For smaller things there are theories that cosmic rays coming from within and outwith our galaxy are responsible for small changes in DNA code and therefore can alter the evolutionary process.
In a universe this dynamic and changeable it is heartwarming to know there are some things we can hold on to – some things to rely on.

One of those things for me is the near certainty that sooner or later the catholic church will make a bizarre statement which is likely to give me a good laugh.

True to form,

Pope Benedict XVI has said that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.

He explained that defending God’s creation was not limited to saving the environment, but also about protecting man from self-destruction.

What is particularly comical here is that he has decided to dress this intolerance up with science and sociology — that is doubly bizarre because the church still has an attitude to those subjects that is schizophrenic at best.

He continued,

It is not “out-of-date metaphysics” to “speak of human nature as ‘man’ or woman’”, he told scores of prelates gathered in the Vatican’s sumptuous Clementine Hall.

I don’t think anyone thinks it is out of date to consider that there are two sexes, especially given that human hermaphrodites are relatively rare, so what is he talking about?

“We need something like human ecology, meant in the right way.“

Ahhh. This is classic. “Meant in the right way” — right way according to whom? God, via the catholic church presumably. After all, they still have that infallibility thing — eating fish on Friday was wrong, but now it isn’t. And just ask Galileo who is happily in heaven now after receiving a papal sort-of-pardon — in 1992; they might not be fast but they get there in the end.

The BBC story also pointed out that

The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage. It teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are.

…which is something like a rerun of what they said to Galileo “we aren’t saying you are wrong, you are probably right, but you can’t go around telling anyone that or we will set fire to you.” [I am paraphrasing a little there].

I wonder if this means that they are going to be preaching to the 1,500 animal species that have had their gay behaviour observed? Probably though, we just won’t be able to eat gay animals on a Friday.

I have never had a gay episode in my life. I did once fall asleep in a gay bar in Seoul. I was there with some gay friends and the only thing of note that happened was that I was woken up by the barman an hour later asking if I wanted another drink.

But maybe I have been on the wrong bus all of my life because all of this struck me as a good way for gays to promote their culture.

The human race really doesn’t need more people at the moment. Quite simply, there are far too many of us already. So why not ‘Gay is the new Green’ campaigns. If almost everyone goes gay for 25 years then the population will reduce over time giving us an opportunity to feed, house and water the people already here and the ones to come in the future.

On many occasions the church has exhorted young men to lay down their lives in uniform for the greater good so why not encourage them to lay down their DNA in sequins?

It is an absurdity, but I am deliberately joking. The unfortunate thing is that these buffoons aren’t and this idea is not any less absurd than the next thing they will invent — did I say ‘invent’? Sorry, I obviously meant to say ‘receive by first class post from god himself’.

Fiscal Prudence: this is a nicer way of saying that you are going to cut social security spending. Prudent is a nicer word than mean. Ebenezer Scrooge suggested that he was prudent — not mean.

Special Relationship: The much-lauded “special relationship” between the US and the UK has many facets to it. At its origin, the relationship was that in exchange for bailing Britain out in the First World War, the British would agree to American control over much of the war effort. The arrangement continued during the Second World War, but this time the Americans insisted upon having some permanent bases on UK soil. It is a little known fact that from these bases the Americans can, if they so wish, launch nuclear strikes on other countries from British soil without first consulting the British Prime Minister. This could make Britain the first target for a retaliatory strike even though the British government or people may not have been consulted. Satellites would show that the missile was launched from within the UK. Finally, at this well-developed stage the “special relationship” has reached a new phase: everyone has to do what America tells it to, and the British get the special privilege of pretending they were in on the decision beforehand and can therefore contrive to save face.

Standing Shoulder To Shoulder With: this phrase is traditionally used in joint military ventures. To be “standing shoulder to shoulder” with someone means you are backing them up at a time of crisis. How you can back someone up whilst standing beside him or her remains a mystery.

Open Government: technically this means transparency in government. It is no coincidence that nearly all opposition parties promise some sort of freedom of information bill while in opposition then renege on it or produce an extremely watered down version while in government (see the 1999 UK Freedom Of Information Act and compare it to New Labours original proposal
while in opposition).

Doublethink: George Orwell described doublethink as “the ability to hold two contradictory thoughts in ones head and simultaneously believe in both of them”. Therefore you must appear to be sympathetic about lives ruined by poverty and be tough on crime at the same time. You must talk about the evils of despotic governments and yet repatriate people who have escaped
from such regimes and accuse them of being “bogus asylum seekers”. You must be able to attack people in the name of peace, (in fact, as Orwell said, the policy is “war is peace”). Furthermore, you must believe yourself to be following the will of the public and setting an agenda for it simultaneously.

Frank Exchange Of Views: This term is used where participants in a fight wish to hide the fact that they hate each other and wish to make it appear that at least some communication occurred between them. A more violent variation is “Frank, bordering on direct” which means that someone had to mop up the blood afterwards.

Social Exclusion: This is the polite way of saying poverty. It’s a suitably vague political phrase in that is much less of a definite statement to say, “this government has successfully targeted the problem of social exclusion” than it is to say, “this government has successfully targeted poverty”. There is room in the first phrase for more obfuscation. The public can identify poverty but social exclusion is a more difficult concept to define therefore its harder for them to disagree with you in a cogent manner.

Pre-emptive Strike: this is the new term for attacking people who haven’t touched you yet. To put it in a more social setting it is equivalent to going up to a man in a bar and punching him just in case he happens to spill your beer later on.

Preventive War: this means denying everyone but yourself and your friends the chance to even buy a beer.

We Will See How The Situation Develops: we do not have the time, the money, or the inclination to do anything about this at the moment.

Liar/Lying: in the bizarre politics of the early 21st century one of the strangest manifestations in the language is that the one thing that the politicians are trying to outdo each other in is the one thing they aren’t allowed to call each other or accuse each other of (in the UK parliament).

Convention rules that even words such as “untruth” are frowned upon. Due to this some rather strange language has grown up around the subject. Lying has come to be known by such terms as “being economical with the truth”,
“putting an interpretation on events that was at significant variance with the facts”, “terminological inexactitude” (Winston Churchill) or even “making a press statement”.

“I’m glad you asked me that.”: that was the one question I hoped you wouldn’t ask me.

Hearts And Minds: These days we are often told that the battle for “hearts and minds” is more important than the physical battle with weapons. This seems a little confusing — presumably the western armies are hoping to pick
up the pieces of these hearts and minds from the towns and villages where they have blown them up? Any other explanation seems unlikely, as it is difficult to convince people of your good intentions when you are bombing them.

Or perhaps it relates to what Chuck Colson, former aide to Richard Nixon said, “When you’ve got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow”.

European Partners: European enemies

Multiculturalism: respecting the symbols, values and idiosyncrasies of all colors, creeds and religions — provided that is, that they can be co-opted into a neoliberal economic order and packaged in plastic and sold off. If it is not possible to do this then the adherents of whichever ideology it is
must be considered to be “depraved opponents of civilization itself.”

A Constructive Discussion: this means nothing at all. The phrase “a constructive discussion” is only used in circumstances where no agreement of any sort has been reached. We know this because if a solution is reached,
even if its during a conference about the width of traffic cones then it is still called “an historic agreement”

An Historic Agreement: see entry for “A Constructive Discussion.”

Collateral Damage: this means no more or less than dead people. This phrase released many politicians and military people from potentially difficult situations in that it is much easier to say “the operation was a success although we did sustain a small amount of collateral damage” than to say “we bulldozed our way through a civilian area and though we killed a few camel-f*ckers, we did get what we went in there for.”

Weapons of Mass Destruction: do you remember doing French at school? This phrase only applies to “they” not “we” or “I”. It’s like an irregular verb.

- They have weapons of mass destruction
- You are either with us or against us and
- We have strong defensive capabilities,
or if you prefer “we shall defend our island whatever the cost may be.”

Strong Government: ignoring everybody else. Thereby when the country doesn’t want to go to war and you do, you can say you are not being bloody minded or a warmonger — it is in fact “strong government.”

We Are Putting The Matter To Consultation: This can mean one of 3 things,

1) We are hoping everyone will forget this unpopular measure we are proposing, and then we can bring it back when the media is concentrating on something else and try and slip it to them that way.
2) We, simply, hope the matter will go away.
3) Employ consultants that you know will agree with your initial hypotheses, and then when they report back you can claim your original policy has been vindicated.