For your listening pleasure

Along with the rest of the Choir of the Queen's College Oxford, I shall be appearing on BBC Radio 3's Choral Evensong program later this month.

The initial broadcast in the UK will be on BBC Radio 3 at 4pm GMT on Wednesday 23rd December 2009 and the program will be repeated at 4pm GMT on Sunday 27th December 2009. As well as listening on the radio in the UK, for those both in and outside the UK you can also listen to BBC Radio 3 live online via the BBC website and individual programs (such as the one featuring the choir) are available on demand via the website for -- I think -- up until a week after the repeat broadcast. This last option is particularly convenient for those located in a time zone not conducive to listening to the live broadcast.

The music will be mainly Iberian renaissance polyphony:

Versicle and Response: Deus in adjutorium (Padilla)
Rorate caeli desuper (Guerrero)
Psalms: 110, 147 - Dixit Dominus (Padilla), Lauda Jerusalem (Patiño)
First Lesson: Isaiah 55
Office Hymn: The Angel Gabriel (Basque trad., arr. Pettman)
Magnificat (Morales)
Second Lesson: Matthew 1:18-23
Nunc Dimittis (Coelho)
Homily: Prof. Christopher Rowland
Anthems: (1) Ave Maria (de Cristo); (2) Pastores, si nos queréis (Guerrero); (3) O magnum mysterium (Victoria)
Alma redemptoris mater (Fernandez)
Verbum caro factum est (Lobo)
Organ Voluntary: Tiento y discurso de segundo tono (Correa de Araujo)

Double vision

HT: One Salient Oversight

One rule for us and another for you

Gerard Henderson has raised a good point about double standards in the reaction by the mainstream media to the recent interference by the British High Commissioner "Baroness" Amos in Australian politics compared with a similar incident in 2003 by the then US ambassador to Australia. In 2003 our leftist media doyens got positively apoplectic when the American ambassador was seen to interfere in Australian politics by criticising former ALP politician Mark Latham. yet this time round there was a notable silence. Of course the difference is that the American ambassador at the time was representing that Great Satan the United States, led by that spawn of Satan himself Dubya and the context was the Iraq War. Now we have a Blairite British Labour Party hack insulting the Australian people for daring to have a democratic debate on the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). As I said, hardly a peep from the Ministry of Truth and their media acolytes on the conduct of the "Baroness". Apparently it's verboten for the American Ambassador representing a conservative US administration (one universally hated by our leftist media darlings) to take pot shots at a leftish (he was from the right wing of the Labor Party and was a bit of a maverick by current politically correct lefty standards) Australian politician who dared to question the Australian-US military alliance at the time of the Iraq war but it's fine for a Blairite British Labour party hack extraordinaire on an all-expenses-paid extended holiday to sunnier climes in the former colonies to put those impudent colonials (especially conservative politicians) in their place by attempting to silence a democratic debate about a question of great concern and tell those pesky colonials to just "move on" to her more enlightened way of seeing things. Just what we need more of in Australia: rule by British "baronesses" appointed High Commissioner for nothing more than her unfailing loyalty to the dear leader Blair. Oh the irony it all. Our vociferous pommy-bashing republican movement spends its energies trying to remove a woman with a royal title from Australian public life while they fail to see the real threats to the Australian res publica including the unwelcome remarks of a certain British High Commissioner complete with a sham aristocratic title (what's the British Labour Party's going rate for a knighthood or peerage these days anyway?). And to top it all off, hardly a word of censure from our self-appointed guardians of public morality, truth and right thinking in the media (especially the self-absorbed Mike Carlton who is never short of a dose of personal rancour for anyone with an aristocratic title -- in this instance inherited -- who happens to disagree with His Omniscience but who strangely has nothing critical to say of decidedly pinko members of the nouvelle aristocratie such as "Baroness" Amos). Sadly I'm not surprised at any of this. The Australian media for the most part is about as unprincipled and partisan as they come.

If "Baroness" Amos really believed in the value of democracy, she would never have made the comments she did. And if our journalists really believed in the value of democracy they would take "Baroness" Amos to task for her improper intrusions into the Australian democratic process. Sadly most of our journalists are nowhere near that principled. The media get full marks from me for taking the US ambassador to task in 2003 for his criticism of Mark Latham. The US ambassador was sticking his nose where it didn't belong and interfering in the Australian democratic process by publicly criticising an elected member of of the Australian House of Representatives is not his job. But this time the media failed abysmally in their task. They should likewise have taken "Baroness" Amos to task for her inappropriate meddling in the Australian democratic process.

One's view on the truth or otherwise of AGW is completely beside the point and I would hope that those who believe in AGW but are friends of democracy would be incensed at the behaviour of "Baroness" Amos. Imagine the reaction by the pro-AGW side (whether in Australia, the UK or elsewhere) if a foreign ambassador had done what Amos had done but instead took the opposite line telling her host nation to "move on" from its obsession with Anthropogenic Global Warming and accept the position that climate change is not caused by human beings and that debates about emissions targets are therefore a waste of time!!! There would be outrage and the media would be unforgiving on any diplomat who dared to make such a comment or anyone who tried to defend her. If only the media were as principled in criticising such abuses when coming from the other side.

"Straight" civil partnerships?

Now this is interesting (HT: Archbishop Cranmer) A different-sex couple (i.e. a man a woman) are claiming that the UK's civil partnership legislation is discriminatory because civil partnerships are only open to same-sex couples. This couple would like to enter into a civil partnership but can't because the two parties are of the opposite sex and thereby forbidden from entering into a civil partnership. Ah, the irony of it all. This is exactly the kind of argument that many homosexuals (and others enchanted by their flawed logic) make about the "discriminatory" nature of the institution of marriage. (In fact this is the perverted logic the couple is making! They are doing it as a protest to say that same-sex couples should be allowed to "marry".)

I have to say that this couple's argument is rather predictable and I'm surprised it's taken someone this long (the legislation has been around for five years now) to get their 15 minutes of media fame by pulling this kind of publicity stunt. I actually saw this coming some years ago. I can remember sitting in a graduate law seminar at Oxford debating the issue of homosexual "marriage" with a visiting Canadian professor (who was very hostile to anyone who didn't see things his way and not at all accustomed to debating these issues in a spirit of detached equanimity, instead seeing the purpose of the seminar as "educating" us all about the need for homosexual marriage and excoriating those "bigots" who dared disagree with him). The argument that marriage is "discriminatory" because by definition it excludes same-sex couples is deceptively simple but fundamentally flawed. Of course restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples above a certain age is also "discriminatory". Anything that includes some people (or things) but excludes others is "discriminatory". But the fact that something is "discriminatory" is neither here nor there. The rule that you need a mark of 50% to pass an exam is also "discriminatory" in that those who score under 50% do not "pass". This regime quite clearly "discriminates" against those who score under 50%. But that's not a bad thing. Now there is of course a degree of "arbitrariness" in setting the pass mark. You can set it at 50%, or 70% or 40% and still have a meaningful exam. Assuming you don't set it at 0% then no matter where you set it there is potentially someone who is going to "fail". If you set your pass mark at 0% so everyone by definition "passes" then you have in effect nullified the concept of having an exam in the first place. And, what's more, once you do this you devalue the "passes" of all the people in the past, present and future who actually scored over 50% (or whatever pass mark you would have chosen).

Now none of this is by any means a knock-down argument against homosexual "marriage" or civil partnerships. There may be good arguments for these (personally I'm not convinced) but the point I am making is that you can't just say "marriage discriminates against same-sex couples and should therefore be changed to allow them to 'marry'". In all societies the rules about who can marry also "discriminate" against a whole host of other people, animals and things who might potentially want to "marry". It is no answer for the advocates of homosexual "marriage" to say "ah, but no-one is seriously suggesting that man should be allowed to 'marry' his dog or a 9 year old girl or his pet rock or 3 wives at once etc". First, it is no answer for the simple reason that there are people (albeit a minority) making exactly these claims. Secondly, it's no answer because it completely skirts the main issue. No matter how you define marriage you have to give a reason why you define it to include X but not Y. The homosexual rights lobby's proposed definition of marriage is also "discriminatory" by excluding some situations from the definition of "marriage" and they need to justify why their proposed redefinition should be accepted but not the polygamists', paedophiles' and the zoophiles' etc. Aye, there's the rub. As it happens I think there are very good reasons for restricting marriage to different sex couples above a certain age but that's a topic for another post.

If nothing else this episode of the different-sex couple arguing that they too should have the right to enter into a civil partnership shows the folly of the kind of logic which cries "discrimination" because a civil partnership is defined in a way which excludes different-sex couples. The man and the woman in this episode are each free as individuals to enter into a civil partnership with a person of the same sex. The law of civil partnerships does not discriminate against them as individuals. As individuals they are in exactly the same legal position under that act as every other non-married person not already in a civil partnership. Under that law each of them has the legal right to enter into a civil partnership. And their sexual "orientation" or "preference" is completely beside the point. Two "heterosexual" men or two "heterosexual" women can enter into a civil partnership if they want. And likewise every "homosexual" or "lesbian" person is free as an individual to enter into a marriage with a person of the opposite sex. The law of marriage does not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference or orientation. Every individual above a certain age who is not already married is free to marry. A "homosexual" man and a "lesbian" woman can enter into a marriage if they want just as a "heterosexual" man and a "heterosexual" woman can. Their "sexual orientation" is completely beside the point. The problem here is not that the law of civil partnership (or marriage for that matter) discriminates against them as individuals. The problem is that particular law doesn't allow them to do what they want. Well duh. Whoever said that it should? Saying that the law 'discriminates' against you when in actual fact it treats every individual equally but doesn't happen to allow each individual to fulfil his or her personal desires is at best fundamentally flawed and at worst downright dishonest.

My advice to this different-sex couple who want to enter a civil partnership with one another but can't is exactly the same as it is to same-sex couples who would like to "marry" one another but can't: Get over it. Yes of course marriage "discriminates" against same-sex couples just as civil partnerships "discriminate" against different-sex couples since marriage by definition involves a partner of the opposite sex and a civil partnership by definition involves a partner of the same sex. But importantly marriage does not discriminate against homosexual persons as individuals and civil partnerships do not discriminate against heterosexual persons as individuals. Everyone over a certain age in the UK has a legal right to marry -- regardless of sexual preference. And similarly everyone over a certain age in the UK has a legal right to enter a civil partnership -- regardless of sexual preference. Whether you as an individual are "gay", "straight" or something else is completely beside the point. The law doesn't want to know it. Every person in the UK is treated equally under both the law of marriage and the law of civil partnerships and saying that the law doesn't allow you to marry or enter into a civil partnership with whomever you want because the definition of these institutions limits your choice of potential partner just doesn't cut it I'm afraid. And yes in a sense the law of both marriage and civil partnerships in the UK "discriminates" against people under the age of 16 and animals and people wanting to "marry" or enter into a civil partnership with a person under the age of 16 or an animal etc etc. But only in a sense. Every 15 year old is treated alike under the law. And every person who would like to marry or enter into a civil partnership with a 15 year old is treated alike under the law. There is no discrimination on an individual basis. Just the kind of definitional "discrimination" which will always be with us so long as we define marriage or a civil partnership to mean X but not Y.

Now society is full of private organisations etc that certain people are ineligible to join. So yes of course all-male institutions in a sense "discriminate" against females who would like to join and all-female institutions in a sense "discriminate" against males who would like to join; organisations exclusively for wealthy people in a sense "discriminate" against people below a certain income; organisations for senior citizens in a sense "discriminate" against young people and organisations exclusively for youth in a sense "discriminate" against older people. If you can't join one of these institutions, because you don't fit the bill get over it. Go and form your own association if you can't join someone else's. If you can't join the local youth club because you're too old then go and find some like minded people and form your own association. In modern western societies there is nothing stopping two people of the same sex or 100 people of one or both sexes forming a common living arrangement. It's not criminal so if you want to do it just go and do it. There's no need to cry foul about not being able to "marry" (or enter into a "civil partnership" with) the person of your choice. And if these two or 100 people want to have joint or common ownership over their property this can be arranged without having to redefine "marriage" so that they can enter into it with the persons of their choice.

Oh and by the way, as far as the law is concerned this different sex couple that wants to enter into a civil partnership doesn't have a leg to stand on. This is just a cheap publicity stunt. First, they have acted deceptively in seeking their civil partnership by simply giving their initials and not their full names and once they turn up for the ceremony the registrar would be legally obliged not to perform the ceremony if he was not satisfied that they fulfilled the legal requirements for a civil partnership (which obviously includes both parties being of the same sex). And even if they manage to dupe the registrar (or the registrar is not fooled but simply ignores his legal obligations and perform the ceremony) the civil partnership would still not be legally valid. Simply going through the ceremony does not a civil partnership (or a marriage for that matter) make. These things have to be done "according to law". I can declare myself king and even have the Archbishop of Canterbury "crown" me king in Westminster Abbey but that still wouldn't legally make me king. Why so? Because kingship is governed by law and I don't satisfy the legal requirements for kingship. Going through the motions of a proclamation and a coronation ceremony won't make me king in the eyes of the law. In the same way a couple which goes through the motions of a civil partnership ceremony but does not satisfy the legal requirements are not members of a civil partnership in the eyes of the law.

Comment dit-on «ironie» au Québec?

News to hand from the Times of London: On a royal tour to Canada eggs were thrown by protesters in the direction of HRH Charles, Prince of Wales Prince de Galles. Some people in Quebec (or is that Québec?) would prefer to be independent of the tyrannous yoke of HM Elizabeth II and go it alone. I get it. That's their right in a free and democratic society and I support the right of them to hold the political opinions they do and to express them. But throwing eggs? Come on. It's not as if the people of Quebec are prevented from expressing their sentiments through the political process. Over the years there have been referenda on this question (in 1980 and 1995) and there are secessionist political parties Quebecers can vote for if they want to make their separatist dreams a reality. Throwing eggs at the heir apparent and members of your country's armed forces is just plain silly -- not to mention bad manners -- and doesn't achieve anything.

So why the blog post when surely a protest by Quebec separatists on the occasion of a royal visit is on the level of "dog bites man"? Well, two photos of the protesters particularly caught my eye in the irony stakes.

First, this:


Quelle ironie! The suggestion that the British (now Canadian) Crown is responsible for "cultural genocide" in Quebec is simply risible. Quite the opposite, it has actually served to protect Quebec's cultural identity and francophone status amid more populous anglophone communities to the west and -- more significantly -- the south! Two words to Quebec separatists: Louisiana Purchase (in French it's a lot longer than two words: La Vente de la Louisiane). Just look what happened to the French presence in the rest of North America. Where are the millions of francophones in the United States with their own proudly distinct culture distinguishing them from the English speaking majority around them? Nulle part, that's where! Gobbled up by the insatiable appetite of the expansionist yankee machine. The defeat of the French at the hands of the British on the Plains of Abraham was the best thing that could have happened for the preservation of the French language and the unique Quebec and Acadian cultures in North America. The only reason why Quebec is still overwhelmingly francophone today is because the British defeated the French. Had Quebec stayed in French hands it would most probably have been sold off to the United States at the soonest convenience spelling the gradual demise and eventual death of their language and unique culture as happened in those former French territories which were incorporated into the United States. But it's much easier to throw eggs at the heir apparent than own up to reality. As they say, ignorance is bliss.

But this one surely prend le gâteau takes the cake in the irony stakes:

What's that? Les souverainistes québecois displaying signs in English? Quelle ironie du sort! And here I was thinking there were laws against this sort of thing to protect the status of French from the encroachment of English (sere here for an instance of the law in practice). How silly of me!

Stones for bread?

Update: The number of other bloggers commenting on this topic is legion. Archbishop Cranmer, however, not only speaks much sense, but also does so with much wit.

Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? -- Matthew 7:9-10.

For some weeks now the Anglican (and arguably wider Christian) world has been buzzing with the news of the Bishop of Rome's offer to Anglicans to join his "ecclesial community" all the while keeping "aspects" of their Anglican "patrimony". In other words the Church of Rome has made an offer to Anglicans to join the Roman flock but keep elements of their Anglican identity. The reaction was overwhelmingly positive, but I have been more circumspect in my reaction and that is not just due to the fact that my Anglican "patrimony" (and "theological convictions" compel me to view the Church of Rome as having erred in important matters such that separation from Rome is a necessity. But even trying to see things through the eyes of Anglicans more sympathetic towards visible reunion with Rome I was hesitant to view this as something that would be acceptable to many of those it was aimed at.

I don't for a minute doubt Rome's sincerity in this and I certainly don't see this as some underhanded scheme. Rather, Rome is responding to pleas by individual Anglicans and sincerely laying its cards on the table and saying, "come and join us if you can". In the scheme of things this is a sizeable step for the Church of Rome to undertake. The significance of Rome approving structures whereby former Anglicans can run their own churches with their own (married) clergy according to their own distinct liturgies with their own lines of authority distinct from (but not entirely independent of) ordinary diocesan structures is duly noted on my part. In that respect I guess the offer is fairly "generous". Previously, Rome's call was essentially "we're the true church, the one Christ founded and you're not so come and join us for the riches of the catholic faith, giving up what you currently have in Anglicanism". Now Rome's call is slightly more akin to "while we're the true church founded by Christ, God has blessed you too and is now calling you to come and join in the fullness of the catholic faith while retaining some aspects particular to your Anglican heritage." When viewed in this light, I would accept that this is a more generous offer than Rome had previously been making.

But is it generous enough? The devil, as they say, is in the detail and I -- along with just about everyone else -- have been saying that it was simply too early to speculate about the effects th announcement would have on causing Anglicans to "swim the Tiber" and join the Church of Rome and that we would need to wait until Rome had formulated the "Apostolic constitution". Well, having now waited for this document it is now on the table as Anglicanorum coetibus and available to be picked apart with a fine-toothed comb. And my initial scepticism has been confirmed. Despite the fact that Rome has gone further than it was previously willing to go in order to attract Anglicans across to Rome, I suspect that for most the offer will be one of "thanks but no thanks".

Anglicans are not a monolithic bloc and (so-called) Anglo-Catholics (the only group of Anglicans likely to make the move to Rome under this offer; most other Anglicans are not terribly interested in joining the Church of Rome) are no less monolithic. For evidence of this just compare the differences between Forward in Faith in the UK and the US or indeed the differences among many of the "continuing" Anglo-Catholic groups. The following "field guide to Anglican churchmanship" provides an enlightening look at the differences that exist within (so-called) Anglo-Catholicism. In the opinion of that author we have:

a. Anglo-Papalist -- Tridentine
b. Anglo-Papalist -- Modern (a peculiarly English breed of cat, he uses the Novus Ordo, the current RC services)
c. Payer Book Catholic
d. The modern version of Prayer Book Catholic, not papalist and using the Anglican prayer book that's the standard where he is (Common Worship, US 1979 BCP, etc.)
e. Anglo-Orthodox. Rare as hen's teeth, more so than Tridentine ACs, but they're out there. Also, c and d often see themselves as 'Western Orthodox' analogues to the Eastern Orthodox.

Groups (a) and (b) are basically already Roman Catholic in all but name and with the exception of Rome's views on married clergy would have little pangs of conscience moving to Rome -- with or without any "apostolic constitution" for former Anglicans. They have long since given up on most of their Anglican liturgical "patrimony" (to use Rome's choice of language) and are already using Roman liturgies. Groups (c), (d), and (e), on the other hand, have retained much more of their Anglican liturgical heritage and my main interest is in where they would fit in the scheme of things.

The problem for Anglicans joining the new Anglican "ordinariate" is, as I see it, at least twofold. First, there are matters of doctrine. Unlike groups (a) and (b) there are still a few significant differences in doctrine between (c), (d) and (e) Anglo-Catholics and Rome. I'm not saying that an individual in one of these groups could not in good conscience join the Church of Rome. What I am saying is that many will not be able to. The apostolic constitution sets out (I§5) that for all those joining the new ordinariate -- i.e. clergy and laity -- the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith professed by members of the Ordinariate. Many Anglo-Catholics will have problems with some of its provisions and may not in conscience be able to join. Secondly, there is a question of just what aspects of the Anglican liturgical "patrimony" will be retained. My initial thoughts were that much of the 1662 Prayer Book -- especially the Order for Holy Communion -- would not be acceptable to the Church of Rome and would have to be heavily edited which leaves one asking whether what is left still expresses their Anglican patrimony in a way acceptable to them. You could not simply have a formerly-Anglican-now-Roman priest run a Book of Common Prayer 1662 communion service since it would offend against the doctrines of the Church of Rome. It's not just a question of cutting out a few phrases such as "by his one oblation of himself once offered" or "Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving". The eucharistic theology of the Book of Common Prayer doesn't just arise from the words that are said; rather, it also arises from the structure of the service and this structure would also have to be altered in some respects for use in the Church of Rome. A good example of a Roman Catholic liturgy approved for former Anglicans is available here (this liturgy is for former Anglicans in the United States and has not arisen out of the current announcement to set up personal ordinariates for former Anglicans). Looking at this service there are of course some clearly Anglican resonances in the wording, but unsurprisingly there are also some recognisably Roman words that offend against Anglican doctrine (which is not such an issue if you overcome the first problem I mentioned and assent to Roman doctrine). More importantly, the structure of the service has departed significantly from the classical Cranmerian approach. For some this won't present much of a problem, for others it will. One thing I would be interested to see is whether those who make the move can convince Rome to adopt an order for Holy Communion basically akin to the 1549 Order or indeed the Sarum Missal (since the eucharistic theology of the 1552, 1559 and 1662 Prayer Books is more explicitly Reformed than that of the first English Prayer Book of 1549 and its predecessor the Sarum Missal). Beyond Holy Communion, however, I think former Anglicans will have more success in keeping distinctive Anglican liturgy. I can imagine the Church of Rome giving permission for former Anglicans to run services of Evening Prayer with very few alterations rather than requiring them to run a Roman service of vespers. Will we see services of choral evensong in the Church of Rome? Who knows.

So in sum, although I have no intention of joining the Church of Rome I'm still interested in the liturgies they finally approve and how close a resemblance these will bear to classic Anglican forms of liturgy. At this stage I can only conclude that the resemblance will be much slighter than many would wish.

The Creative Genius of Triple Filtered Films

Well it looks like I'm turning into an advertising agency myself, with all this promotion for Stella Artois' homage to 1960s cinéma français (see here for the first post on this topic). The London-based advertising agency that made the advertisements in my last post (well at least the first two; I've seen both of those on the big screen in the UK -- the third one I saw for the first time on youtube and is supposedly a Canadian advertisement; I have no idea if it's a product of the same London advertising agency or not) has also made a series of short films in the same 1960s French style, parodying the plot of more recent Hollywood offerings. Even though in posting this I might be complicit in some cunning viral marketing campaign for Stella Artois I don't care. These filums are wonderful creations and worth watching in their own right. Stella Artois, my opinion of you is on the up.

I hope you enjoy these as much as I did:

1) Dial Hard -- "Inspector Meqlain plays a deadly game of Simon Says in Dial Hard"


2) 8 Kilomètres -- "2 poets face off in a battle of rhyme in Huit Kilomètres"


3) 24 Heures -- "The clock is ticking for Jacques in Vingt-Quatre Heures"



And while we're in a 1960s French mood, here's a clip of France Gall singing one of my favourite French songs from that era Laisse tomber les filles.

Average beer, great ads

For a long time now I have entertained the idea that I'm fairly immune to advertising. Rarely if ever will I buy a product because of an advertisement I've seen. And because I'm not really the person who is easily swayed to buy a product because of an advertisement I tend to "switch off" during the ad breaks on television or during the advertising segment before catching a movie at the cinema. But every now and again the advertising profession comes up with something that catches my attention. Some advertisements manage to rise above the drudgery of the rest and display a certain creative flair. Stella Artois is far from my favourite beer -- a distinctly average lager that is marketed outside of its homeland as a "premium" international lager at a correspondingly "premium" price. And yet, they come up with some great ads like these.







For some time now, Stella Artois has been adopting a classic European cinema motif for its advertising (these ones hark back to the 1960s; for one reminiscent of an earlier era see here). I'm very much a fan of 1960s European -- especially French -- cinema (a young Brigitte Bardot strutting about carefree on the French Riviera: oh la la!) and seeing these creative efforts by Stella Artois' advertising agency on the big screen at the cinema is a sight to behold. They have recreated the feel of the films of this era so wonderfully.

Of course, not everyone will "get" this kind of ad. I imagine that it would be wasted on a lot of beer drinkers, yea even Stella drinkers. When I think of most of the fellows I grew up with or those with whom I would sometimes go to the pub after work, I suspect that most of them have probably never seen a French film in their lives and would not be the slightest bit interested in seeing one. So while I don't think the beer's anything special (it's not bad, but it's not that great either; just average) and I wonder whether these ads will have the effect of getting people who otherwise wouldn't drink Stella to drink it, I am greatly appreciative of these ads' creativity and artistry. I might even just break my own rules once and buy a Stella as a way of saying thank you for rising above the drudgery of most advertising and putting a smile on my face with these gems.

Popularity

I started off this blog basically as a way to "think out loud" about some issues of interest to me. Unlike a lot of other blogs this one doesn't really have an overarching "theme". I'll blog on philosophy or sport or art or theology or just about anything really. I suspect that this makes it harder to build up a readership. If you're really interested in one thing I have blogged on once but not the rest of the stuff I have blogged on then you're probably not going to want to read my blog. That's fine by me. I'm happy if I don't have any regular readers. Back in August 2008 when I posted my "almost-first" post (i.e. my first post after a false start to the blog) and had a readership of zero I had this to say:

I am under no illusion as to the significance of this blog or indeed my life in general. Blogs come and go, people come and go, the world keeps turning and God keeps working his purpose out as year succeeds to year. In the grand scheme of things my life here on earth and this blog are fairly insignificant. In other words, if no one reads it I won't be too disappointed.

And that's still the case today. I don't write what I do it with a view to becoming popular. And I'm not the slightest bit interested in trying to earn money from this blog via advertising (although I've got nothing against those who do place ads on their blog).

Rarely if ever do I get feedback on anything I post here (most posts have zero comments!) so until fairly recently I was completely ignorant about the number of people reading this blog. Then I came across this nifty application which records the number and locations of hits to my blog. Of course technically speaking this still doesn't tell me the number of people reading my blog. Someone can of course visit the blog without reading it.

After adding this feature I still only had a paltry number of hits but I now suddenly find myself in unfamiliar territory, shooting up the charts of popularity. I suspect that the sudden increase in web traffic has come because I posted a comment or two at a very popular blog and curious readers of those comments then clicked on my link there and wandered over here to my blog. What's particularly interesting is where the hits are from. As well as visitors from various English speaking countries I have even had hits from places such as Poland, Chile, Nigeria and Tunisia to name a few! While I know a few people in Poland and it's possible that one of them clicked on a link to this blog from my facebook profile, I don't think I know anyone in Chile, Nigeria or Tunisia. I am truly humbled that complete strangers -- wherever they are in the world -- would want to read my ramblings.

Visits as of 8 November, A.D. 2009