Geoff Coupe's Blog

Reflections on life at “De Witte Wand”…

Year: 2007

  • Free The Buggers

    As I’ve already mentioned, this week sees the 50th anniversary of the publication of the Wolfenden Report. Doug Ireland, over at his DIRELAND blog, has a good summary of how life was for British homosexuals 50 years ago. He mentions the BBC’s "Hidden Lives" themed programming which has been running this week on BBC Four. That has been extremely good. A whole series of dramas and documentaries, some new, but many old ones getting a well-deserved airing again (TV biographies of Joe Orton, Frankie Howard, Leigh Bowery and Joe Meek, for example – all first-class).
     
    I had never seen the Face-to-Face interview of Gilbert Harding conducted by John Freeman before (it was first aired in 1960), and I must say it was a revelation. Freeman was clearly trying to get Harding say that he was homosexual, and it made for riveting, but very uncomfortable television. More on Harding himself, and that interview can be found here. It’s well worth reading. 
     
    The centrepiece of the week was Julian Mitchell’s dramatisation of the people involved with, or affected by, the Wolfenden Report itself. Consenting Adults, was an excellent piece of work, beautifully played (in particular by Charles Dance as Sir John Wolfenden, Sean Biggerstaff as his (gay) son Jeremy, and Mark Gatiss as a nasty policeman), and beautifully set-dressed. The period was caught exactly. I see that someone who knew both John Wolfenden and his son Jeremy has commented on how well the actors and the drama caught the essence of the real people.
     
    That comment was made on the BBC’s "Have Your Say" page devoted to the Hidden Lives week. The majority of the comments are deservedly complimentary, but I see that there’s the inevitable few denouncing the BBC for daring to devote air time to the subject. It’s very curious, and indeed very revealing in a Freudian sort of way, how every single one of these comments deplores the BBC for "shoving it down our throats". Oo-er, missus…

  • Maddy’s Myopia

    And talking about those who misrepresent Dawkins, Our Maddy of the Sorrows, Madeleine Bunting, demonstrates once again that she is ever-dependable in this department. She comments on that radio interview between Dawkins and Cornwell, and introduces her article with:
    Richard Dawkins, finally agreed to debate religion with one of his critics. He has repeatedly refused a head-to-head with protagonists such as his Oxford colleague, Professor Alister McGrath, but on the Today programme this morning, we got a snippet of a fascinating exchange between two very clever men. 
    Clearly she’s living in another world. As Richard Dawkins himself felt obliged to point out in the comments on her piece:
    She only had go google "Alister McGrath" and "Richard Dawkins" to find several references to our debate at the Oxford Literary Festival, chaired by Joan Bakewell in March of this year. It is available for her to listen to at http://richarddawkins.net/article,802,Richard-Dawkins-at-The-Sunday-Times-Oxford-Literary-Festival,Richard-Dawkins
     
    I would more strongly recommend to her, however, the long conversation between Alister McGrath and me which she will find at http://richarddawkins.net/article,1212,Richard-Dawkins-and-Alister-McGrath,Root-of-All-Evil-Uncut-Interviews
     
    Madeline Bunting will be disappointed to discover that, in both these debates, I am conciliatory, civilised, and not, I think it is fair to say, ‘shrill’ or ‘arrogant’. Perhaps, after this, and after examining the evidence of sharp practice by her hero John Cornwell at http://richarddawkins.net/article,1610,Honest-Mistakes-or-Willful-Mendacity,Richard-Dawkins Madeline Bunting might finally begin to get the message. Is it too much to hope that she’ll go the whole hog and actually read The God Delusion before the next time she sounds off about it?  
    I fear that the good professor hopes too much. It seems pretty clear that she hasn’t actually read his book. After all, she writes:
    And this is why I think Dawkins is dangerous. He has spent enough time now thinking about religion and listening to thoughtful religious people such as the Harries, yet he persists with a parody, a childlike perception of God and religion. Of course there’s no man with a beard crashing about in the sky.  
    As Chris White points out in the comments:
    Blimey Madeleine, you really haven’t read The God Delusion, have you? (Nor, in all probability, will you read this.)
     
    Page 31: "The God Hypothesis should not stand or fall with its most unlovely instantiation, Yahweh, nor his insipidly opposite Christian face, ‘Gentle Jesus meek and mild’. […] Instead I shall define the God Hypothesis more defensibly: there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us."
     
    And, crucially, page 36: "This is as good a moment as any to forestall an inevitable retort to the book, one that would otherwise — as sure as night follows day — turn up in a review: ‘The God that Dawkins doesn’t believe in is a God that I don’t believe in either. I don’t believe in an old man in the sky with a long white beard.’ That old man is an irrelevant distraction and his beard is as tedious as it is long. Indeed, the distraction is worse than irrelevant. Its very silliness is calculated to distract attention from the fact that what the speaker really believes is not a whole lot less silly. I know you don’t believe in an old man sitting on a cloud, so let’s not waste any more time on that. I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented."
     
    Please try reading the book before pronouncing upon it. You might actually learn something.  
    Amen to that.

  • Yet Another One

    Since the publications of Dawkins’ The God Delusion last year, there have been a number of books published in riposte. The latest is John Cornwell’s Darwin’s Angel: an angelic response to The God Delusion. And it seems to be yet another example of a writer who deliberately misrepresents what Dawkins actually wrote. In order to prepare for a radio interview with Cornwell, Dawkins read Darwin’s Angel, and he was so surprised by the way that his views had been twisted, that he wrote a response here. As Dawkins says, it is difficult not to think, on the face of the evidence in the book, that Cornwell is being anything other than mendacious, spiced with petty malice. 

  • Hearts and Minds

    And talking of heartrending, here’s a moment between a loving father and his eldest daughter:
    A Muslim man and his two daughters are enjoying a coastal drive in South Africa. It’s a happy scene, yet the easy banter belies the hardship this family has endured. The man, Mushin Hendricks, is a former imam who was cast out by his community when he declared his homosexuality. The girls’ mother has since remarried, and when Hendricks asks them what they would do if he were arrested, the answer comes without hesitation. The elder child, combining filial love with the lessons of her Islamic education, says she would ask that officials spare him a protracted death by stoning, and kill him with the first rock. 
    Words fail me.

  • It’s Not Unusual…

    …But of course, in some places, being a gay couple is not only unusual, but positively dangerous. Here’s Kamran and Kaveh in Iran:
    What is the problem of an Iranian homosexual?
    Kaveh: The first is that we cannot discuss any of our problems. We have a problem with the government due to our sexual orientation; the Islamic government does not accept us and we are condemned to hanging and stoning. In comparison the rest of the problems are minor.
    How do you describe life as a homosexual in Iran?
    Kamran: Very easy; one cannot work, cannot have fun, and cannot go out. You cannot go out with your partner because everybody will look at you as if you are abnormal. The way we are looked at is a source of torment for us. Even though physically we are not any different from them they discriminate against us. This makes our lives extremely difficult. I don’t think there is any problem greater than being labeled abnormal in society when you are certain nothing is wrong with you. If someone abuses you, you cannot issue a complaint to any organization or report to the police, because you’ll create more problems for yourself.
    It’s heartrending.
    Kaveh: We do not ask for much in life. I want to have a 40 meter apartment in Iran where I can live with my partner, the person I love. Get up in the morning and go to work, work, and feel at peace when I return home. That’s it. Just a quiet life with my boyfriend. I’d like to reach this dream and not be hanged or stoned for loving someone.  
    Heartrending.

  • Aarrgh!

    Sometimes I really detest the young. They will inherit the world. And all the things that we have fought for, they will not care one whit about. To them it is boring, old-fashioned, worthless. English Grammar for example.
     
    The bright young things over at the product team for Microsoft’s Windows Live Messenger had an idea. Instruction manuals are boring. So, the bright young things decided to make an instructional video for Windows Live Messenger. "Sarah", their video avatar, is also a bright young thing, and she introduces the various features of Windows Live Messenger in a bright, perky, up-to-the-minute way.
     
    As you can imagine, I am metamorphosing into Victor Meldrew at the very thought. However, I did try to keep my negative thoughts at bay. Oh, I really did. But then, when Sarah started talking about the socialisation features of Windows Live Messenger, I regret to say that I completely lost it. She types in a personalised invitation, and what does she type?
    "Hey! Let me know next time your online!"
    Grammar 
     
    Dear god, is there no-one in the long chain, from the lowly web developer in Microsoft through the marketing hordes to the head honcho responsible for releasing this to the world, capable of recognising a schoolboy howler in simple English grammar?
     
    Apparently not. It’s "you’re", not "your" you stupid, stupid people.
     
    May you all rot in grammar hell.
       

  • Et Tu, Brute?

    Recently I mentioned my exasperation at some of the nonsense being written about atheism and atheists by believers. Well, blow me down with a feather, now some atheists are doing the same when writing about their fellow atheists. Here’s a prime example by Magnus Linklater. 
     
    I find it really annoying that he too stoops to ad hominem attacks on Dawkins, and misrepresenting Dakwins’ positions. A typical example in his article is where he states:
    I cannot, like* Professor Dawkins, think the less of anyone who takes pleasure from a familiar liturgy, nor deride those who fall back on a Church whose central tenets they reject. 
    Even though he appears to have read The God Delusion, he still, unconsciously or disingenuously, misrepresents Dawkins. I have never found an instance where Dawkins derides "those who fall back". And as for liturgy, Linklater appears to have missed this closing passage in The God Delusion in the section on religious education as a part of literary culture:
    I have probably said enough to convince at least my older readers that an atheistic world-view provides no justification for cutting the Bible, and other sacred books, out of our education. And of course we can retain a sentimental loyalty to the cultural and literary traditions of, say, Judaism, Anglicanism or Islam, and even participate in religious rituals such as marriages and funerals, without buying into the supernatural beliefs that historically went along with those traditions. We can give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage. 
    * Although Linklater uses "like" here, from the context, I take it to mean that he actually means "unlike". His whole thrust in the article is that he (Linklater) is actually a much more caring and reasonable person than those meanies Dawkins and Toynbee…

  • Recipes

    Apparently, I should be posting more recipes here on my blog. At least, that’s what I understand from Gelert’s comment on my entry of a recipe for Slime.
     
    The truth is that although I enjoy cooking, I’m not particularly good at dreaming up new recipes, so I don’t think I’ll be posting any here. However, by way of compensation, may I just draw your attention to a couple of good food blogs? Gastronomy Domine and thepassionatecook often post recipes that appeal to me.  Liz Upton, over at Gastronomy Domine, in particular, has provided me with recipes that I return to often.

  • Orac At The Gates

    Orac is the pseudonym of an American surgeon/scientist who has an informative blog. He’s currently visiting London, and had to see the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital for himself. He is, as you might expect, no fan of homeopathy, and uses this blog entry to flense the criticisms of homeopaths to Richard Dawkins recent look at homeopathy on The Enemies of Reason. Very entertaining.
     
    Oh, and while we’re on the subject of homeopathy, there’s a new book coming out next month, The Homeopathic Revolution, written by Dana Ullman MPH. One thing that is intriguing is Ullman’s claim that:
    "Charles Darwin could not have written Origin of Species without the homeopathic treatment that he received from Dr. Gully (based on Darwin’s own letters!)."  
    It sounds almost as though Darwin was helped by homeopathy, doesn’t it? And that’s the spin that is already being put on it by some homeopaths. Unfortunately, the truth is somewhat different. Darwin was skeptical of homeopathy – and this is seen in his letters (which are online). The tipping point, as pointed out by Andy Lewis over at The Quackometer, may have been related to homeopathy, but not in a good way:
    The truth is that homeopathy may have played a pivotal role, but only in its utter failure to save the life of Darwin’s precious daughter. Darwin was torn with doubts whilst working on his theory about the effect it would have on his wife, who was devout, and on the religious authority and structures in society in general. Having his own faith ripped away was an important removal of a barrier to publication.  
    If Ullman is going to claim in his forthcoming book that Charles Darwin was helped by homeopathic medicines to overcome the illnesses that plagued him for much of his life so that he could write Origin of Species, then this would seem to be yet another example of homeopaths cherry-picking the evidence to prove their case. They may think they are arguing a posteriori when in fact they are simply demonstrating a priori reasoning.

  • From Pillar To Post

    Karima Tieleman has not had an easy life. I’m not sure that it’s all going to be plain sailing from here on in, either. Still it’s her choice. I don’t know which depressed me more – reading about what she has to put up with or reading some of the comments on this story. 

  • What Do These Religionists Understand Of Atheism?

    Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has a regular column in the Independent newspaper. This week, it was titled: What Do These Atheists Understand Of Religion? I must say, after reading it, and counting to ten several times over, that I really think the title should have been reversed. Ms. Alibhai-Brown seems to have no understanding of what atheism is, and constructs a series of strawmen in an attempt to prove her case. And I do get tired of ad hominem attacks of Dawkins when it is seems clear that the attackers, such as Alibhai-Brown, appear either not to have read his books or continually mis-state his positions. I felt like banging my head on my keyboard when I read the climax of her piece with yet another appearance of the nonsense trope: "Fundamentalist atheists want to replace old religions with their own". 
     
    Her nonsense has been thoroughly dissected by the comments here. I particularly like this one – a measured response to Alibhai-Brown’s fevered rhetoric. And of course, the ever-dependable Ophelia Benson has comments of her own on the piece. I do like her summary of one of Alibhai-Brown’s more stupid propositions as a piece of kack. A good old-fashioned slang word correctly used to describe the argument as the great big steaming pile of ordure that it is.

  • Virtual Life

    I’ve just come across a reference (on Virtual Philosopher) to a recent discussion on BBC Radio between Professor Susan Greenfield and Ren Reynolds about the rise of virtual social interaction sites such as Facebook and SecondLife. There’s also a link to the MP3 of the discussion. I must have a listen. Like Professor Greenfield, I worry whether people who lead virtual lives impact their capability for real-world interpersonal relationships. The other side of the coin, as Nigel of Virtual Philosopher says, is that people like me who don’t participate in these virtual worlds will increasingly be seen as the odd ones. Move over, dinosaurs, here I come. 

  • Making Slime

    When I was young, I was fascinated by odd materials such as Potty Putty and Slime. If you’re interested, here’s chapter and verse on how to make your own Slime… 

  • Some Things Never Change

    And while today we celebrate the fact that 50 years ago a committee reached a sensible decision (with one out of the thirteen members being the exception), it is perhaps only right to point out that even today, in certain places, falsehoods abound. This is what I call corruption of children. 

  • Mabel’s Murky Past

    I see that the Wikiscanner has claimed another victim – this time Princess Mabel.  

  • Soccer’s Murky Secrets

    I’ve never been a football fan; probably to do with the fact that I hated playing it at school. So I don’t generally follow events in that world. Still, the increasing involvement of Russian billionaires in English football is an intriguing development. It’s one that I didn’t give much attention to until I read this piece by Craig Murray on Alisher Usmanov and Arsenal football club. Murray blows the whistle on Usmanov’s disturbing background. 

  • It Was 50 Years Ago Today…

    … That the Wolfenden Report on homosexual offences and prostitution was published in Britain*. While it recommended that homosexual behaviour between consenting adults in private should no longer be a criminal offence, it was to be a further ten years before the law was changed to reflect this. I see that the BBC is commemorating the anniversary with a week of broadcasts relating to gay lives. On Wednesday, for example, BBC Four will be broadcasting Consenting Adults, a play about the Wolfenden Report and the people involved in it. Should be worth watching. Today’s Guardian also has an article by the playwright about it. 
     
    * Some sources quote the date of publication as 4th September 1957.

  • Sinbad Stops

    I see that Kerwin Mathews, the film actor, has died at the age of 81. While he appeared in a number of terrible films (e.g. Octaman), he was also the lead in two of Ray Harryhausen’s wonderful fantasy films: The 7th Voyage of Sinbad and The 3 Worlds of Gulliver. It’s for those films that I will remember him, particularly as Sinbad. Even at the tender age of 9, I realised that my feelings toward this handsome and dashing man were a tad more complicated than just hero worship. The obituary and this potted biography also report that Mathews is survived by his partner of 46 years, Tom Nicoll. So he was gay as well. That, I never knew.

  • The Power of Prayer

    I’ve never been convinced that praying produces any results other than assuaging the conscience of those doing the praying. However, Pandemian hits upon a possible reason as to why praying is pretty pointless:  
    Maybe, with God being as vain as he is, he can’t be bothered to get out of bed and perform even the most unobtrusive piece of divine intervention unless he can be sure of a certain amount of dedicated worship from people that fully appreciate him. A casual approach to asking for what you want won’t work – he must be persuaded and flattered like an underage girl in a Miss Selfridge boob tube in a provincial disco at closing time.
    Hmm, it’s possible, I suppose. Alternatively, he may simply just not exist. Mind you, I was rather taken by Pandemian’s transcript of Jesus and his Dad’s somewhat dysfunctional home life. 

  • Craftmanship

    Here’s an example of model-making using paper, snap-fasteners and chopsticks that leaves me shaking my head in wonder at the sheer skill and artistry involved. 
     
    (hat tip to Paper Forest)