Politics, American and British

I offer you this article, from the BBC on Jon Stewart's 'Restore Sanity' rally in Washington D.C, this blog post on the declining and aging membership of the Conservative Party and this question: what are political parties for nowadays?

The delight of microhistory and the doom of a spending review

A variable morning.

On the plus side must be ranked my best night's sleep in a while, alongside the fact that Michael Wood's 'A History of Britain' has finally reached the modern age. If you haven't been watching this series I'd recommend catching it on i-player. It's a relatively rare televisual history that concentrates on 'history from below' (i.e. of the ordinary people rather than the 'rulers') and micro-history. If anything it has quite a lot in common with the Annales school. Wood's style is a little romanticised for my tastes, but not disconcertingly so.

On the other hand we have this, a report from the THES suggesting that the Government will stop all funding for teaching the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences in Higher Education. The following graph was ripped from the report, with apologies to THES.

Oh happy days. Science, Technologies, Engineering and Mathematics will be protected, but HASS teaching will be left to fend for itself. For a start, Mr Willets, it would be nice to have a job in 2012. Wouldn't it also be nice to study the Arts still - as my housemate points out, a large amount of the British economy is still driven by the heritage industry if nothing else. Oh, and when the Government wants to bring funding back for the HASS subjects, where are you going to find all the people to teach them? They'll be in other industries, or teaching abroad.

(while we're on the subject of HE, why are Scottish universities still allowed to offer free education for Scottish students, while that is apparently impossible for English universities?).

Promotional Material - some other blogs worth reading

You might remember a while ago that I gave out some advice about doing a PhD (well, doing a uni course really) in which I mentioned that some days are just unproductive. Well, it's been a fallow few days. In all honesty I did astonishingly little work yesterday - much time was spent staring at the computer without a single thought coming into my head as to how best proceed getting through my in-tray.

As I wait then for whatever creativity I have left to come back from its holiday, some other blogs it wouldn't hurt to read (n.b: apart from the ones listed up on your right). In no particular order: 

1) John Redwood's Diary: Say what you want about the Conservative MP for Wokingham (and let's face it, most of what's been said has included the word 'Vulcan' in there somewhere), but he is a prolific blogger and writer on economic and public affairs. The style is aimed towards the reasonably knowledgeable, but it isn't hard to follow. The layout is plain - something I think of as a strength with this blog - while the content has attracted admiration and a following keen to analyse and debate each post. 

2) Purposeful Purity: A blog aimed at encouraging young Christians in their faith, this is written by Hannah and Bella, two British student Christians. The tone is genuinely faithful, the content sound and righteous and the layout bright and funky. In no way am I envious of either the fact that at the ages of 18 and 17 they are setting out on such an excellent task so well (well, maybe a little bit....). 

3)  Liberal Democrat History Group: OK, this one bends the rules a little in that it isn't an actual blog. The Liberal Democrat History Group, while not maintaining their blog nearly as well as their Conservative counterparts, is an excellent starter resource for those investigating Liberal history and well worth a read if you're heading down that route. 

4) If you have some money to spend the Cambridge classicist Mary Beard has a blog on the Times website (I haven't, so no link for this one I'm afraid) that was, the last time I could read it, a nicely evocative blog on life in higher education. 

5) Tom Harris' Blog: I've mentioned him before here but the Glasgow South MP maintains a pretty decent blog. Less of a specific focus than John Redwood's (if one overlooks his ongoing spat with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority) but arguably a more cordial and easy-going style. Plus he's a Doctor Who fan, so despite being a Labour MP he can't be all that bad.

N.B: As of a few days ago, Tom Harris has stopped blogging.

Added on, 31/10/2010

6) Rory Stewart's Blog: Many new MPs these days struggle to find what extra-Parliamentary life experience they've had (one, speaking on this week's The Week in Westminster, pointed to the fact that she came from the North-East). Rory Stewart, MP for Penrith and the Border, is a former Army officer, diplomat, deputy Governor of Maysan Province in Iraq, academic and NGO founder. He also once walked 6000 miles across Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, India and Nepal, and has written at least one pretty good book: Occupational Hazards, about his time in Iraq. He's written another, but as I haven't read that I can't comment.

N.B: Further research tells me that the MP I referred to above is Catherine McKinnell (Lab, Newcastle-upon-Tyne North), who spent some time working as an employment solicitor in Newcastle, as well as working part-time for her husband's events company and doing excellent work as a student officer at Edinburgh University (all found here: http://www.catherinemckinnell.co.uk/blog/). Apologies to Mrs. McKinnell. 

Defence #4: On challenges to your faith in humanity

This week has produced two of these.

On Tuesday Archbishop Cranmer reported on a Conservative Home survey that suggests 70% of those polled opposed increases in the international aid budget if it came at the price of our defence spending (though having read the survey I'm not sure Cranmer is jumping to the right conclusions). Meanwhile today we have the release of the new Iraq War Logs. Including an account of how a crew of an Apache helicopter gunship killed two insurgents attempting to surrender to them as 'you can't surrender to a gunship' (according to the legal advice they received on the spot).

Indeed what makes it worse is that contextually one can almost see the point of the advice given to them. Let us say for instance that the pilots of that gunship accepted the surrender of the insurgents. Now that would necessitate the gunship landing and the men staying with the insurgents until ground forces arrived to take them into custody. Now depending on the location and situation of the nearest land forces that could take some time, preventing said gunship from intervening in any other engagement until those forces arrive. All well and good, but if the gunship is desperately needed by Coalition forces engaged in a fair dogfight, then do the pilots leave them to die? It's not a good decision, but sometimes we as a society and species conspire to put ourselves in bad positions.

Memory and Facebook

I just got back from watching The Social Network, a more interesting experience than I thought it would be. I haven't had enough time to evaluate the film properly yet - it is one of those movies that you need some time to come to an opinion about (generally a good sign!).

One point comes immediately to mind though (apart from the fact that as I write this I have Facebook active even as I write this). Towards the end of the film one of the character-Mark Zuckenburg's lawyers tells him that she does not believe he's 'an asshole' - that when she hears testimony of the nature of that the character-Eduardo Saverin gives, she assumes that the majority of it is incorrect. However, she notes, she does think he is trying very hard to be an asshole.

Personally I think that the Mark Zuckenberg portrayed in the film (the 'character-Zuckenberg') has Asperger's Syndrome, but what interests me is what the film touches upon. From the various character's perspectives what they have done was all correct. Take for example the dispute between Zuckenberg and Saverin (spoilers ahead!). Zuckenberg, the film implies, does not stop the dilution of his friend's shares in Facebook as he believes that Saverin has become a liability to the company as its CFO. Saverin meanwhile believes that Zuckenberg is acting under the auspices of Sean Parker, the Napster founder and 'entrepreneur'. Both men acted in the way that they honestly saw fit, as they honestly saw the situation developing. A shared experience leads to one man suing the other for millions.

The Guardian and belief

Some time ago I started reading The Guardian, having been brought up in a Telegraph reading household. It wasn't a political decision - I was reading The Times until they put the paywall up. The Telegraph has gone downhil, in my humble opinion, the Independent is too left-wing for me and the rest are a bit rubbish.

I'm not often in agreement with my new paper on most things (well, the sheer joy of London Irish's attacking play perhaps...) but I do admire them for their willingness to house a good debate. Some time ago I blogged about a debate raging on their website about the Pope's visit to the UK and the use of public facilities to house protest group meetings.

In their 'CIF Belief' section, the Guardian has been publishing an ongoing series entitled 'Is God Disappearing'. As it's the Guardian I don't think I need to tell you the general tone of the articles. I came across one today entitled 'It's better to be hated than ignored' that startling chimed with quite a few of my more conservative Christian views. I think 'disliked' might be a better word than hated but the author, a 'young Catholic' called Stephen Bullivant, strikes a chord with his general tone. The Christianity of Jesus, he writes, was not lukewarm. Bullivant specifically uses the example of the angel in Revelation (Revelation 3:16) - 'because you are lukewarm...I am about to spit you out of my mouth'.

The commentary below is interesting; occasionally challenging, occasionally surprising. Talk of a 'painfully childish mumbo jumbo'...well, you can imagine my reaction (Christianity is very far from childish; for one thing, it is extraordinarily complicated and concise). None of it strikes against Bullivant's fundamental point though. As my church's rector, David Harris, rightly noted, Christianity cannot simply sway with the cultural norms at all times as otherwise there would be no point to it. On the firmly held principles of the faith the Church must stand against contemporary culture of whatever sort: 'I am the way the truth and the light and there is no other way to God except through me' Christ says in John 14:6. As I've mentioned elsewhere, Christianity is a system of belief encompassing one's entire life; you either believe in an almighty God or you end up cherry-picking which bits of the Bible to pay attention to and which bits to simply ignore. 1 Timothy 2 for instance has much to say on the role of women which even when read properly is unpalatable to the modern ear. If you chose to ignore it though, in what way are you not placing your knowledge above the wisdom of God?

How logical is that for a Christian?

So kudos to The Guardian for printing the thing, kudos to Stephen Bullivant for writing it, and a few extra things to think about tonight. Oh, and do read through the remaining articles. If nothing else, they are of some interest.

A summary post on the Browne Review and the Comprehensive Spending Review - 16.10.10

Hello,

Some collected thoughts on the Browne Review and the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review:

As I mentioned yesterday the letter from Steve Smith indicates a substantial, sector-altering reduction in central government spending on universities and higher education colleges – from the current £3.9 billion to £700 million. This would seem in line with what Lord Browne wrote in his review, although there are questions over whether or not Smith has interpreted what Browne wrote correctly. One account, from the comments section of this Times Higher Education article, argues that things are not as bad as they might seem.

Of course nothing lasting can be said until the Comprehensive Spending Review later on this month. The Government has agreed with the Browne Report findings in the meantime though, so we can assume that some sort of heavy reduction is forthcoming. The key question however is when those cuts will come. Two events will largely shape the HE sector in England over the next five years: what happens at the CSR, and any subsequent funding decisions taken by the Government, and the implementation of the Browne Report's recommendations. In simple terms, the Government will stop donating a large amount of money to the universities in England, but allow those universities to charge higher fees in order to recoup some of their costs.

Now the impact of those actions will vary according to each institution and department. From the sound of things the Government is planning to concentrate funding on scientific research and the more obviously 'profitable' areas within the HE sector, and some universities are better placed to survive these cuts than others. However it seems unlikely, to my mind at least, that higher tuition fees will be in place before 2012 (I would heavily suspect in time for the 2013 entry). Firstly we're already half-way through October 2010, and they will take some time to implement. Secondly that would mean that of the current generation of undergraduates, only those in their first year at the moment may be hit by higher fees (it's worth noting here that universities can't put up fees during the academic year at the moment). Any other decision, in my view, would be political suicide for a number of Coalition MPs.

(Although the argument can quite convincingly be put that this decision is already political suicide for the current Liberal Democrat front-bench).

If cuts are enacted before 2012-2013 though, if I'm right, then the sector is facing one to two years of a major funding gap. Where will the money come from? Savings possibly, but for how long? Lisa Jardine of Queen Mary, University of London paints a bleak picture of higher fees going towards a learning environment no different from the current one when asked about this in this week's Any Questions? (the time reference is around 12 minutes in).

In a declaration of honesty, I should reiterate the fact that I'm not addressing this topic from a neutral point of view. I am a second-year PhD student aiming to become an academic, and so this decision directly affects me. Above all else, it makes me pessimistic over whether or not I can get a job in this country in the HE sector come 2012. Things might change, and the situation might not be as bleak as I currently suspect it will be. It's difficult though to imagine a raft of universities aggressively hiring in this current climate though.

My own plans are to keep my head down, concentrate on building up my employability, and scout out what opportunities are open to me. What needs to be remembered is that it's not just esoteric academics like me that these decisions might affect; there are secretaries, managers, cleaners, kitchen staff, porters, handymen, drivers, technicians, IT workers and even gardeners who all call a university their employer.

We all knew it was going to be this difficult. No matter whether one might agree with the economic forecast the Coalition has made little secret of the fact that they intend(ed) to aggressively cut down on government spending – we're looking at reductions seen not since Thatcher at best, or the National Government in the 1930s at worst. I suppose the twin questions I would ask though would be does it have to be this difficult, and is there an alternative?

Might even add a third question: if there is an alternative, what is it? 

Not what seems like immediately good news - a letter from Steve Smith

A letter from Steve Smith, President of Universities UK (the Vice-Chancellors' group) has been apparently leaked to the BBC. In it he writes that £3,200,000,000 could be cut from government grants to universities; a 79% reduction. The figures come from the Browne Review, where it is says that the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) will have a £700 million pound budget. Sounds a lot, but the current HEFCE budget is £3.9 billion.


To quote from the BBC News report:

Professor Smith says the Browne report, which itself called for unlimited tuition fees, was framed by "what is coming on October 20".

And he adds that universities will do all they can to "replace as much of this lost funding as possible". This means raising tuition fees to make up for lost state funding, he says.

But he also warns that this may not be possible before 2012, when the government is expecting to have measures in place to allow for a rise in fees.

He adds: "The biggest worry is simple to state: if Browne fails to get through the Commons, or gets unpicked, or gets accepted but only after major changes are made, we will simply not be able to replace the unprecedented reductions in state funding that are coming in the Spending Review."

I graduate in 2012 and was planning to try and enter the HE sector. I know I should put my trust in God but in all honesty I am mildly concerned now.

Not sure I can objectively comment on this. 


PS: Steve Smith is Vice-Chancellor of Exeter University. 

Thoughts on The Browne Report

1) The emphasis on competition is worrying. Higher education is one of those areas that should be protected from free-market principles if at all possible; there are simply services that the market should be not wholly relied on to provide as it is unsuited to do so.

2) Is John Denham right when he says that the report assumes an 80% cut in government funding towards Higher Education. If not, what figure would be correct? If there is no definite figure, what assumptions were made?

3) Would the Review not have benefited from having more members who have higher education experience?

4) What alternative is there? Those opposed to the Browne Report do have to propose alternatives, otherwise all we have is one side suggesting and the other side opposing.

5) How soon will be know what Vince Cable's reaction to the Report is? (his detailed reaction, not his immediate one)

6) Is it not somewhat depressing that after almost 60 years of higher educational reform we seem to be back at the beginning?

Electoral Fraud and the 1683 Ottoman siege of Vienna

The blog 'Gates of Vienna' appears quite Islamophobic, naming itself after the furthest point that the Ottoman Empire reached in mainland Europe (the gates of the Austrian city of Vienna during the second siege of that city in 1683). Yet this article about voter fraud among the Muslim community is disturbingly well-argued. I don't wish to suggest that I believe such practices to be commonplace, but the voting system in this country does seem constructed in such a way to easily allow them.

PS: Technically 'Gates of Vienna' should be 'Battle of Tours' - the furthest an Islamic army got into Europe was at the Battle of Tours (in north-central France) in 732 where Franko-Burgundian forces defeated an army invading from Muslim Spain. That and the blog seems to overestimated the degree to which the Second Siege of Vienna was an organised attempt to topple the then admittedly quite weak Austrian Hungary. See this episode of the Radio 4 series 'In Our Time' (always worth a listen) for further information on that.

(N.B: Declaration of Interest - yes, Jeremy Black pops up on this show too. He's an expert in quite a few areas!)

Morality, History and Cricket

I'm in the middle of reading Duncan Hamilton's Harold Larwood, his biography of the Nottinghamshire and England fast bowler.

Larwood was one of the great England fast bowlers of the inter-war period. He took 78 test wickets in 21 matches at an average of 28.35 runs per wicket. In contrast the indisputably great Australian spinner Bill O'Reilly took 144 wickets in 27 matches at 22.59. His first-class average meanwhile was 17.51; his great friend and partner-in-bowling Bill Voce (also of Nottinghamshire and England) had a first class average of 23.08.

Still it is Bodyline, as Hamilton rightly argues, that defines histories of Larwood's career. 'Bodyline' is a style of bowling that aims to pitch short, towards the batsman's body in line with leg stump. The ball is delivered at speed (and Larwood could unquestionably deliver speed). This tactic gives the batsman two options. Number one is try ducking, or simply being hit. This was not to be attempted lightly. Bert Oldfield, the Australian wicket-keeper during the 1933 Ashes series where Bodyline was deployed by the England team, fractured his skull mis-hitting a shot off Larwood's bowling. The other was to risk hitting the ball - and unless you played the ball well delivering a deflection to the fielders behind square leg.

Bodyline was designed to temper the batting of Donald Bradman, an Australian batsman who is to this day the greatest batsman who ever lived (his career average of 99.94 runs per match is easily the highest in cricketing history). It worked to the extent that Bradman's series average was 56.57 as opposed to his average in England during the 1930 Ashes series of 139.14. It was viewed as an affront to the spirit of cricket though (no formal law was being broken) and led to a diplomatic incident between Britain and Australia.

Hamilton exonerates Larwood in his biography. Larwood was influenced by his natural deference towards his county captain, Arthur Carr, and his national captain, Douglas Jardine, both men who strenuously disliked Australians. He bowled what his captain ordered. Popular memory of both the Oldfield incident and when Larwood hit the Australian captain Bill Woodfull in the chest has both balls being 'Bodyline', when in fact they were 'just' hostile fast bowling. Larwood was horrified by his hitting of Oldfield and the MCC and the tour manager Plum Warner were responsible for officially supporting Larwood and then hanging him out to dry after Bodyline became too controversial.

In fact the only person who comes out of Harold Larwood relatively morally is Bill Woodfull, who refused to counter England with Australian Bodyline bowling. Jardine is plainly described as ruthless, even by Larwood. Larwood meanwhile comes across as paradoxic; a shy, retiring man who nonetheless contained within him a fiery, competitive streak. He was following orders in Australia, true, and Bodyline was not quite the new threat pounced upon the Australians that popular myth might remember it being. Yet he did bowl those balls. Given the nature of Bodyline, it's difficult to see what else one might have expected to happen.

In the end it's difficult to tell. One can sit here 80 years on and moralise to one's heart's content. England in 2010 is not Australia in 1933 though. Harold Larwood lived in an age when protection for the cricketer, personally and in terms of their career, was weak. A small accident could end a career for ever; there were no physiotherapists. Men expected a greater degree of tragedy in their lives. It comes down to the old question historians, and people, have to ask themselves: can we really judge them, we who were not there?

P.S: In more philosophically simple news, London Irish beat Munster in the Heineken Cup. Get in!

The persuasive power of a good moustache

David Starkey from when he taught history at the LSE in the 1980s. I disagree with the man on almost all points, but that is definitely quite a moustache. I can almost frame the 1950s Conservative Party election poster around that picture.

The picture comes courtesy of Wikipedia.

Education and Technology

The university runs what's known as an LTHE (Learning and Training in Higher Education) course for all its Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs - remember what I was saying earlier about acronyms!). At LTHE 1 a very nice man from the Education Enhancement Department stood up and gave us a brief taster of the oncoming role of technology in education. A speech that I was reminded of as I read the opening few paragraphs of this article.

Now Jonny Rose (he of the blogs list to your right) will tell you that I am a luddite through and through; a man who believes technology should best be kept at arms length. He referred me to these two pearls of wisdom; one from Michael Hyatt and the other from the new media commentator Seth Godin. I include both here as I think they do have something worth saying.

Personally I recoil slightly whenever I think of technology and education. The idea of using Twitter (a source of all vacuous information) to advancing learning seems counter-factual. Yet I suspect our chap from Education Enhancement may have been right. Not completely; computers will maintain their ability to fail at the worst moments. We're not in a position to avoid them though. Two generations down from mine will be the first generation of the Academy to have grown up with Facebook as part of their lives. The speed at which society is adjusting to new technologies is incredible. I was reminded during the last US Presidential election for instance that Youtube did not play a large part in the 2004 election not because people hadn't got used to it but because it didn't actually exist then. MySpace, by now an old fogey among social networking sites, is almost twenty years my junior.

Society is changing, and we must change with it. Just don't expect me to like it much. 

How am I

There's always the tendency to say 'Oh fine' to that question.

Honestly? I'm tired. It's the end of the first week of term and I'm napping at my desk. I'm just tired; I can't remember not being slightly tired all the time. There's the thesis to write, my class to organise, the Post-Grad Prayer Group to run, a summary for the next Foundation seminar to write and the PG Reading Group to prepare for. Oh, and I need to fix my printer, possibly do some bar work to get some extra money in, and a paper to write for a conference in November and have a word with my dad. Meanwhile my computer might be giving up the ghost, I don't know yet.

Sometimes I just want to say to the world that frankly you guys can go on for a bit and I'll catch you up if I can. The typical 'Stop the World, I want to get off!' mentality. Then I remember a few things. Mainly that I'm so blessed it's almost unbelievable. I just want to shout at myself that what on earth are you complaining about? You have a roof over your head, money to get food in and a family, friends and most importantly God who loves you. You have access to the internet, radio and TV. You can walk into the supermarket in October, for crying out loud, and buy bananas!

You're already ahead of most of humanity. You're living an existence that many people would literally give their right arm for. The God you believe in came down from Heaven itself, took human form and was crucified, one of the most agonising deaths conceivable, because of His love for humanity. There are people living in the Congo, in Sudan and Somalia, in Pakistan, India, China and North Korea and, let's be frank, in the UK who long for half the existence you're leading.

Stop whining man and get on with it. Trust in the Lord, don't kill yourself and remember what's important. You'll be fine

History and Christianity (incorporating Historiography)

Hello,

I'm going round in circles a bit with my thesis at the moment, so I'm going to follow some good advice given to me once and just write something else for a while.

The following is a quote from a book called Lifted, by Sam Allberry (Assistant Minister of St. Mary's Church, Maidenhead, UK). In this first chapter the statement of Peter in Acts 3:15 ('You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witness to this') is being analysed:

'Peter's final comment indicates that the vindication of Jesus is public. None of these has happened behind closed doors. It wasn't human sleight of hand or trickery - God did this. And he did it publicly on the stage of human history. It happened, we're told repeatedly, on the third day. Jesus' resurrection was as precise a historical event as his birth or death'

(pp. 31, Lifted; Sam Allberry; Ashford Colour Press, 2010)

Christianity is undoubtedly a faith that placed great store in its own history. Allberry goes on to note that in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul is careful to note the various times when Christ reappeared to his followers (five times, including Paul himself). Indeed the very nature of Christian faith is tied up in these reappearances. One of the more common criticisms aimed against the idea of faith is that it negates reason. Faith here is belief without proof. Now in another post I quoted from the Book of Job to the effect that lying for God is unacceptable. 2 Hebrews 1 meanwhile tells us that 'we must listen very carefully to the truth we have heard, or we may drift away from it' (mine is the New Living Translation). A degree of study therefore is not only beneficial but expected.

Allberry's case is that the fact of the Resurrection is the cornerstone for such faith. In the manner that one accepts that sodium reacts with water because you are told so and see the evidence (this sentence was not written by a chemist), Christ related the facts of his death (Matthew 17:22, Mark 8: 31, Luke 9: 22 and 44, John 12: 23-26) and Resurrection to the Apostles, and then was resurrected Himself. The Resurrection is the cornerstone of Christian belief. Christianity links together sin and spiritual death. Sin leads to that death, but following Christ saves you (John 5: 24). Through the act of the Resurrection, Jesus, the son of God, came to die for our sins and overcame death itself, breaking the hold of sin. 'If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless and you are still guilty of your sins' (1 Corinthians 15:14-15).

In other words the historical reliability, the historicity, of Christianity is central to the tenants of the faith. The question then arises how reliable is that historicity. I'm not expert on biblical interpretation and dating, and I won't try and claim to be one here. One of the central principles of historiography though is analysing likely patterns of behaviour. If, for instance, you are told that person X did something, and that something seems logically or reasonably unlikely to have occurred, then it probably didn't. Let us say, for instance, that one afternoon while researching in the British Library I came across a letter from Harold Laski referencing a time when Napoleon dressed up in frilly knickers one afternoon in August 1801 and can-canned his way down the Champs Elysees in Paris. Now there are several reasons that I can reasonably discount that letter as a source. Firstly Laski is well-known among political history circles for not being the most reliable font of historical knowledge - he enjoyed retelling a good apocryphal story as fact. Secondly such behaviour would be completely out of character for Napoleon. Thirdly the Can-Can didn't originate until the 1830s (I did look that up on Wikipedia, so don't take it as face value).

One of the most common arguments in favour of the historicity of the Gospels is that without these the behaviour of the early church makes little to no sense whatsoever. Let us theoretically say that Christianity was a con-trick, designed as an ego trip and then adapted to elicit gullible Palestinians to hand over their goods to the Apostles (for the sake of argument I'm interpreting Acts 4: 32-36 in a very negative light). If so, itt would have to be an enormously complicated conspiracy. The following, for instance, is a list of fate of Christ and the Apostles as accepted within Christianity (I've adapted this from Wikipedia, but as far as I can see the list seems accurate):

Jesus Christ - crucified
Simon Peter - crucified
James, son of Zebedee - beheaded
John, son of Zebedee - died of old age
Andrew, brother of Peter - crucified
Philip - crucified
Bartholomew - flayed alive and then beheaded
Matthew - killed by a halbeard (a two-handed pole weapon)
Thomas - killed by a speak
James, son of Alphaeus - beaten to death with a club after being crucified and stoned
Jude - crucified
Simon the Zealot - crucified
Matthias - stoned and beheaded

(Matthias replaced Judas Iscariot, who hanged himself after betraying Jesus)

Of the 13 men on that list, 1 died of old age. Either Jesus found the 12 most gullible men in first-century Palestine, or he was enormously convincing himself. Why though would he himself undergo crucifixion?

I hope to do more in this topic, but I'll need to read up on my first-century Palestinian history beforehand.

Now, lunch.

On 3D movies, or why Resident Evil: Apocalypse is morally superior to Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland

There are, I like to think, three different types of '3D' film.

The first is the old-fashioned 3D films of the 1950s and 1960s, which relied upon those blue and red glasses to give over an impression of three dimensions.

Then there are the two different types of modern '3D' films.

Films of the first type would include Avatar, Toy Story 3 and Resident Evil: Apocalypse. Now I haven't seen the first two but wouldn't mind seeing them at a later date. I have no intention to see the third - partly because I think it looks like an hour-long metal video, and partly because Mila Jovovich is unhelpful in my walk with Christ. I can't see any objection to these films though. They were made to be shown in 3D. While I may suspect that they all still suffer from the problems Mark Kermode highlighted when he predicted the death of 3D cinema, it is integral to the director's intent for these films that they be projected as 3D movies.

Now Joee Townsend, a friend down here in Exeter, has written on his blog a well-argued post on 3D movies that summarises the issues with them well, and I'd recommend you read it. He points to the growing numbers of films that advertise themselves as 'made in 3D!'. The latest Will Ferrell film, Megamind, for instance, looks fun and entertaining. How though does it being in 3D add at all to the cinematic experience for those who are going to see it? 


Which brings us to post-production 3D, and Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. Post-production 3D is when a film is shot in traditional 2D and transformed into a 3D picture, as the name suggests, in post-production. The effect can be disastrous. When reviewing M. Night Shyamalan's The Last Airbender the influential Chicago Tribune critic Roger Ebert called it 'an agonizing experience in every category I can think of and others still waiting to be invented'. He pointed especially to the way in which 'it's a well known fact that 3D causes a measurable decrease in perceived brightness, but 'Airbender' looks like it was filmed with a dirty sheer over the lens'.

Well that's one critic's view. Here's another. This writer has seen one film in 3D - Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. There are significant problems with the film that would persist even if it were shot in 2D. Helena Bonham Carter's Red Queen, for instance, is clearly Miranda Richardson's 'Queenie' from Blackadder II. It seemed to me too that Burton was largely uninterested in the film; or, at least, significantly less engaged with what he was directing than say Edward Scissorhands, or even Batman. As the Los Angeles Times critic Kenneth Turan puts it, the film feels more like a Tim Burton derivative than something he actually did himself. Watching the film though was a troubling experience. I found the 3D disruptive, intrusive and completely unnecessary. It detracted from the film; I was unable to sink into the experience of watching it as fully as some of his other movies. It was not just his lack of engagement with the film, which can be off-putting. The 3D actually repulsed me from what I saw.

Certainly until I see Avatar or Toy Story 3, I'm unqualified to give an absolute opinion on 3D movies. Yet this is what I'm saying as my interim thoughts: for the most part, I can't see what 3D adds to a film. It may give us something that looks impressive, but I was deeply impressed by the visuals in Chris Nolan's Inception, shot in High Definition but in 2D. There are exceptions, true, and please don't misunderstand me. I'm convinced that Resident Evil: Apocalypse will be rubbish. It is not advertising itself as anything else though, unlike those movies that try to convince you that 3D marks a paradigm shift in cinematic history. In short, until a films start passing the Avatar test - that the film would be substantially less engaging in 2D - then I'm with Mark Kermode. I don't think, ultimately, that there's life in this format.