The latest is from the British TV Licensing Authority. You see, in the UK you need to have a license to own a television set. That's how the BBC pays large salaries to a collection of self-important people who mostly bear the title of "controller" and collectively do apparently very little in a suburb of London called White City.

Rumour has it that TV controllers spend most of their working day having meetings. That way, if anyone asks you what you did today, you can shake your head ruefully as though you've had a really hard time, and say "wow man, loads of meetings, so much going on, too many projets, I'm gonna ask for a raise". The additional benefit of an infinite supply of tea and biscuits means you don't need to leave the room for sustenance, and the fear of getting anything done is banished by the twin pillars of not having the authority to do anything even if you wanted to, and the knowledge that if you don't do anything, you can't get anything wrong.

Meanwhile, I get threatening post so their salaries can get paid. Which is all the more interesting since I live in Paris. Got to love Royal Mail forwarding.

YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN OFFICIAL NOTICE
 
THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY UNDER INVESTIGATION
 
Dear Mr. [insert hopelessly garbled surname here]
 
Your address has been identified on our database as being unlicensed despite having been sent a license expiry notice and an overdue notice.
 
If you are continuing to watch or record television programmes without a license at this property, it is my duty to inform you that:
* You are breaking the law
* You are risking criminal prosecution in your local court
*You could face a fine of up to £1000 ($2100 last time I checked, and still rising steadily).
 
blah... blah... blah...
 
Please be aware that electronic detection equipment may be used to obtain proof that you are using your TV without a valid license. Please also be advised that we have applied for internal authorisation for our Enforcement Officers to visit your property. You may be cautioned under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984) or under the relevant criminal law, and a statement taken.
 
blah... blah... blah...
 
John Hales
National Manager
TV Licensing Enforcement

Seems a little heavy handed for the crime of owning receiving equipment without a license, but hey. The fun part is that I left the property in question in May. That's over 8 months ago.

I also took the trouble at the time to call the TV licensing authority to tell them I was leaving at the time, and the nice lady who's job it is to deal with such things took my details and said everything would be Ok. She even took the trouble of sending me a form to fill out to get a refund on the previous year's TV license since I still had some months to go on it, although I couldn't find the bit of paper they'd sent me saying they'd leave me alone for a year, which was necessary in order to claim a refund. Don't know why I bothered.

At least Royal Mail forwarding works well enough to communicate the threats to me over here in France, where I don't have to pay a TV License... Or at least I wouldn't have to if I owned a TV....

So what are we looking at? The proposed law covers the potential use of a DNA test to verify a claimed parentage link where that link is a significant factor in a claim for certain rights in the context of an immigration application.

There's a lot of elements in there. I disagree with the motivating force behind most of them. Where I disagree with many of the people who find this so objectionable is on the point that DNA tests are somehow "bad".

Verifying Claims
The government has a right to verify claims made in an application where it has the means. If that means were a DNA test, and that technology is available, then that technology should be allowed to be used. I see nothing wrong with that. In this case, I don't believe a DNA test is an appropriate test given what is being tested for, but I am not against DNA tests on principle, provided they can prove what needs to be proven.

If you make a claim, and based upon that claim you assert that you have certain rights, the government you are facing is under no obligation to take your word for it. If you claim that no documents exist to back up that claim, or if the authenticity of those documents can legitimately be called into question, then you should expect the government you are facing to make every effort to ascertain the truth of your claim. This is to ensure you get what you are entited to.

Verifying Parentage
This is where it gets tricky. Statistically speaking, a study by the London School of Economics in 2000 found that one in seven fathers were mistaken in their belief that they are the the biological father of their offspring. Leaving aside the large moral and ethical questions of how this came to pass, the point is that after acting as the father for many years, the link between father and son, whether underpinned by biology or not, remains societally real. Should a person be turned away at the border because of infidelity by their mother many years ago. Somewhat less controversially, how does this affect adopted children, who have a similar moral status - at least to my mind?

It would be logically dishonest not to look at the other side of this coin - what of the people who will show up claiming parentage to someone in the country when they know full well they have none? It is, I believe, fair to assume that there will be more of these than cases of misattributed fatherhood - a loophole in immigration laws is quickly taken advantage of. If you doubt this, cut a hole in the chain link fence surrounding the Eurotunnel rails and see how many people will try to squeeze through it in a single night.

Clearly the issue is complex, and while DNA tests bring us closer to the true solution, they move us from a point where previously we had too many people coming through a border under false pretenses, to a new situation where a smaller number of people are now denied passage due to a DNA test that focuses on a biological interpretation of fatherhood to the exclusion of all else.

If you believe that one person turned away for the wrong reasons is one person too many, and you would rather have people admitted under false pretenses, then you should be against the DNA testing at the border. Governments clearly do not hold this opinion, which is understandable if they are already battling fiscal and societal difficulties arising from a rate of immigration higher than their country can absorb.

I personally am against DNA testing at the border, for neither of the reasons above. I think that it is too easy a fix, and that were it to be used, no further effort would be made to find a better solution, this imperfect solution serving as it does the political aims of modern governments to keep as many people out under legitimate pretexts as possible. The more complicated questions regarding the legitimacy of parentage would never be tackled in the context of immigration.

Mandatory DNA Tests
These tests are not mandatory. Mandatory means you have no choice and there is nothing you can do other than be tested. You are asking to enter a country where no records exist to prove your claim, and therefore they want to use what methods they have to verify your claim. You don't want the test - you can walk away - nobody's forcing you to do anything. It is, however, unrealistic to expect an immigration service to take such claims on faith, based on the number of lies they deal with in applications on a daily basis. What information I have heard is anecdotal, but doesn't paint a pretty picture with regard to honesty in disclosures to immigration officials.

Where I change my mind is the situation where perfectly acceptable proof of paternity is provided in document format, from repected authorities, which can be checked with a couple of phone calls to the right people. In this situation, an acceptable alternative has been provided, and the DNA test becomes redundant. It should not be the front line test for the verification of a paternity test, it should be the fallback where other methods are insufficient, allowing people who don't have the requisite document another way of proving what they are saying.

Regardless, the DNA test is always, from everything I have read, taken at the election of the individual, in order to prove their claims. The immigration officials are merely saying, "What you have provided is insufficient to prove your claims, here is another method you can use to prove this aspect of your application to us". There's nothing mandatory about it.

Privacy
The DNA sample and information should not be kept afterwards. The only case where a DNA sample can justifiably be kept, to my mind, is in the case of convicted criminals who are also likely to be reoffenders, and who have committed a certain class or category of crime. i.e. violent crime, sexual abuse, that sort of thing, where the DNA could be a key component in proving future offenses and the existence of the sample in police records therefore serves as a significant deterrent to re-offending.

DNA samples taken for the purposes of immigration should be destroyed once the immigration is complete and the dossier closed.

DNA Tests are Evil
DNA tests are a form of technology. How they are used is a far greater concern than how they work or the fact that they are possible. The development of this technology is unstoppable, and as it becomes progressively easier to do a DNA test, it will become more and more prevalent in society. It is therefore more important to manage its integration into our daily lives in a way that fits with our morals and ethics than to stand in the way of its development because it frightens us, as it will be developed regardless of how we feel or the extent to which we seek to outlaw it.

It's important not to mix this issue up with others - people talk about the abortion of children with various genertic characteristics (propensity to develop various illnesses, for example), that is not about DNA testing, but about how we allow it to be used, based on our own moral code and based on the laws we establish. The two should never be confused.

An aside on the future effects of DNA testing
DNA testing will revolutionise areas like insurance, but when you really think about it, we've already started down this path. Insurance contracts already provide discounts to people in lower risk categories because it is deemed unfair for people with a low risk to subsidise those with a high risk of causing, for example, a car accident. Women drivers get significant discounts in the UK, as do those who have taken advanced driving courses. Those who go regularly to the gym get lower insurance premiums from certain health schemes. An insurance programme that takes money from healthy people to cure cancer in smokers isn't really an insurance, it's a tax. It's a perfectly legitimate tax if a government, representing its people, chooses to maintain it, but the two things - a tax and an insurance - should not be confused.

The key question becomes : If I can get additional health insurance from a private organisation that will give me better service for lower premiums based on a risk profile that uses a DNA test as part of its calculation, should that be illegal? It's no more discriminatory than a woman getting cheaper car insurance than a man. I'm not claiming to answer the question here, but it does raise interesting concerns about the boundary between the state (which has a duty to insure us all to a minimum level) and the private sector (which makes private arrangements between individuals and companies that are then enforced by the law). Should the law start prescribing what can and can't be put in an insurance contract, what does and doesn't form a legitimate basis for a discount, and therefore - in the context of medical insurance - force the private sector to cross-subsidise the unhealthy at the expense of the healthy? Open questions leading to big but nuanced decisions that will make extremely visible the characters of nations.

But they are privileged and they are guilty of defending a completely unjustified system.

The "special regimes" which are to be dismantled and which the unions want preserved, were originally enacted to compensate individuals who carry out jobs where the discomfort and the health & safety aspects were particularly burdensome. These individuals were allowed to retire early, in some cases as early as 50 years of age. Nothing wrong with that in principle. Originally, these individuals would be working locomotives where the job basically entailed shovelling coal into a furnace all day long. Now the guy presses a switch and the train goes, but he keeps his special hardship privileges and is willing to hold the country to ransom over them. That's privilege, right there, and if you're made to feel guilty, it's several years overdue.

Paris was wonderful this morning. I walked around my block of buildings to the Vélib stand, where I picked up a bicycle (people were arriving and leaving simultaneously, so there was a good turnover of bikes). I then cycled to work through the centre of Paris. This is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, so it's no real hardship, even if it gets a little chilly and damp. Outside, everyone was walking, people weren't even bothering with the trains, because Paris is small and if you live inside it, you can be at work within one to two hours. On a bicycle it took me 25 minutes to get to my office. Outside, there were many people walking or cycling to work, and everyone was a little friendlier than usual, as is often the case when some negative throws everyone together - you make the best of it.

I'll either cycle or walk home too, and I'll enjoy it, because regardless of the idiocy, bloody-mindedness and pure unadulterated greed of those who think this is a legitimate issue to strike over, I won't credit them with the ability to ruin my day.

Why should I take the fashion industry seriously when it doesn't seem to take larger-sized women (an ever growing part of the population)like me seriously?

A ship in port is safe, but that is not what ships are for.

I was inspired to look up her other quotes and a little about her - it turns out she was a Rear Admiral in the US Navy, and a bit of a computer geek in that she helped design higher-level languages by inventing the compiler. She was also a serial retirer, leaving the navy on a number of occasions before being promoted to her final rank of Rear Admiral.

She is also credited with a couple of other quotes, in particular.

It is often easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.
 
The most dangerous phrase in the language is, "We've always done it this way."

More about her over here,

The method of breaking the patent was to authorise (actually, to issue a "compulsory license") for the importation of a generic version of the drug from Thailand.

Clearly, this is the right decision in terms of the immediate short term problem of getting the latest drug to the most needy. Brazil's aggressive management of the challenges posed by the AIDS epidemic has been widely lauded and with good reason - the progressive measures adopted by the government have managed to slow the rates of infection dramatically.

However, solving that problem in this way comes at a cost.

Let us, for a moment, assume that every country in the world follows Brazil's example. Merck's sales of Efavirenz drop to zero as the sales of the generic alternative skyrocket. Everyone who needs or wants this drug gets it for a fraction of the original cost.

Six months later, Efavirez-resistant varieties of HIV emerge, as they have for every other drug developed to date, and infection rates begin to pick up as the effectiveness of the new drug diminishes. The world turns towards the pharmaceutical companies - the only organisations in the world capable of investing the billions required to scan the infinite candidate molecules for AIDS-resisting properties, and asks, "when is the next drug coming out?".

If I were the director of Merck, with the mission to protect, enhance and profitably invest the funds of my shareholders, I would answer, "It's not coming from us. Due to the political climate surrounding AIDS-related drugs, we have determined that it is strategically impossible for us to recoup the cost of researching the drugs in question, and have turned our attention to other problems, which affect wealthier countries that are actually willing to pay for the medication they take."

Cruel? No. It's not cruel at all. It's simple reality - either they make this decision, or they bury their company researching drugs that will get ripped off with the blessing of the World Health Organisation, the developing world and every NGO on the planet, who don't understand the role economics plays in getting resources into the research for anti-retrovirals. Their shareholders and creditors didn't give them money to spend on charitable activities - that's what the NGOs are for.

While in the near-term, people may live that would otherwise have died, every time a decision of this nature is made, it weakens the foundations that support the effort for finding future drugs. This decision affects variables in equations that are used to determine whether investing a few hundred billion dollars over the next 30 years in AIDS-related drug research is a good idea, or a bad idea, from the point of view of the person to whom that money belongs.

Personally, if I had AIDS, I'd want drugs later as well as now, and I'd want drugs that worked. Decisions like this are the enemy of the quest for a cure, and while they may allow the currently infected to lead better lives, they are the equivalent of using an elastoplast to treat a broken leg when it comes to treating the epidemic itself.

For a more informed view : In The Pipeline has an article on this.

Red tape.
Bureaucracy.
Process.

To some this is an incredible burden (as I am discovering, to my cost). To others, this is an opportunity to make money for nothing.

I will illustrate with two examples.

I recently bought 10 classical music CDs. Classical music is complicated, you can't just buy Brahms String Trios. There are dozens of recordings, in dozens of different venues, with different trios of differing qualities and characteristics. Suffice it to say that when you're buying classical music, you know the CD you want, and it's not always available.

We in the old world like to think that we've got the monopoly on class, culture, civilisation and the finer things in life. So it may come as a little surprise that I had to order most of the CDs I wanted from the United States. They came in two packages delivered by international post.

I got two cards through the door and I had to go pick up the parcels at my local Post Office depot. That's a long story that involves shouting, roadworks and buses, and is best left for another time. What's important is that these cards indicate that I owe a little over £30. I was under the distinct impression that I had already paid for these CDs.

Upon arrival, a red sticker on the side of each parcel breaks down the cost for me. First there's the UK extracting it's pound of flesh by charging VAT (you're not American, and you live on an island, so pay up). But 17.5% multiplied by the cost of my CDs doesn't come anywhere near £30. The remainder is £8 per parcel of "post office customs management charge" or something similar (I don't have the labels, their very presence being so nausea-inducing).

£8 per parcel, to cover the costs of administering a £5 tax. Good money if you can charge it - especially since the consumer, by the time he faces this bill, has already paid for the goods in question and the post office is holding them hostage pending payment.

The artificial red tape that exists in affairs of importation and customs serves the dual purpose of raising revenues for the government and buttressing the overweight buttocks of the post office as it struggles it's corpulent rolls of fat up the mountain of capitalism. If I'd paid extra to have it shipped express, DHL or someone would have charged me for the VAT, extra for having it over the Atlantic in two days, but probably no special administrative charge, which would have made the entire thing the same price and would have had my CDs on my kitchen table in a fraction of the time.

I hate red tape.

Example number two is to do with my flat. I am trying to rent it out at the moment. I've found tenants, they seem nice, I'm going to rent the flat to them and get it all done as soon as possible. The problem is the rules and regulations I now have to contend with. A couple of illustrations...

The gas boiler needs a certificate of safety - so I call the local agent for my boiler, and ask them to service it and provide a certificate of safety at the same time - surely they can do that... Surely?

Apparently, there's a whole profession around certifying gas boilers - the people who do the safety inspection are not qualified to service the boiler, and the people qualified to service the boiler are not qualified to certify its safety. When Adam Smith had his big idea about the division of labour, he did not intend for two people with essentially the same skills to double their collective workload and charge unsuspecting punters twice. That the law is the source of their ability to do this adds insult to injury, especially since it adds absolutely no value to the public.

I also have to register with a deposit agency, because landlords are apparently not to be trusted with the deposits of their tenants (meanwhile, their tenants are untrusted with a property worth hundreds of thousands of pounds!). This additional requirement has spawned an entire additional two pages to the contract for a shorthold tenancy, and added a good 10% to the hassle of renting one's flat. I still need to get the inventory done, the movers to get my stuff out and the special form that allows me to not have tax collected at source for my property while I am abroad. The amount of paperwork involved would give a rainforest an anxiety attack.

The entire property industry is contorted around these (and other) rules, with some people making money from them and others losing money from them, but the value they add remains deeply questionable. In effect, they act as a disincentive to rent a property, and consequently as a brake on the economy. By reducing the incentive to rent a property, they also reduce the number of properties on the market, thus artificially inflating the price by exacerbating the demand/supply mismatch.

The red tape is not my friend.

For a long time, Linux was mooted to be the challenger waiting in the wings, and - when I had all that time I mentioned earlier - I went through the motions of installing it on some of the earlier computers I owned. Usually when I had just bought a new windows machine and I had little else to do with the old machine.

Installing Linux - in those days - involved some pretty hairy stuff. The comcept of a "distributed binary" was fairly rare, and installing software usually involved compiling it, which invariably resulted in missing libraries, the wrong type of compiler, incompatible software and a version of X-Windows that crashed out on a regular basis, assuming you were able to get it started in the first place.

Not so any more. The latest version of Linux comes on a free CD (which you can order online), is named using a word in a suitably trendy African language (it's called Ubuntu) and works straight out of the box. In fact, if you just want to see what it looks like (or fix your Windows installation when it won't boot) you can load the operating system from CD without installing it and get a feel for how it works.

It also comes with productivity software which, while it's not quite as easy to use as the Microsoft equivalents for those of us who have been weaned, trained and subjected to them for the past few years, is largely interoperable with Microsoft file formats, very similar to the Microsoft interface and very reliable overall.

Of course if being good was what was required to succeed, Windows - with it's constant crashes and endless configuration options - would never have succeeded in the first place. What you need is political clout and the ability to get yourself installed on PCs before they even ship.

Well, this appears to have happened. Linux is now a configuration option when you buy a Dell. I can confirm that this is a good option, I am currently typing this article on a Dell Latitude D410 running Ubuntu, which I picked because, having spent 250 poudns on a computer, I didn't then want to spend as much again on the software that made it useful - everything on Ubuntu has come for free, and it all works like a charm.

It also operates very happily with my home PC, a big iMac, since Macs run on Unix with a desktop overlay, and so the two computers were making like best friends within the day.

In fact, Ubuntu seems to have done away with many of the original problems I experienced with Linux - the software auto-detected my hardware and configured itself very quickly, the wireless card worked with only a little coaxing (although it refuses to work on certain networks, and I cannot for the life of me understand why) and OpenOffice Spreadsheet opened all my old excel files with barely a misformatted column.

For the first time, I find myself believing that - should Ubuntu continue to develop as it has so far - there may be a serious alternative to Microsoft productivity software, with definable advantages and a distinct price level. If I were in Redmond, I'd be smelling a change in the weather.

I wonder how many different things could have this simple phrase applied to them. How point of view skews our view of the world. Douglas Adams, talking about a completely different topic, once put it like this...

The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.
~~ Douglas Adams, September 1998.

Would a different context provide different solutions to the more intractable problems we face? Had Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat been put in space station, in geostationary orbit above their contested patch of dirt, and forced to reflect on the possible solutions to their situation on the ground, would the sight of the sun dawning repeatedly over the edge of the earth, against the backdrop of the heavens, have given them a perspective more conducive to agreement?

Perhaps such a situation would remind such important figures of their potential role in the universe rather than their role in the political and electoral process?

I like to think so.

I'm in the process of relocating from England to France for a new job. Not being in the thick of a daily grind has a similar (if less pronounced) effect. I am staggered to remember the intensity of the anxiety of the most (with hindsight) inconsequential problems, decisions and events. I shudder to think of the influence I allowed certain people and things to have over my state of mind and my happiness, when the narrow and blinkered perspective exaggerated the importance of the most trivial events.

Will it happen again? Probably, I think it is a part of the human condition. Maybe I should learn to meditate.

My current situation allows me the luxury of seeing others suffering from my previous affliction. As the decisions of their next few hours assume disproportionate importance, their world shrinks, the meaninfulness of trivial things is blown out of all proportion and each and every choice feels like a win-or-lose situation in a high-stakes game of survival. I want to tell them how ridiculous this seems, and although they make the noises appropriate to understanding, they cannot see what I see - their reality is different to mine, they have another perspective, and from their point of view, their point of view is the only one that matters.

Language has lots of expressions to describe these things, we understand them intellectually, but remain subject to them emotionally - we'll say "you really need to slow down and smell the roses", or we'll recommend someone take a step back so that they can "see the wood for the trees", but for all our intellectualising, and our ability to point out the fault in others, we remain slaves to it ourselves.

When I did my skydive for charity, I spent the next few weeks looking at the sky and, on occasion, thinking, "I could be falling through that". That helped anchor me to a wider perspective than I would ordinarily have had. But people are different and what worked for me will not work for others (not to mention the fact that many may find the idea of throwing oneself out of a plane a little bit far to go for the sake of a different point of view). Anyway, the effect was temporary and faded over time. I do think, however, that had I taken up skydiving as a sport, it would have been more for the mind-expanding perspective it gave me than for the adrenaline rush of stepping off the aircraft.

Sorry if you were hoping for a conclusion - I was just thinking out loud, or in text, or whatever this counts as, so as they say... "move along, nothing to see here".

He walks to the bathroom and avoids making eye contact with the mirror while he rinses his face. He slept 4 hours last night, and his waking moment was filled with a dream in which he was being chased around central park in his underwear, in a blizzard, by an investment memorandum that wanted to skewer him with its pitchfork and bore an unsettling resemblence to Hillary Clinton. He makes a mental note not to watch the evening news while reviewing project plans in future.

He brushes his teeth while trying to identify the stale remains of a taste in his mouth. Tequila? Bourbon? It can be so hard to tell. The headache is familiar, present mostly at the temples and forehead, low down above the bridge of the nose.

Something's wrong. He can't put his finger on it, but something is terribly, awfully wrong. Different. The order of things is broken. It'll come to him.

His cupboard is filled with shirts arranged by size, all of them still in the cellophane wrapper the building laundry service uses. There are many sizes. The smaller ones are on the far left, untouched since they were laundered and pressed when he moved to New York after graduating from Harvard. One day he'll give them to charity. He reaches to the far right and, not for the first time, wonders if quality dress shirts shrink in the wash. It takes him 23 seconds to find two matching cufflinks in the pot on the dresser, a further 43 seconds to fit them to the cuffs of his shirt.

His subconscious is still working at the problem - the break in reality - trying to figure out what it is. It has the area of effect, the epicentre of the psychic earthquake, identified as the bedside table, but can seem to make no more progress from there.

His suit is picked off the back of the chair and he struggles briefly with the trousers, shifting his weight from one foot to the other, leaning heavily on the chair, which creaks threateningly. He then picks a pre-knotted tie from the 7 bundled together in the dresser drawer, scoops up the one he removed last night from the floor and drops it in with the others.

He turns towards the bed as he dons his jacket with a flourish. He is facing the bedside table. He pauses, his hands on the tie knot, checking it. Something terrible has happened, and he is moments away from understanding what it is.

There is a little black box on the table. It appears inert. He does not recognise it. There is something frightening about it - it represents a distance, a gap, a lack. It is dead. His mind struggles with understanding, the digital clock reads 06:13 the sleep is still too fresh in his mind. A sense of panic begins to rise in his throat, he feels nauseous. He puts his hand back on the chair for balance, trying to control his heartbeat. He is sweating, he is going to have to change his shirt. In his mind he sees a blinking red light. It is a pulse. A heartbeat. A lifeline. It is missing. The box is dead.

In the news today : BlackBerry's blackout leaves millions bereft.

I have this uncomfortable sense of dozens of special interest groups lying in wait for some unsuspecting public figure to make the smallest slip-up, giving them the slightest reason for offence. They have the hotlines to the journalists prepared, the righteous indignation armed and ready, and can't wait for the opportunity to leverage this for every bit of publicity and sympathy they can harvest in the name of their cause.

I find the complete lack of tolerance inherent in these organisations to be a deeply disturbing indication of their inner natures. It's fair to assume that teams of individuals are now trained to critically review the pronouncements of most recognisable individuals to assess the risk of offence to any possible group or party. A whole new field of work must have opened up – new job titles with it – “Senior Communications Correctness Officer”, anyone?

I have little patience for all this.

When I read about the reaction to Richard Gere's kiss, my first reflex was to think that, if these people were so intolerant, so quick to have the bile rise in their throats, and in response to something that – in a world as multi-cultured and varied as ours – could not have been expected to cause offense by those involved, then these offended parties did not deserve either an audience for their indignation, nor an apology for the act itself.

In the case of the “Gray's Anatomy” outrage, it was the use of a specific word (“faggot”) to describe a homosexual that got the gay rights lobby all fired up. Clearly, it's not hard to ascertain that this isn't a very appropriate thing to say, so the blame remains. Nevertheless, the magnitude of the reaction beggars belief. The agenda of the complainants is obvious: to create such a furore that the word becomes blacklisted, removed from language – that anyone using that word is instantaneously on the wrong side of right-and-wrong.

I'm against this sort of manipulation of the public psyche, and I'm against the form of witch-hunt that follows someone making such a statement. The actor in question, Isaiah Washington, was forced to issue a completely over-the-top apology, rife with self-flagellation and overwrought contrition, that was extreme to such a point that it was hard to take seriously.

"I apologize to T.R., my colleagues, the fans of the show and especially the lesbian and gay community for using a word that is unacceptable in any context or circumstance. By repeating the word Monday night, I marred what should have been a perfect night for everyone who works on "Grey's Anatomy." I can neither defend nor explain my behavior. I can also no longer deny to myself that there are issues I obviously need to examine within my own soul, and I've asked for help.

For crying out loud – he used a word. To hold this as proof-perfect of deeply-set prejudice is unfair in the extreme, but he was left with no choice but to act with extreme contrition because the self-appointed victims of his words, in their over-zealous defence, put his career in the balance.

Voltaire, the French poet, writer and philosopher, famously said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. It frightens me that the allegedly progressive movements of our time, that defend the rights of minorities, the disadvantaged and the oppressed, have decided that the best way to achieve their aims is through attacks on this essential freedom Their favoured method of operation appears to be to take a single statement, or a single act – in many cases inspired by alcohol, exhaustion or stress rather than a thought-out argument (think Mel Gibson) – throw accusations and cast aspersions on people's characters that are far more damaging that the offence itself, and in this way garner publicity while illustrating the terrible consequences of ever uttering a single word against their chosen protectorate.

They deserve to be condemned for their intolerance and their willingness to take hostages far more than their targets deserve to be condemned for their lack of discretion.

Our increasingly anti-Christian country must return to a belief in the authority of the Bible and be presented with the life-changing gospel message. Evolutionary indoctrination has undermined the Christian foundations in America.

Let me run that by you again.

What we teach human beings old enough to attend school is labelled as indoctrination, whereas what is told to infants, over and over and over, by those they see as the source of all they know to be right - their parents - is a "Christian foundation". The hypocrisy of this statement beggars belief. I didn't make it up, it's the first item on their frequently asked questions page.

In the lobby, you will find...

...soaring cypress trees, the sounds of waterfalls and children playing with dinosaurs!

This is part of the walk through, some other gems are...

• Bible Authority Room: The Bible is true. No doubt about it! Paul explains God's authoritative Word, and everyone who rejects His history-including six-day creation and Noah's Flood-is ‘willfully’ ignorant.
• Them Dry Bones: One set of bones, two interpretations. How can two paleontologists, digging the same dinosaur fossil in the field, reach opposite conclusions? The answer: starting points. Fossils don’t come with labels. We must begin with assumptions! But which is correct?
• Creation: Explore the wonders of creation. The imprint of the Creator is all around us. And the Bible’s clear—heaven and earth in six 24-hour days, earth before sun, birds before lizards.
• The Great Flood: Don’t panic! Inside the Ark you’re safe from the raging storm. But tread carefully along the shifting floor, under the flickering lanterns. It’s certainly not a pleasure cruise or child’s fairytale!

Ah yes - the great flood, where God decided he doesn't like where the world is going, and everyone and everything (including all but two of each species of animal) deserved to die. It's not their fault, it's mankind's fault, but hey - let's get rid of the lot. Tabula Rasa. A sort of divine Ctrl-Alt-Delete moment.

What I find most amazing is the carefully cultivated sense of victimhood espoused by the parent organisation of the Creation Museum, Answers in Genesis. Take, as a particularly laughable example, this essay, quoted on their website under the articles section. What raises the hackles when reading an article of this kind is the fact that, while those of us equipped with critical thinking can see through the hypocrisy and misdirection of a piece of work like this, I can easily imagine a person less exposed to the rigors of science, logic, deduction and the rules of evidence raising their eyebrows and muttering "hell yeah" under their breath, tricked into feeling as though a light has gone on in their head and they have been revealed a new and valid point of view.

While it may seem crass to suggest reading a book so clearly biased to one side of the argument, I feel it justified in this case to encourage you to read The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, which is linked to on Amazon to the right. I feel it is justified because (a) Creationism is the belief in myth overcoming the scientific curiosity that advances our civilization and combats ignorance, and Dawkins makes this point better than I can hope to, and (b) because Dawkins is right, based on all the abilities we have developed that allow us to think for ourselves, his is the conclusion that we come to - Creationism is the conclusion we are led to by those who would allow a centuries-old childs story to do our thinking for us.

I cling to the hope that this is all some joke by people that had a huge amount of time on their hands to build such an intricate website.