So, essentially, what 9/10 responses to this article entail reads as follows:

"I liked it when Shermer dissed all those other wacky religions, BUT WHERE DOES HE GET OFF DISSING MINE?!"

90 percent, of course, is also the figure we're often given for people on this planet who believe in a "higher power". So that figures, I guess.

I saw the article as a quick beginner's guide to the top misconceptions about evolution and/or atheism: the nihilist myth; the proving a negative problem; Lewis's cracked "trilemma", etc.

I disagreed with one point though. Shermer said:

First of all, I don't think you can talk people out of their faith. It's an utter waste of time.

While it's true that the sort of Royal Society "debate" that Darwin participated in wastes everyone's time, in my experience talking people down/off/away from faith is highly effective. In fact, you could argue from his own story that Shermer himself was "talked out of" his Christianity!

My own journey out of the magical universe (you know, the one filled with invisible beings who are all-powerful and yet are wont to throw hissy fits if we don't "worship" them) involved a lot of talking.

And I've assisted plenty of others with that journey as well. In the beginning, after all, there was the word...

Bush Snr. "stopping before Baghdad" had little or nothing to do with any "strategy".

The simple fact is that the people who were paying the bills, all those other countries and forces involved, said stop.

Now, one would have thought, that being forced to pay all the bills for Bush's illegal war would have made the American taxpayer say "stop" too.

But apparently not -- y'all decided to give the lunatic a second term!

How's that going for you, by the way?

Great article, Patrick, as usual.

Transiting though Hong Kong's ever-pleasant mega-terminal yesterday, I was amused by a little sign that said something like:

"Travellers to the US please note that no liquids will be allowed to be taken in your hand luggage. This includes: Shampoo, Conditioner, bottled water..." and the list went on.

Not written on the sign, but crystal clear all the same, was:

"Travellers to all other destinations, don't panic, everywhere else is still sane."

-----------------

Oh! Yeah, before I forget, I picked up a copy of your book in a Hong Kong bookstore and really enjoyed it! It makes for great IFE!

BobbyG: "It is breathtakingly beyond criminally negligent that we don’t have simple technology in place to prevent a pilot from taking off on the wrong runway."

But "we" do. As Patrick said in his column, there are several instruments already in place that should have alerted the crew.

Look -- and I'm only re-iterating a point Mr. Smith has made dozens of times -- pretty much every crash has lots of things that went wrong, a cascade of failure, and each and every one of them, every time, should have been caught by the technology already in place.

The same is true this time.

Patrick wrote:

...a group of suspected terrorists in Britain had been on the verge of launching synchronized attacks against U.S. jetliners over the Atlantic.

Every time these events are metioned, we should also remember that it was the intelligence agencies involved that allowed the alleged plans to come close to fruition so they could gather up the maximum number of the alleged terrorists.

They were not caught "in the nick of time." They were not, therefore, on the "verge" of an attack, and although I know Patrick wasn't using the word in that sense, I also know that there are many, many people who were encouraged by a sensationalist media to believe just that.

Their alleged plan failed weeks, perhaps months, before the notional date they reportedly had in mind.

In all it was dramatic in two ways: a dramatic victory for air security; and an equally dramatic indicator of where our "security dollars" need to be spent.

A red-starred letter contained:

..since [the US] Constitution gives you the right to rebel against an unjust government...

Ah, actually, no it doesn't. It used to.

The Smith Act, passed in 1940, removed the right to rebellion. Look it up.

Of course, at the time it was hailed as a victory in the global fight against terrorism -- sorry, reflex -- communism.

If I was to suggest that the right to rebel -- whatever the specific circumstances of 1940 -- was needed then and is clearly needed now, then I would be in breach of the Smith Act (speaking to advocate the overthrow of the government), and thus a criminal.

Who would have thought that giving up a little liberty for a little security would have removed both, eh? If only someone had warned us in those terms...

"Reclaiming" fashion for "women of size" happens every other fashion show.

And every time, breathless articles are written about it. "Insulting" "About time" "Crass" "Beautiful".

All the same words that are always used, by all the same people that always use them. Look over here! Bright colours! Loud noises!

Anything to disguise the fact that the whole industry stinks, from people paid too much to simply _wear clothes_ to people paid to little to actually make them.

"Wonderful colours, majesty." "Exquisite stitching, majesty." "Oh majesty, such divine lines!"

And of course the only sane response goes something like this:

Pssst! The Emperor's not wearing anything!

I'm old enough to remember hippy Jesus freaks (late 60s), surfer Jesus freaks (early 70s), metal Jesus freaks (late 70s), and the group that outlasted them all, greed Jesus freaks (late 80s), still going strong, aka "prosperity Christianity".

So now we've got grunge Jesus freaks. As always, between 5-10 years behind the subculture that they're stealing their riffs from.

Forgive me if I therefore don't agree with the author's characterisation of "fierce new face of evangelism".

I'd go with "Costumed Christianity: same as it ever was".

Although I'm sure her title will sell more books.