with.
And, yes, you have a choice. Either let the book spoil the movie, or let the movie spoil the book.
I've already done the former.
2.5.06
12 year old dead, airgun blamed
BBC News carries the story of a child shot and killed by a friend who had an ND with his father's air rifle:
Now, I have nothing but sympathy for the boy's family, and, yes, this was a terrible tradgedy and an avoidable death.
So why do I get the uneasy feeling that this may be the rallying point for those who want to add airguns to the list of things we Brits can't own because we're too dumb to be trusted?
Why do I hear the sound of a bandwagon going past and the hush caused by thousands just waiting to jump right on?
Maybe I've been corrupted, living in the US, but when I see this kind of story, I don't see a dangerous weapon that needs to be banned.
What I see is a full-grown adult who needs a serious, hard, and repeated cock-punching because he's dumb enough to leave a dangerous weapon around loaded.
What I see is the usual bleeding-heart suspects gleefully leaping on this poor boy's coffin in order to get their latest piece of "I know best what's good for you" legislation passed.
I hope I'm wrong, but I know I'm not.
A 14-year-old boy killed his 12-year-old friend when he accidentally shot him in the head with an air rifle, a court has heard.
The boy was showing off his father's new gun in his bedroom when it went off, firing a pellet through Alex Cole's eye and into his brain."
Now, I have nothing but sympathy for the boy's family, and, yes, this was a terrible tradgedy and an avoidable death.
So why do I get the uneasy feeling that this may be the rallying point for those who want to add airguns to the list of things we Brits can't own because we're too dumb to be trusted?
Why do I hear the sound of a bandwagon going past and the hush caused by thousands just waiting to jump right on?
Maybe I've been corrupted, living in the US, but when I see this kind of story, I don't see a dangerous weapon that needs to be banned.
What I see is a full-grown adult who needs a serious, hard, and repeated cock-punching because he's dumb enough to leave a dangerous weapon around loaded.
What I see is the usual bleeding-heart suspects gleefully leaping on this poor boy's coffin in order to get their latest piece of "I know best what's good for you" legislation passed.
I hope I'm wrong, but I know I'm not.
1.5.06
National Day Of Slayer
March 4th is the National Day Of Prayer here in the USA. So, in response to this, but mostly because the date only comes up once a century, 6th june this year (06/06/06 or 666 for the symbolically blind) has been designated The National Day Of Slayer.
The level of awesome in the world has gone up by at least an order of magnitude.
The level of awesome in the world has gone up by at least an order of magnitude.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)