It's just a theory

From dictionary.com

the·o·ry /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
–noun, plural -ries.

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

I am getting really quite bored of explaining to fundamentalist creationist (sorry, "intelligent design") nutjobs about the difference between definition 1 above and definitions 2, 6 and 7.

To clarify, the theory of evolution falls under definition 1. It has been peer reviewed, observed and documented. It is the basis for much of our medical knowledge - if you don't believe in evolution I suggest you don't bother with vaccinations! - and is as close to a law as you can get. To argue that it is anything else is playing fast and loose with the English language (something I don't like at the best of times).

Creationism or ID, on the other hand, falls firmly under definition 6 or 7, and even then I think it is overly generous to call it a theory. I would suggest the term hypothesis used in the sense "a mere assumption or a guess". There is zero evidence to back this up and it is so far outside the realm of science that it belongs firmly in the fantasy section of your local bookshop.

If you want to be taken remotely seriously with these hypotheses I suggest you find a more stable argument than mere semantics.

No fairy tales here

It seems that the BBC has censored The Pogue's "Fairytale of New York" for fear of offending homosexuals.

The offending lines are:

You scumbag, you maggot you cheap lousy faggot,
Happy Christmas your arse I pray God It's our last.

The Beeb, in their infinite wisdom, have decided that the term "faggot" needs to be bleeped for fear they offend the gay community.

What a load of politically correct garbage!!

Has anybody actually asked the gay community if they feel offended? Given that the song is 20 years old I'm fairly sure that, with the possible exception of a few gay Mary Whitehouses, they don't give a rat's arse. If they did I'm sure we'd have heard about it before now as the song appears on just about every Christmas compilation from the last 20 years and is played to death every Christmas regardless of whether there is a campaign to get it to the #1 slot or not.

Interestingly, Marrion Webster defines it as follows:

Main Entry: fag·got
Pronunciation: \ˈfa-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: earlier and dialect, contemptuous word for a woman or child, probably from 1fagot
Date: 1914

usually disparaging : a male homosexual

So it was originally an unpleasant name for a woman or child - perhaps Auntie is being sensitive about the wrong demographic.

Apart from that what about these lines:

You're a bum
You're a punk
You're an old slut on junk
Lying there almost dead on a drip in that bed

Can we really let that "old slut on a junk" line contribute the the moral bankruptcy of our once great nation. Is it not offensive to sluts? Failing that is it not encouraging children to become sluts? Or something else bad, and involving children to make it seem worse?

On a completely unrelated note, here is the link to the BBC complaints page, should anybody feel the urge to comment on anything over the festive season.

Swedish chubby porn

Staying with the Local for a moment they tell us that Swedish women are getting fatter. That should disappoint all you people who end up on this blog because you've been searching for "Swedish porn" as you obviously have a distorted image of what Swedes look like and get up to.

For those people I refer you back to my original post on the matter and I hope that clears up any misconceptions you may have without being too disappointing.

The study reports that since 2004 the percentage of obese Swedish women has risen from 11% to 14%. As an ardent admirer of the female form I think I can probably confirm this. My first visit to Sweden was in 1999 and since that time I have seen an increasing trend towards chubby women. Of course this hasn't helped by the fashion trends where, for some strange reason, women seem to want to squeeze all their spare fat out into a small gap between a tight top and their belt.

Ladies, let me do you a favour now and tell you the spare tyre look does not turn most men on (yes, I know there are exceptions).

It's not difficult to see why this is happening. The national dish of meatballs has come dangerously close to being supplanted by a big mac and fries.

Odd though that men do not seem to be following the same trend - the statistics for males have remained roughly stable over the same time period (admittedly they are worse as a group, they're just not getting worse).

Leo's Swedish penectomy

It's political correctness gone mad. In response to protests from women the Swedish army has removed the lion's penis from it's emblem.

While the Local incorrectly calls this a castration either way you look at it it's insane. I especially like this quote:

"The army lacks knowledge about heraldry. Once upon a time coats of arms containing lions without genitalia were given to those who betrayed the Crown," said Sagerlund.

So far I haven't been able to ascertain how much this process has cost the taxpayer but I'd love to know.

A child is for life ... !

It seems a Dutch couple have handed back their 7 year old adopted daughter because

she didn't "fit in" with their life-style.

I'm not sure I could be any angrier about anything right now. OK, so it's the daily mail, a decidedly dubious source, so I checked it out in other papers.

International Herald Tribune
Reuters
MSNBC

There are plenty more papers that have picked it up too so it appears to be a genuine case.

From the Reuters' article:

"The diplomat gave no explanation for his decision except to say 'the adoption had gone wrong'," the paper reported.

How does an adoption 'go wrong' precisely? The answer, of course, is that it doesn't. The couple have simply discovered that they can have children after all and are no longer interested in their "fake" adopted child.

"A dog is for life, not just for Christmas" has been used as an effective advertising slogan to prevent people from buying pets for their kids which turn out to be a nine day wonder. Perhaps we need a similar campaign for children.

I'm sure it is my adoptee status which makes this a particularly sensitive subject for me but I have two brothers, one is adopted, the other is "real" (a phrase we used to use as children to make the distinction, and not meant in any way to be derogatory towards anybody). Not only is the youngest real, but he came as somewhat of a surprise. I don't imagine for one fraction of a second that my parents (and that is what they are) regretted adopting myself or my other brother.

That anybody could even consider this shows they have a total lack of character and respect for others.

They are obviously totally unsuitable diplomats and I would like to call for them to be stripped of their diplomatic status immediately and returned to their own country in disgrace.

An open letter to Richard Dawkins from Father Christmas

Dear Mr. Dawkins

As I sat in the pub the other night sharing a couple of pints with a good friend of mine, we'll call him Jaycee for the purposes of this mail, he mentioned that I might want to look out for you. We both have a number of responsibilities in the run up to Christmas culminating in a busy day or so around Christmas itself and these could be made considerably more difficult should a well respected author such as yourself choose to discredit us at this, our busiest time of year. It would inevitably lead to a severe drop in custom and, for my part, a number of redundancies within the toy industry.

So this is a plea to bear in mind the consequences of any expose you may be planning into my supposed non-existence. I depend on a very high turnover to maintain a rather slim profit margin and should this drop, for example as a result of a diminishing number of children who actually believe in me, then it will hit the business hard and the people that suffer most will be those children who have maintained their faith during the hard times. Them and the elves, who will struggle to support their families on benefits (although elves tend to breed like rabbits and have large families so are likely to be provided for rather well under the British system, I hope you are prepared for a new immigrant minority in the country).

Perhaps if you do feel the need to spread rumours about my mythological status you could wait until January, when I will be holidaying in the Bahamas. That should at least give the controversy a chance to blow over before the Christmas rush begins anew around October.

I hope I can count on your co-operation in this matter and that I will be able to assure Jaycee when I see him next week that you are capable of compassion towards those amongst us who have the misfortune to be "existence challenged". I know that he would certainly take it as a good sign, if not a sign of good faith.

Sincerely yours

K. Kringle Esq.

Why do we still have infant male circumcision?

Season 4 of Desperate Housewives dealt with this often disregarded issue. One of the main characters actually snuck out to have a child circumcised behind her husband's back because he found it barbaric.

My question is why do more people not find it barbaric?

Science Daily published a piece the other day on just this subject and I'd like to present a few highlights (click on the link for the full article).

There is now rarely a therapeutic indication for infant circumcision

So why do we have it? Usually for religious reasons. If we accept that female circumcision is unacceptable why should a similar procedure on males be consdered not only acceptable but desirable?

Male genital mutilation is not a risk-free procedure, he adds. Far from being a harmless traditional practice, circumcision damages young boys.

It is an unnecessary surgical procedure. People who inflict these on their children are said to have Munchausen by proxy. Again I ask why is this an exception.

Male circumcision is not illegal anywhere in the world. It is a choice that parents will make on behalf of their male children, for cultural or other reasons, and regulating its provision is the wisest course of action, she concludes.

This would appear to say that cultural child abuse is acceptable. I question what is meant by 'other reasons' as religion would fall under the banner of cultural.

Barring the very few genuine medical cases where this procedure may be reccommended by a doctor there is no reason in an enlightened society to continue with this.

The golden moral compass

The anti-catholic league is up in arms about the flim adaptation of Philip Pullman's "The Golden Compass" and are calling for a boycott of the film because, they claim, it is an attack on religion.

Well, good!

What makes religion so special that it is above criticism? I'm sure there are plenty of catholics speaking out about Mohammad the teddy bear. Then these same people turn around and cry "no fair" when somebody dares to criticise their religion.

I don't remember atheists calling for a boycott of C.S. Lewis' "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe". Perhaps that was a mistake though, maybe we should have. Of course then we would have been "anti-faith", despite the fact I am always told by the religious that atheism is a faith position too (something I heartily refute, incidentally).

In the Ghetto (eventually)

New scientist had an interesting article a week or so back about how ghettos are created. It was based on a new study which looked at Venice and discovered that the Venetian Ghetto is the most isolated section of the city in terms of connectivity.

Obviously Venice is an ideal example to use to illustrate this theory but the implications are pretty wide ranging. It would be nice to see local councils thinking twice about new road schemes which might destroy the road links to any particular neighbourhood. It might also provide a good method of fixing existing ghettos. Upgrade the road system in and around them, new business will slowly filter in, people will find it easier to travel to jobs (and therefore be more likely to actually have jobs in the first place) and slowly but surely, so the theory goes, the neighbourhood will pull itself up by it's bootstraps.

The only issue I see with that is that at some point we'd hit a "tipping point" (for want of a better phrase - that one seems a little over-used these days) where the poorer members of the community would be under significant financial pressure to sell their houses to the more affluent people that had begun to move in. Presumably these people would move to the ghetto a couple of neighbourhoods over and the whole process would begin again.

It would be nice to see some graph theorists employed by local government though alongside the town planners.