In a forthcoming issue of Blood there will be an article on FCRL2, a new prognsotic factor for CLL.
The discovery that patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who showed somatic hypermutation of their immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region genes (IGHV) lived on average three times longer than those who did not (1, 2) revolutionized the study of CLL and has greatly influenced the design and understanding of clinical trials. Assaying for such mutations seems complicated and the prospect is sufficiently intimidating to deter most routine laboratories from offering the test. Instead there has been a search for a surrogate marker, especially one that can be assayed by a familiar technique such as flow cytometry.
Originally, the expression of CD38 looked promising (1), but that was shown to be discordant with IGHV mutations in up to 30% of cases; so much so that it could be regarded as an independent prognostic factor. Moreover it could change during the course of the disease (3). Gene expression profiling of the two subtypes of CLL suggested that the Syk family tyrosine kinase gene ZAP-70 was the best discriminator between them (4), but translating this finding into a flow cytometry test has proved troublesome and none of the many possible assays has gained universal acceptance. One commonly used assay shows only 77% concordance with IGHV mutations (5).
The immunoglobulin superfamily is a large group of cell surface and soluble proteins that share structural features with immunoglobulin molecules, and includes receptors, co-receptors and co-stimulatory molecules. The well-known receptors for the Fc portion of immunoglobulin are members of this family. Recently a large family of Fc receptor-like molecules (FCRL) with preferential expression on B lymphocytes has been discovered (6). Genes coding for them localize to chromosome 1q21. There is no convincing evidence that they bind immunoglobulin and so far they lack ligands. In a coming issue of Blood, Li and colleagues have demonstrated that some of the FCRL are expressed more densely on CLL cells from patients with mutated IGHV genes than on those from patients with unmutated IGHV genes. A flow cytometric assay using a monoclonal antibody against FCRL2 and measuring mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) discriminated between CLL cells with mutated and unmutated IGHV genes with a concordance of 94.4%. Among 107 patients with CLL, median time to first treatment was more than four times as long for patients whose cells expressed FCRL2 with an MFI ratio of 4.2 or greater. FCRL2 seems to be stably expressed over time.
Should measurement of FCRL2 expression replace IGHV mutations as a prognostic marker? We must first see confirmation of these results in a rather larger series of patients, but given that DNA sequencing is cheaply available from commercial sources and that matching the sequence to the database is performed by a computer program, one wonders why so few laboratories have established the assay for IGHV mutations. In any event discordances between the various prognostic markers and the clinical picture promise to give us a clearer insight into why some cases of CLL progress and some do not.
References
1. Damle RN, Wasil T, Fais F et al. Ig V gene mutation status and CD38 expression as novel prognostic indicators in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood. 1999;94:1840-1847.
2. Hamblin TJ, Davis Z, Gardiner A, Oscier DG, Stevenson FK. Unmutated Ig V(H) genes are associated with a more aggressive form of chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood. 1999;94:1848-1854.
3. Hamblin TJ, Orchard JA, Ibbotson RE et al. CD38 expression and immunoglobulin variable region mutations are independent prognostic variables in chronic lymphocytic leukemia, but CD38 expression may vary during the course of the disease. Blood. 2002;99:1023-1029.
4. Wiestner A, Rosenwald A, Barry TS et al. ZAP-70 expression identifies a chronic lymphocytic leukemia subtype with unmutated immunoglobulin genes, inferior clinical outcome, and distinct gene expression profile. Blood. 2003;101:4944-4951.
5. Rassenti LZ, Huynh L, Toy TL et al. ZAP-70 compared with immunoglobulin heavy-chain gene mutation status as a predictor of disease progression in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:893-901.
6. Davis RS. Fc receptor-like molecules. Annu Rev Immunol. 2007;25:525-560.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Mrs Warren's Profession (1972)
We watched another GBS play on Saturday night. Mrs Warren's profession is of course the oldest one. Her highly educatd feminist daughter treats her with disdain, not because she made her money that way, but because she continues to run brothels for her 35% return on investment now that she has made her money.
Acting again wonderful - I remember this one from when it was first broadcast. Penelope Wilton, stole the show as the daughter, but James Grout was Morse's boss and Robert Powell was Zeffirelli's Jesus.
Acting again wonderful - I remember this one from when it was first broadcast. Penelope Wilton, stole the show as the daughter, but James Grout was Morse's boss and Robert Powell was Zeffirelli's Jesus.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
LOST and the Gospel
Religious law is all the same. Whether it is Jewish law, Shariah law or Puritan law; it is designed to make the strong look good and the weak look wicked. When the disciples 'harvested' corn on the Sabbath (Matt 12:1) the Pharisees accused them of unlawfulness. Exodus 31:15 says that anyone who does any work on the Sabbath must be put to death. Jesus, who fulfilled the Law completely must have been expected to start stoning Peter, James and John and the rest. Instead he condemns the Pharisees. Treating them like schoolchildren he mocks them, "Haven't you read your Bible?" Then he quotes three Old Testament examples concerning Prophet, Priest and King. The King is King David who ate the Shew Bread (that should not have been eaten except by the priests) when he was on the run from Saul at Nob. The Priests are of course kept especially busy on the Sabbath. The Prophet is Hosea from whom Jesus quotes, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." (Hos 6:6). That passage from Hosea begins, "Come let us return to the LORD," but I fear that our churches turn sinners away with their emphasis on respectability.
I have been watching the TV series, LOST on DVD. I have almost finished up to the end of the third season. Some might find it low-brow trash and that I should be reading 'Wuthering Heights' and 'The Millon the Floss' but I find it compulsive stuff.
For those who don't know, the premise is that a flight from Sydney to Los Angleles goes down over the Pacific, but there are survivors that turn up on a mysterious island (that looks a bit like rural Hawaii). The island has many mysterious powers: a paraplegic begins to walk, a cancer patient is cured. It also has many strange artefacts, signs of some sort of peace project with strange scientific experiments from the 1980s. However, of more importance is the presence of the 'Others', inhabitants who steal the survivors' children and some of their number who were on a list. Those left behind mostly seem to be very flawed characters. Many are murderers, but others have other besetting sins like gluttony, theft, lying, hatred of parents and adultery. Nevertheless, despite their evil deeds they seem to be very engaging characters and as we see their back-stories we see that there are often extenuating circumstances for their behaving as they did.
On particular character, Mr Eko, is apparently a Nigerian Catholic priest (Eko is thw name of the settlement that eventually became Lagos). In his back-story we learn that as a boy gangsters came into his village stealing children as recruits. His younger brother was ordered to shoot an old man or be killed himself. To save his brother, Eko takes the gun and shoots the old man himself. this begins his life as a gangster while his brother, Yemi, becomes a priest.
Eko now a fully fledged gangster leader asks Yemi to help him smuggle heroin by giving him a large number of Virgin Mary statues to hide it in, and also the use of the plane, in return for a large sum of money. When Yemi refuses, Eko threatens to burn the church down if he doesn't sign documents that allow him and his henchmen to appear as priests. Yemi reluctantly agrees. However as they try to board the plane Yemi is shot by the army and Eko mistaken for a real priest; he returns as Yemi's replacement to the village. Here, he commits further 'justifiable' homicides. Eventually he finds himself among the survivors on the island. Even here he cannot keep from killing. Eventually seeking absolution he sees an apparition of his dead brother who urges him to confess and repent. His reply is, "I have nothing to confess. I did what I had to do." Then appears the 'monster' which kills him.
Goodness knows what this series is about. The island apparently does not represent purgatory or Hell. But it does bring home certain undeniable points, 1 All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. 2 Most of us can point to extenuating circumstances to excuse our sin. 3 Excuses won't wash. 4 We are responsible for our own behavior.
Paul sums up how we should behave in Colossians chapter 3:Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.
That way we will accept sinners into our churches, churches who don'y are like hospitals that turn away patients.
I have been watching the TV series, LOST on DVD. I have almost finished up to the end of the third season. Some might find it low-brow trash and that I should be reading 'Wuthering Heights' and 'The Millon the Floss' but I find it compulsive stuff.
For those who don't know, the premise is that a flight from Sydney to Los Angleles goes down over the Pacific, but there are survivors that turn up on a mysterious island (that looks a bit like rural Hawaii). The island has many mysterious powers: a paraplegic begins to walk, a cancer patient is cured. It also has many strange artefacts, signs of some sort of peace project with strange scientific experiments from the 1980s. However, of more importance is the presence of the 'Others', inhabitants who steal the survivors' children and some of their number who were on a list. Those left behind mostly seem to be very flawed characters. Many are murderers, but others have other besetting sins like gluttony, theft, lying, hatred of parents and adultery. Nevertheless, despite their evil deeds they seem to be very engaging characters and as we see their back-stories we see that there are often extenuating circumstances for their behaving as they did.
On particular character, Mr Eko, is apparently a Nigerian Catholic priest (Eko is thw name of the settlement that eventually became Lagos). In his back-story we learn that as a boy gangsters came into his village stealing children as recruits. His younger brother was ordered to shoot an old man or be killed himself. To save his brother, Eko takes the gun and shoots the old man himself. this begins his life as a gangster while his brother, Yemi, becomes a priest.
Eko now a fully fledged gangster leader asks Yemi to help him smuggle heroin by giving him a large number of Virgin Mary statues to hide it in, and also the use of the plane, in return for a large sum of money. When Yemi refuses, Eko threatens to burn the church down if he doesn't sign documents that allow him and his henchmen to appear as priests. Yemi reluctantly agrees. However as they try to board the plane Yemi is shot by the army and Eko mistaken for a real priest; he returns as Yemi's replacement to the village. Here, he commits further 'justifiable' homicides. Eventually he finds himself among the survivors on the island. Even here he cannot keep from killing. Eventually seeking absolution he sees an apparition of his dead brother who urges him to confess and repent. His reply is, "I have nothing to confess. I did what I had to do." Then appears the 'monster' which kills him.
Goodness knows what this series is about. The island apparently does not represent purgatory or Hell. But it does bring home certain undeniable points, 1 All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. 2 Most of us can point to extenuating circumstances to excuse our sin. 3 Excuses won't wash. 4 We are responsible for our own behavior.
Paul sums up how we should behave in Colossians chapter 3:Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.
That way we will accept sinners into our churches, churches who don'y are like hospitals that turn away patients.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Psalm 25
I imagine David wrestling in prayer. He is lonely and afflicted (v16) and as he pleads for himself he keeps reminding himself of how great God is.
No one whose hope is in you will ever be put to shame v 3
You are God my savior v 5
Your love and mercy are from of old v6
You are good and upright v7-8
The LORD is loving and faithful v10
The LORD confides in those who fear him v14
So in this context he prays for protection (v2,20), direction (v4-5), preservation (v21) and forgiveness (v11,18).
Is he too self absorbed? We are often taught to pray for ourselves last; that others should come first. Just so, but at times we are cast down, depressed and hardly able to continue. At these times we can restore our hope by reciting the attributes of our God and claiming his promises. So David climaxes his prayer with a demand that God redeems Israel (and remember that the Church is the Israel of God). Demand? Too strong a word? I would have put 'plea' but that becomes too speculative and plaintive. God's response is sure; we do not have to beg, merely to ask. 'Demander' in the French sense.
No one whose hope is in you will ever be put to shame v 3
You are God my savior v 5
Your love and mercy are from of old v6
You are good and upright v7-8
The LORD is loving and faithful v10
The LORD confides in those who fear him v14
So in this context he prays for protection (v2,20), direction (v4-5), preservation (v21) and forgiveness (v11,18).
Is he too self absorbed? We are often taught to pray for ourselves last; that others should come first. Just so, but at times we are cast down, depressed and hardly able to continue. At these times we can restore our hope by reciting the attributes of our God and claiming his promises. So David climaxes his prayer with a demand that God redeems Israel (and remember that the Church is the Israel of God). Demand? Too strong a word? I would have put 'plea' but that becomes too speculative and plaintive. God's response is sure; we do not have to beg, merely to ask. 'Demander' in the French sense.
Asymetric warfare
Late last month, a young female bomber was shot as she approached some shops in central Baghdad. The Iraqi soldier who drew his gun hesitated as the bomber, hands raised, insisted that she wasn't armed. The soldier and a shop owner finally opened fire as she dashed for the stores; she was knocked to the ground but still managed to detonate the bomb, killing three and wounding eight. Had the soldier and other bystanders not called out a warning to others -- and had they not shot her before she could enter the shops -- the death toll certainly would have been higher. Had he not hesitated, it might have been lower.
As more women and children are recruited by their mothers and their religious leaders to become suicide bombers, more women and children will be shot at -- some mistakenly. That too is part of the grand plan of our enemies. They want us to kill their civilians, who they also consider martyrs, because when we accidentally kill a civilian, they win in the court of public opinion. One Western diplomat called this the "harsh arithmetic of pain," whereby civilian casualties on both sides "play in their favor." Democracies lose, both politically and emotionally, when they kill civilians, even inadvertently. As Golda Meir once put it: "We can perhaps someday forgive you for killing our children, but we cannot forgive you for making us kill your children."
The traditional sharp distinction between soldiers in uniform and civilians in nonmilitary garb has given way to a continuum. At the more civilian end are babies and true noncombatants; at the more military end are the religious leaders who incite mass murder; in the middle are ordinary citizens who facilitate, finance or encourage terrorism. There are no hard and fast lines of demarcation, and mistakes are inevitable -- as the terrorists well understand.
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, 2008
As more women and children are recruited by their mothers and their religious leaders to become suicide bombers, more women and children will be shot at -- some mistakenly. That too is part of the grand plan of our enemies. They want us to kill their civilians, who they also consider martyrs, because when we accidentally kill a civilian, they win in the court of public opinion. One Western diplomat called this the "harsh arithmetic of pain," whereby civilian casualties on both sides "play in their favor." Democracies lose, both politically and emotionally, when they kill civilians, even inadvertently. As Golda Meir once put it: "We can perhaps someday forgive you for killing our children, but we cannot forgive you for making us kill your children."
The traditional sharp distinction between soldiers in uniform and civilians in nonmilitary garb has given way to a continuum. At the more civilian end are babies and true noncombatants; at the more military end are the religious leaders who incite mass murder; in the middle are ordinary citizens who facilitate, finance or encourage terrorism. There are no hard and fast lines of demarcation, and mistakes are inevitable -- as the terrorists well understand.
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, 2008
Monday, March 03, 2008
Moral equivalence
Moreover, it should be expected that when criminals unlawfully attack a state, and the state responds, the criminals will suffer more casualties than the state. The ratio of criminals to police wounded in any democratic society should be high. A low ratio would represent a failure of law enforcement. The same is true of a military response to terrorism.
Those who suggest a moral equivalence between the terrorist targeting of civilians and the traditional response to terrorism – which always carries the risk of accidentally killing noncombatants – actually encourages the use of terrorism. … Those who focus on body counts, without distinguishing between the deliberate targeting of civilians and the inadvertent killing of some civilians along with terrorists, play directly into the hands of those who employ terrorism as a tactic for securing the moral high ground.
Alan M. Dershowitz (2002), Why Terrorism Works, Yale University Press, New Haven p.85
Those who suggest a moral equivalence between the terrorist targeting of civilians and the traditional response to terrorism – which always carries the risk of accidentally killing noncombatants – actually encourages the use of terrorism. … Those who focus on body counts, without distinguishing between the deliberate targeting of civilians and the inadvertent killing of some civilians along with terrorists, play directly into the hands of those who employ terrorism as a tactic for securing the moral high ground.
Alan M. Dershowitz (2002), Why Terrorism Works, Yale University Press, New Haven p.85
Israelis attack Hamas
Once more the BBC is attacking the Israeli government for invading Gaza and killing 100 Palestinians, only 90 of which were terrorists (or as the BBC prefers to call them, "militants"). The provocation for the Israeli invasion was rockets fired into Israel hitting Ashkelon some 20km into Israel.
As I remember when I was a very small boy Germany fired rockets at London and the British response was to firebomb Dresden.
The Geneva convention declares it a war crime to use civilians as human shields behind which to fire on an enemy in the hope of deterring the enemy from returning fire. Hamas are doing this in Gaza just as Hezbollah did in Lebanon. There sems to be no cry from the BBC that the war criminals in Gaza be brought to trial in the Hague.
The Geneva convention also states that it is not a war crime to kill civilians when retuirning fire on an enemy who uses human shields - or at least the crime is committed by those using thr human shields and not by those returning fire. Yet Edward Stourton this morning on the 'Today' programme spoke of Israel coming under universal condemnation for its action.
It is certainly possible to argue that it was wrong to establish a Jewish state in Palestine 60 years ago. It is a complex argument, but it does not deal in present day realities.
In some ways my position is similar to what it was over the Iran/Iraq war - a plague on both your houses. I have no interest in who wins the argument. I do not see the return of the Jews to Jerusalem as a fulfillment of prophesy as some American evangelicals do. If it involved the conversion of the Jews, I might be more impressed. Nevertheless, If I were living in the middle east I should prefer to live under the form of government present in Israel rather than the one in Palestine. I fail to understand why the BBC endorses a criminal government in Gaza over a democratic one in Israel.
As I remember when I was a very small boy Germany fired rockets at London and the British response was to firebomb Dresden.
The Geneva convention declares it a war crime to use civilians as human shields behind which to fire on an enemy in the hope of deterring the enemy from returning fire. Hamas are doing this in Gaza just as Hezbollah did in Lebanon. There sems to be no cry from the BBC that the war criminals in Gaza be brought to trial in the Hague.
The Geneva convention also states that it is not a war crime to kill civilians when retuirning fire on an enemy who uses human shields - or at least the crime is committed by those using thr human shields and not by those returning fire. Yet Edward Stourton this morning on the 'Today' programme spoke of Israel coming under universal condemnation for its action.
It is certainly possible to argue that it was wrong to establish a Jewish state in Palestine 60 years ago. It is a complex argument, but it does not deal in present day realities.
In some ways my position is similar to what it was over the Iran/Iraq war - a plague on both your houses. I have no interest in who wins the argument. I do not see the return of the Jews to Jerusalem as a fulfillment of prophesy as some American evangelicals do. If it involved the conversion of the Jews, I might be more impressed. Nevertheless, If I were living in the middle east I should prefer to live under the form of government present in Israel rather than the one in Palestine. I fail to understand why the BBC endorses a criminal government in Gaza over a democratic one in Israel.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
The end of Mark
I don't suppose you know who Agur is. I certainly didn't. Although the Proverbs are attributed to Solomon, the last two chapters are the Sayings of Agur and the Sayings of King Lemual.
In Proverbs 30:5-6 Agur says: Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
Scripture is complete. I remember making a cup of tea for my parents when a small child. I thought I would experiment with flavors and added a small teaspoonful of mustard to each cup. It was not a success.
Some have deliberately added to the Bible. An example would be extra conditions for salvation such as the prayers of saints or the intercession of Mary, good works. The sects have extra books like the Book of Mormon or Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. Other have eliminated part of Scripture. They don't have to be physically cut out pages, just disparage them. The creation? An ancient Hebrew myth disproved by Darwin. Jonah? A folk tale. The miracles? Sleight of hand or hypnotism. The resurrection? Meant to be interpreted spiritually.
Sometimes the alteration to Scripture has been accidental. An error of transplantion - it's not easy to get it completely right. Words change their meaning over time and even tracing etymology does not always help. How about copying errors? The famous "wicked" Bible had "Thou shalt commit adultery" and an early edition of the NIV had 'immoral' instead of 'immortal'.
Prior to 1947 it was assumed that many copying errors had crept into Scripture over the years like Chinese whispers, but the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown us that Scripture is remarkably free of mistakes. Over 1000 years from the DSC to the Masoretic text the Old Testament books were copied accurately.
So where does that leave the end of Mark? The earliest Manuscripts end at Mark 16:8. The rest of the chapter is written in a different style. It speaks of Mary Magdalene as if she were being introduced for the first time rather than having been a major character in the previous chapters. It is really a summary of what is found in the other gospels. But is also contains contentious promises that do not hold up: picking up snakes and drinking poison. I know that there are various groups in America that pick up snakes as part of their worship, and indeed you can immunize against snake venom so as to be unaffected, but even pastors in these churches are sometimes killed by the bites of rattlesnakes. I know St Paul was bitten by a snake without ill effect, but someone else was cured by Peter's shadow. It is dangerous to generalize from the particular if your only warrant is a passage added 400 years after the gospel was first written.
To my mind, the most compelling evidence for the later interpolation of Mark 16:9-20 is seen in the structure of the gospel.
Mark 1 to 6:29 starts and finishes with John the Baptist. Jesus is established as the Messiah.
Mark 6:30 to 8:21 is topped and tailed with the feeding miracles. The first Jewish, the second, gentile. The gospel is not just for the Jews but for all mankind
Mark 8:22 to 10:52 is contained within the healing of two blind men. The disciples have eyes but will not see.
Mark 11-13 begins with the cleansing of the Temple and ends with the prediction of the destruction of the Temple. Temple worship is to cease. The sacrifice of animals was but a picture of the sacrifice of Christ.
Mark 14 begins with Mary anointing Jesus and ends with her going to anoint his body and finding no body there. Jesus the anointed one; prophet priest and King.
There it is complete. There is no need for an extra coda. It is complete and flawless.
In Proverbs 30:5-6 Agur says: Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
Scripture is complete. I remember making a cup of tea for my parents when a small child. I thought I would experiment with flavors and added a small teaspoonful of mustard to each cup. It was not a success.
Some have deliberately added to the Bible. An example would be extra conditions for salvation such as the prayers of saints or the intercession of Mary, good works. The sects have extra books like the Book of Mormon or Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. Other have eliminated part of Scripture. They don't have to be physically cut out pages, just disparage them. The creation? An ancient Hebrew myth disproved by Darwin. Jonah? A folk tale. The miracles? Sleight of hand or hypnotism. The resurrection? Meant to be interpreted spiritually.
Sometimes the alteration to Scripture has been accidental. An error of transplantion - it's not easy to get it completely right. Words change their meaning over time and even tracing etymology does not always help. How about copying errors? The famous "wicked" Bible had "Thou shalt commit adultery" and an early edition of the NIV had 'immoral' instead of 'immortal'.
Prior to 1947 it was assumed that many copying errors had crept into Scripture over the years like Chinese whispers, but the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown us that Scripture is remarkably free of mistakes. Over 1000 years from the DSC to the Masoretic text the Old Testament books were copied accurately.
So where does that leave the end of Mark? The earliest Manuscripts end at Mark 16:8. The rest of the chapter is written in a different style. It speaks of Mary Magdalene as if she were being introduced for the first time rather than having been a major character in the previous chapters. It is really a summary of what is found in the other gospels. But is also contains contentious promises that do not hold up: picking up snakes and drinking poison. I know that there are various groups in America that pick up snakes as part of their worship, and indeed you can immunize against snake venom so as to be unaffected, but even pastors in these churches are sometimes killed by the bites of rattlesnakes. I know St Paul was bitten by a snake without ill effect, but someone else was cured by Peter's shadow. It is dangerous to generalize from the particular if your only warrant is a passage added 400 years after the gospel was first written.
To my mind, the most compelling evidence for the later interpolation of Mark 16:9-20 is seen in the structure of the gospel.
Mark 1 to 6:29 starts and finishes with John the Baptist. Jesus is established as the Messiah.
Mark 6:30 to 8:21 is topped and tailed with the feeding miracles. The first Jewish, the second, gentile. The gospel is not just for the Jews but for all mankind
Mark 8:22 to 10:52 is contained within the healing of two blind men. The disciples have eyes but will not see.
Mark 11-13 begins with the cleansing of the Temple and ends with the prediction of the destruction of the Temple. Temple worship is to cease. The sacrifice of animals was but a picture of the sacrifice of Christ.
Mark 14 begins with Mary anointing Jesus and ends with her going to anoint his body and finding no body there. Jesus the anointed one; prophet priest and King.
There it is complete. There is no need for an extra coda. It is complete and flawless.
Wuthering Heights
I have never read 'Wuthering Heights'. Last night I watched the DVD of the ITV version starring Robert Cavanagh and Orla Brady. It is highly praised by reviewers.
If the performances are good then the story must be tosh. Normally I am a sucker for period dramas. I watch 'Lark Rise to Candleford' every Sunday and have enjoyed every Charles Dickens dramatization. Elizabeth Gaskell, George Eliot, Jane Austen - bring 'em on. Bur 'Wuthering Heights' left me cold and looking at my watch. Neither Heathcliff nor Cathy interested me as characters. Both are thoroughly unpleasant and what is supposed to be a great love story came across as petulant selfishness.
If the performances are good then the story must be tosh. Normally I am a sucker for period dramas. I watch 'Lark Rise to Candleford' every Sunday and have enjoyed every Charles Dickens dramatization. Elizabeth Gaskell, George Eliot, Jane Austen - bring 'em on. Bur 'Wuthering Heights' left me cold and looking at my watch. Neither Heathcliff nor Cathy interested me as characters. Both are thoroughly unpleasant and what is supposed to be a great love story came across as petulant selfishness.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Ps 119:15
I meditate on your precepts and consider your ways.
Meditation got a bad press with the Maharishi and 'transcendental meditation'. I never quite knew what that meant. I gather it is something about thinking about the sound of one hand clapping. An impossibility, of course, but the idea seems to be that by thinking of the absurd we disengage our mind from logic and consequence and engage in pure thought without reference points.
Utter hogwash, of course, and certainly not what the Bible means by meditation. Rather than running the mind in neutral we are expected to work hard. Wikipedia has this, "The Old Testament book of Joshua sets out a form of meditation based on scriptures: "Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it, then you will be prosperous and successful" (Joshua 1:8). This is one of the reasons why bible verse memory is a practice among many evangelical Christians."
Again they are missing the point. Although it is a fine thing to memorize scripture verses it is far better to know the Bible and understand it. Being sylable perfect is rather beside the point with so many versions around.
Meditation is about thinking deeply about a subject and a Christian meditates by thinking deeply about the Bible. It is unhurried thought, seeking to understand meaning. I know a lot of people who can recite the 23rd Psalm but apart from knowing that it is often read at funerals they couldn't tell you what it means.
Nor is it a matter of what the commentaries say. They will tell you the technical side of exegesis but they say little of what it means to me or you.
Here is how to meditate on Scripture. Ask yourself the following questions:
What does the passage tell me about God?
What does the passage tell me about living?
What does the passage tell me about my life, here and now?
Meditation got a bad press with the Maharishi and 'transcendental meditation'. I never quite knew what that meant. I gather it is something about thinking about the sound of one hand clapping. An impossibility, of course, but the idea seems to be that by thinking of the absurd we disengage our mind from logic and consequence and engage in pure thought without reference points.
Utter hogwash, of course, and certainly not what the Bible means by meditation. Rather than running the mind in neutral we are expected to work hard. Wikipedia has this, "The Old Testament book of Joshua sets out a form of meditation based on scriptures: "Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it, then you will be prosperous and successful" (Joshua 1:8). This is one of the reasons why bible verse memory is a practice among many evangelical Christians."
Again they are missing the point. Although it is a fine thing to memorize scripture verses it is far better to know the Bible and understand it. Being sylable perfect is rather beside the point with so many versions around.
Meditation is about thinking deeply about a subject and a Christian meditates by thinking deeply about the Bible. It is unhurried thought, seeking to understand meaning. I know a lot of people who can recite the 23rd Psalm but apart from knowing that it is often read at funerals they couldn't tell you what it means.
Nor is it a matter of what the commentaries say. They will tell you the technical side of exegesis but they say little of what it means to me or you.
Here is how to meditate on Scripture. Ask yourself the following questions:
What does the passage tell me about God?
What does the passage tell me about living?
What does the passage tell me about my life, here and now?
The Devil's Disciple
Watched another GBS play last night. The Devil's Disciple is set in a town in New Hampshire at the time of the American Revolution. It was a rather better production the than the previous two I commented on. It was remarkable for the performance of Patrick Stewart (John Luc Picard) with long hair and the apt aphorism of GBS, "The British soldier can only be defeated by the British War Office."
Why ciclosporin works in AIHA
As far as I can find, ciclosporin (or cyclosporin) was first used to treat autoimmune hemolytic anemia in Germany in 1986. (Pogglittsch and colleagues, Wien Med Wochenschr. 1986;136:567-70).
Some readers have expressed surprise that ciclosporin, which is best known for acting to prevent the rejection of transplants – a T-cell function, should be thought useful for a disease caused by antibodies. However, all IgG antibodies are produced because of an interaction of B-cells with T-cells. T-helper cells are required to make IgG antibodies.
My first experience of using ciclosporin in this way came in 1995 when we seemed to be experiencing an epidemic of hemolytic anemia in our CLL patients. I noticed they were all multiply treated patients and all had received fludarabine. It was this that prompted me to write about hemolytic anemia triggered by fludarabine. (Myint et al, Br J Haematol. 1995;91:341-4). I knew, of course, about the early paper by Dameshek demonstrating that radiation or chlorambucil could trigger hemolytic anemia in CLL, but, quite honestly, that seemed to have been a rather rare event in my experience.
As it happened, about this time I attended a lecture by Ethan Shevak, who introduced me to the idea of regulatory T cells (later published as Shevach et al. Novartis Foundation Symposium 1998; 215:200-211). This is what he told us: mice thymectomized on the third day of life develop a wide spectrum of organ specific autoimmune diseases depending on the strain. Reconstitution of these mice with CD4+ CD25+ T cells from normal mice prevents the development of disease. These cells can also prevent the transfer of disease by autoantigen-specific cloned T cells derived from neonatally thymectomized mice. Elimination of CD4+ CD25+ T cells, which constitute 5-10% of peripheral CD4+ T cells, leads to spontaneous development of various autoimmune diseases.
In other words young animals have the capacity to make antibodies against themselves, but this capacity is kept in place by a population of T cells that are CD4 positive and CD25 positive. These cells are known as regulatory T cells – these days they are further identified by being Fox3P positive. They suppress autoreactive T cells by specifically inhibiting the production of IL-2, an action that seemed to me to be remarkably like that of ciclosporin.
Regulatory T cells are very susceptible to killing with chemotherapeutic agents compared to the CD4+ CD25 negative subset, and Fludarabine is particularly toxic to them.
Ciclosporin is thought to bind to the cytosolic protein cyclophilin (immunophilin) of immunocompetent lymphocytes, especially T-lymphocytes. This complex of ciclosporin and cyclophylin inhibits calcineurin, which under normal circumstances is responsible for activating the transcription of interleukin-2.
It occurred to me that cyclosporin might mimic the function of regulatory T cells in denying interleukin-2 to T-helper cells. Faced with hemolysis following fludarabine that was uncontrollable by standard treatments, I thought it worth trying ciclosporin on theoretical grounds, as well as being supported by the empirical evidence that it had worked in anecdootal cases in the literature.
When we were designing the LRF CLL4 trial I took on the role of giving advice to investigators who were confronted with uncontrolable AIHA following fludarabine. My advice was almost always to try ciclosporin. After his retirement, Danny Catovsky had a sabbatical in Houston and I believe that he passed on our success with ciclosporin to MDACC. Certainly, Mike Keating now recommends ciclosporin for the treatment of AIHA in CLL.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Dave Clark Five
Mike Smith of Sixties group The Dave Clark Five has died aged 64. Smith, the band's lead singer and keyboardist, was admitted to the Stoke Mandeville Hospital's intensive care unit on Wednesday with a chest infection. He had been in hospital since September 2003 following a spinal cord injury that left him a tetraplegic and only recently moved in to a specially modified family home.
When I was a student the Dave Clark Five had hits with "Bits and Pieces" and "Feeling Glad all over". We always wondered who Glad was.
When I was a student the Dave Clark Five had hits with "Bits and Pieces" and "Feeling Glad all over". We always wondered who Glad was.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Grannies for hire.
My mother (aged 88) is staying with us at present while some repairs are being done on her bathroom. She needs a lift to church on Sunday mornings. Although she used to walk the two miles there and two miles back, this is beyond her now. There are no buses and she doesn't drive. Despite this members of the church have been happy to help her. Over the past year two of her drivers have had to give up through illness or emigration, but whenever someone drops out another steps forward to help.
She sees it as the LORD's provision but others are more cynical. Parking is very difficult around the church and she has an invalid parking permit. Could it be that people are keen to deliver her so that they can park their cars illegally on double yellow lines right outside the church?
I suggested to her that she should consider hiring herself out to those whose trips involve particularly difficult parking. She might see the world.
She sees it as the LORD's provision but others are more cynical. Parking is very difficult around the church and she has an invalid parking permit. Could it be that people are keen to deliver her so that they can park their cars illegally on double yellow lines right outside the church?
I suggested to her that she should consider hiring herself out to those whose trips involve particularly difficult parking. She might see the world.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Fundamentalists
In the March edition of Evangelicals Now is an interesting article by Barry Seagren. He asks the question as to whether there is any difference between Evangelical Christians and fundamentalist Muslims.
Both believe that they have the absolute truth - not a relative truth in the post-modern sense of 'if it works for you, fine'.
Both believe that that truth derives from an ancient text
Both place their loyalty to God above national laws.
Both believe that a lived-out faith affects every aspect of their lives, including politics.
Both believe there is a sharp dividing line between believers and unbelievers.
Both are against nominal religion.
Both seek to convince non-believers of the truth of their belief.
So what difference is there? Why should evangelical Christians object to being lumped together with fundamentalist Muslims as one of the dangers of the age?
There are three major differences, says Seagren.
1] The most blatant difference is the Islamic willingness to use force. Muslims certainly dispute whether Islam truly teaches this, but the jihadist support their case with quotations from the Qur'an, and Mohammed himself could hardly be said to have been a man of peace.
Jesus, on the other hand, was archetypically the man of peace and although some of his later followers have besmirched his cause with violence (the crusaders, the Inquisition, abortion home bombers) St Paul preached sacrificial love rather than violence and fundamentalist Christians follow this teaching.
2] The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The liberal humanist New York Times - no lover of evangelical Christianity - wrote in August last year, "For more than a millennium, the West took inspiration from the Christian image of a triune God ruling over a created cosmos and guiding men by means of revelation, inner conviction and the natural order. It was a magnificent picture that allowed a magnificent and powerful civilization to flower".
Today millions of Muslims are fleeing Muslim countries to migrate to the West. They are voting with their feet. By their fruits you shall know them.
3] Whereas Christians claim a relationship with a person, Muslims seem to relate to a religion. Ed Hussain, the fundamentalist Muslim who reneged on his commitment to radical Islam (as detailed in his book The Islamist) describes what led him out. "Despite huge political success I despised myself for appearing pious and upright in Muslim eyes when all the time I knew there was a vacuum in my soul where God should be". In describing his converts he writes, "We drew them to Islam as a force, a power. Today, I doubt very much of they were humble hearts who turned to God."
There is a difference, but those words of Ed Hussain are a warning to Christians.
Both believe that they have the absolute truth - not a relative truth in the post-modern sense of 'if it works for you, fine'.
Both believe that that truth derives from an ancient text
Both place their loyalty to God above national laws.
Both believe that a lived-out faith affects every aspect of their lives, including politics.
Both believe there is a sharp dividing line between believers and unbelievers.
Both are against nominal religion.
Both seek to convince non-believers of the truth of their belief.
So what difference is there? Why should evangelical Christians object to being lumped together with fundamentalist Muslims as one of the dangers of the age?
There are three major differences, says Seagren.
1] The most blatant difference is the Islamic willingness to use force. Muslims certainly dispute whether Islam truly teaches this, but the jihadist support their case with quotations from the Qur'an, and Mohammed himself could hardly be said to have been a man of peace.
Jesus, on the other hand, was archetypically the man of peace and although some of his later followers have besmirched his cause with violence (the crusaders, the Inquisition, abortion home bombers) St Paul preached sacrificial love rather than violence and fundamentalist Christians follow this teaching.
2] The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The liberal humanist New York Times - no lover of evangelical Christianity - wrote in August last year, "For more than a millennium, the West took inspiration from the Christian image of a triune God ruling over a created cosmos and guiding men by means of revelation, inner conviction and the natural order. It was a magnificent picture that allowed a magnificent and powerful civilization to flower".
Today millions of Muslims are fleeing Muslim countries to migrate to the West. They are voting with their feet. By their fruits you shall know them.
3] Whereas Christians claim a relationship with a person, Muslims seem to relate to a religion. Ed Hussain, the fundamentalist Muslim who reneged on his commitment to radical Islam (as detailed in his book The Islamist) describes what led him out. "Despite huge political success I despised myself for appearing pious and upright in Muslim eyes when all the time I knew there was a vacuum in my soul where God should be". In describing his converts he writes, "We drew them to Islam as a force, a power. Today, I doubt very much of they were humble hearts who turned to God."
There is a difference, but those words of Ed Hussain are a warning to Christians.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
GBS
We have started watching the plays of George Bernard Shaw on DVD. Last night we watched 'Man of Destiny' and 'Arms and the Man'. Shaw was once thought second only to Shakespeare as an British playwright. This DVD collection was first broadcast on BBC TV in the eighties. Many well known actors appear as callow youths, among them Simon Callow who plays Napoleon and Helena Bonham-Carter who is a long way from the corpse bride in the farce set in Bulgaria.
These are clearly filmed plays and they are very stagey. Nevertheless the actors do well and the diction comes over so well we turned the subtitles off. I doubt on this evidence that Shaw has weathered well. He is very given to aphorisms but they are not so witty nor so wise as those of Oscar Wilde.
These are clearly filmed plays and they are very stagey. Nevertheless the actors do well and the diction comes over so well we turned the subtitles off. I doubt on this evidence that Shaw has weathered well. He is very given to aphorisms but they are not so witty nor so wise as those of Oscar Wilde.
Ensuring freedom with increasing technology
Would a universal DNA database lead to a police state?
Various dystopias such as '1984' and 'Minority Report' have put the case against universal surveillance.
The fact is that CCTV cameras have already been put in place to deter crime, if not universally, at least in a widespread manner. Speed cameras are well established as a means of controlling the speed of cars on our highways. Motorists don't like them because they perceive them as simply revenue-collecting devices. They recognize that it is not speed that causes accidents, but inappropriate speed for the conditions. 70 mph may be too fast in some conditions but too slow in others. Remember (in the UK at least) the 70 mph limit was introduced during the 1970's oil crisis to save gas. If cameras were used to check average speed over a larger distance - say between toll gates - (stopping the widespread practice of speeding up between cameras) they would be even more unpopular. The answer to that is more appropriate speed controls. Finding out the truth is always preferable to living a lie. Other cameras are present on our roads to monitor traffic flow. Although their primary purpose is to avoid traffic snarl-ups by issuing warnings on radio and by sign, they also prove to be very useful for catching fleeing fugitives.
Businesses and public authorities install cameras to protect their property and deter vandalism. The fact is that such cameras also prove useful to the police in establishing the path taken by victims and their attackers.
Telephone tapping and the installation of audio-bugs to detect criminals is under the strict supervision of a judge or parliament. Improper use will be rapidly pounced upon by the press. No minister could withstand such a charge in the public view.
DNA evidence is less intrusive than any of these. It cannot be used as the only evidence that supports a prosecution - there may be other explanations as to why someone's DNA is found at a crime scene, but such a finding is a legitimate reason for questioning someone.
In the US there are already non-criminals who are on such a database - members of the armed services, for example. Despite the comments on my last posting I still can't see a reason for fearing a universal DNA database.
Let’s take the objections one at a time:
Perhaps the police should be able to randomly pluck people from the streets, and try to beat confessions out of them. Only the guilty need be afraid!
Arresting someone implicated by DNA evidence is not a random pick-up. Cops no longer beat up criminals – if they do they are sent to prison. They too are subject to video surveillance when interviewing suspects. Evidence obtained by tortue is of no value. DNA evidence often obviates the nee for a confession.
Perhaps the police could administer drugs to random pick-ups off the street.
Administering drugs to obtain cofessions is also outlawed.
Everyone should be under surviellance at all times. Every move, every action would be analyzed by the State for possible wrong-doing.
I don’t believe that anyone is envisioning anything like that. Why would they want to?
Here is an example of what it might be used for. A 9-yeasr old girl is missing from her home in Dewsbury for 48 hours. CCTV footage shows her leaving her school and heading north, but after that nothing. Was she abducted? Did she run away? More CCTV footage might have given an answer.
Perfect security and safety could exist if 1/4 of the population was engaged in monitoring everyone. (Even the watchers would be watched.)
Common sense dictates that no such police state necessarily follows from more CCTV cameras and a national DNA database.
What guarantees our freedom is not withholding technology from the law enforcement agencies, but a free press, an independent judiciary, a multi-party state and eternal vigilance.
Various dystopias such as '1984' and 'Minority Report' have put the case against universal surveillance.
The fact is that CCTV cameras have already been put in place to deter crime, if not universally, at least in a widespread manner. Speed cameras are well established as a means of controlling the speed of cars on our highways. Motorists don't like them because they perceive them as simply revenue-collecting devices. They recognize that it is not speed that causes accidents, but inappropriate speed for the conditions. 70 mph may be too fast in some conditions but too slow in others. Remember (in the UK at least) the 70 mph limit was introduced during the 1970's oil crisis to save gas. If cameras were used to check average speed over a larger distance - say between toll gates - (stopping the widespread practice of speeding up between cameras) they would be even more unpopular. The answer to that is more appropriate speed controls. Finding out the truth is always preferable to living a lie. Other cameras are present on our roads to monitor traffic flow. Although their primary purpose is to avoid traffic snarl-ups by issuing warnings on radio and by sign, they also prove to be very useful for catching fleeing fugitives.
Businesses and public authorities install cameras to protect their property and deter vandalism. The fact is that such cameras also prove useful to the police in establishing the path taken by victims and their attackers.
Telephone tapping and the installation of audio-bugs to detect criminals is under the strict supervision of a judge or parliament. Improper use will be rapidly pounced upon by the press. No minister could withstand such a charge in the public view.
DNA evidence is less intrusive than any of these. It cannot be used as the only evidence that supports a prosecution - there may be other explanations as to why someone's DNA is found at a crime scene, but such a finding is a legitimate reason for questioning someone.
In the US there are already non-criminals who are on such a database - members of the armed services, for example. Despite the comments on my last posting I still can't see a reason for fearing a universal DNA database.
Let’s take the objections one at a time:
Perhaps the police should be able to randomly pluck people from the streets, and try to beat confessions out of them. Only the guilty need be afraid!
Arresting someone implicated by DNA evidence is not a random pick-up. Cops no longer beat up criminals – if they do they are sent to prison. They too are subject to video surveillance when interviewing suspects. Evidence obtained by tortue is of no value. DNA evidence often obviates the nee for a confession.
Perhaps the police could administer drugs to random pick-ups off the street.
Administering drugs to obtain cofessions is also outlawed.
Everyone should be under surviellance at all times. Every move, every action would be analyzed by the State for possible wrong-doing.
I don’t believe that anyone is envisioning anything like that. Why would they want to?
Here is an example of what it might be used for. A 9-yeasr old girl is missing from her home in Dewsbury for 48 hours. CCTV footage shows her leaving her school and heading north, but after that nothing. Was she abducted? Did she run away? More CCTV footage might have given an answer.
Perfect security and safety could exist if 1/4 of the population was engaged in monitoring everyone. (Even the watchers would be watched.)
Common sense dictates that no such police state necessarily follows from more CCTV cameras and a national DNA database.
What guarantees our freedom is not withholding technology from the law enforcement agencies, but a free press, an independent judiciary, a multi-party state and eternal vigilance.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Is my DNA safe with you?
Just as Britain has more CCTV cameras than anywhere else in the world it also has more DNA records than anywhere else. Perhaps coincidentally there are more people in prison than anywhere else in Europe.
A story in the Times today suggests that the European Court might order the destruction of 13% of those DNA records. Currently, the procedure is that anyone arrested for a criminal offence has his or her fingerprints and DNA taken and these remain on the database, whether or not the person is charged or convicted. Although someone inadvertently caught up in the investigation can petition the local chief constable to have his record eliminated, this is at the Chief's discretion. Obviously, there are cases where the police are convinced that someone is a criminal yet lack the evidence to obtain a conviction, and in these cases the Chief Constable could use his discretion to retain the DNA and fingerprint information.
I think that this raises questions over civil liberties that need to be teased out. The inadvertent loss of laptops and computer discs recently have raise the possibility that DNA data may not be secure. Currently, there is a BBC serial running which takes the Civil Liberties viewpoint and suggests that we are an over-observed and regulated society. In the serial a private sector firm that runs the database is clearly cast as the villain. We will have to see what happens in the long run, but if the BBC runs true to form we will be told that nationalized firms are good; private sector bad, that surveillance is bad and freedom from surveillance is good.
This needs to be set against the fact that this week two serial murderers were convicted by DNA evidence. Both committed sexually related crimes and in both cases the victims' families are calling for the death penalty. (This is a separate but related issue, since the most convincing argument against the death penalty is that you might execute the wrong man; something that is less likely to happen with DNA evidence). One of the killers was on the database because years ago he stole money from the till when he was working as a barman; a rather trivial offence for which he got community service, but his DNA would still have been there had his employer decided not to press charges after his arrest.
It is difficult to know why America isn’t making the running on this. Normally, America leads the world in technological advances. But of course there is a strong strand of individual freedom running through the American democracy. It is commendable that people should mind their own business. It used to be said that an Englishman’s home is his castle, but that applies especially in America, where there are extreme limits on how much the state can intrude on an individual’s space.
In discussions about freedom the question always arises of where freedom becomes license. A car sharing story illustrates this. Though rare in the UK, car-sharing lanes are relatively common in America as an attempt to beat snarl up. To share a car represents some inconvenience to the sharers but benefits the community by reducing the number of cars. To recompense those who make the sacrifice faster moving lanes of traffic have been devised which are barred to cars with single occupants. In an effort to claim the benefit without the sacrifice, drivers have put blow-up dolls, enlarged photographs or even disguised dogs in their passenger seats. Loughborough University has come up with the design of a camera that can see through these ruses. It is hoped that they will make a lot of money exporting these to the States. Respectable, middle-class people have a criminal heart too.
Should we object to this surveillance? There are obviously possible abuses of the power inherent in so much information, but we have a free press and the political process to guard against that. A DNA data base that apparently criminalizes a group of people who have never been convicted of a crime is obviously unfair, but why should there not be a universal DNA database? Only those with something to hide should object to it. There will be some who have paid their debt to society who have changed their name and started a new life who might object to being unmasked, but there would anyway be a data trail that could unmask them, and if only the government held the information in an encrypted form, it should be free from unwarranted prying. A lot of the scare stories owe more to the imagination of a science fiction writer than to real life.
What clinches it for me as a Christian is that we see ourselves as under universal surveillance at all times. And the sanction against us is far worse than a few years in prison.
A story in the Times today suggests that the European Court might order the destruction of 13% of those DNA records. Currently, the procedure is that anyone arrested for a criminal offence has his or her fingerprints and DNA taken and these remain on the database, whether or not the person is charged or convicted. Although someone inadvertently caught up in the investigation can petition the local chief constable to have his record eliminated, this is at the Chief's discretion. Obviously, there are cases where the police are convinced that someone is a criminal yet lack the evidence to obtain a conviction, and in these cases the Chief Constable could use his discretion to retain the DNA and fingerprint information.
I think that this raises questions over civil liberties that need to be teased out. The inadvertent loss of laptops and computer discs recently have raise the possibility that DNA data may not be secure. Currently, there is a BBC serial running which takes the Civil Liberties viewpoint and suggests that we are an over-observed and regulated society. In the serial a private sector firm that runs the database is clearly cast as the villain. We will have to see what happens in the long run, but if the BBC runs true to form we will be told that nationalized firms are good; private sector bad, that surveillance is bad and freedom from surveillance is good.
This needs to be set against the fact that this week two serial murderers were convicted by DNA evidence. Both committed sexually related crimes and in both cases the victims' families are calling for the death penalty. (This is a separate but related issue, since the most convincing argument against the death penalty is that you might execute the wrong man; something that is less likely to happen with DNA evidence). One of the killers was on the database because years ago he stole money from the till when he was working as a barman; a rather trivial offence for which he got community service, but his DNA would still have been there had his employer decided not to press charges after his arrest.
It is difficult to know why America isn’t making the running on this. Normally, America leads the world in technological advances. But of course there is a strong strand of individual freedom running through the American democracy. It is commendable that people should mind their own business. It used to be said that an Englishman’s home is his castle, but that applies especially in America, where there are extreme limits on how much the state can intrude on an individual’s space.
In discussions about freedom the question always arises of where freedom becomes license. A car sharing story illustrates this. Though rare in the UK, car-sharing lanes are relatively common in America as an attempt to beat snarl up. To share a car represents some inconvenience to the sharers but benefits the community by reducing the number of cars. To recompense those who make the sacrifice faster moving lanes of traffic have been devised which are barred to cars with single occupants. In an effort to claim the benefit without the sacrifice, drivers have put blow-up dolls, enlarged photographs or even disguised dogs in their passenger seats. Loughborough University has come up with the design of a camera that can see through these ruses. It is hoped that they will make a lot of money exporting these to the States. Respectable, middle-class people have a criminal heart too.
Should we object to this surveillance? There are obviously possible abuses of the power inherent in so much information, but we have a free press and the political process to guard against that. A DNA data base that apparently criminalizes a group of people who have never been convicted of a crime is obviously unfair, but why should there not be a universal DNA database? Only those with something to hide should object to it. There will be some who have paid their debt to society who have changed their name and started a new life who might object to being unmasked, but there would anyway be a data trail that could unmask them, and if only the government held the information in an encrypted form, it should be free from unwarranted prying. A lot of the scare stories owe more to the imagination of a science fiction writer than to real life.
What clinches it for me as a Christian is that we see ourselves as under universal surveillance at all times. And the sanction against us is far worse than a few years in prison.
Monday, February 18, 2008
A complete victory
It had been billed as the match of the season. The FA Cup is the oldest football competition in the world, and Saturday's draw had thrown together the two top teams in the country. Arsenal and Manchester United have been jockeying for position all season, with first one and then the other holding top spot. In fact for the past ten years it has been these two teams that have dominated football in England.
Manchester and London, north and south, working-class and middle-class; this was a match. The two managers, the fiery Scot, Sir Alex Ferguson and the cerebral French professor, Arsene Wenger, provided another contrast. Moreover, whereas most football in England is broadcast on pay-TV, this game was being shown by the BBC. All the nation would be watching.
Manchester United have won the cup 18 times and Arsenal 17. Manchester have a mix of youngsters and more experienced stars, including Giggs and Scholes from the golden generation of British footballers, as well as the brilliant youngsters, Rooney and Ronaldo. Arsenal seem to produce a stream of gifted, black, French stars and their young Spanish midfielder, Ces Fabregas, has dominated all season. But when the teams are announced there is disappointment. Both teams had omitted their chief goalscorer. No place for the mercurial Ronaldo or the huge Adebayor, but captain Giggs, schemer Scholes and stopper Hargreaves were all missing for United and Arsenal lacked both their first choice full backs as well as the emerging mid-fielder Flamini. Still at this time in the season injuries are to expected, and that is why the teams have large squads. No reason not to expect a well fought match.
In the event it was completely one-sided. Arsenal were humiliated. It was as though only one side had turned up. United were first to every ball. They won 4-0 and it could have been ten. In the second half Arsenal showed their nasty side and began to cheat. After the match Wenger blamed the state of the pitch as if it were worse for his side than for United.
In Mark 16:1-8 everybody seemed to have accepted defeat. Jesus, the hoped for Messiah, had died on the cross, defeated by the Roman occupier at the behest of the religious authorities, betrayed by one of his own followers, denied by his most ardent disciple and deserted by the rest.
The women knew where they had buried him, so while it was still dark they went to the tomb expecting to do a woman's duty; wash the body and anoint it with sweet smelling perfumes to disguise the stink of decomposition. They were in disarray. They were at a loss as to who would grant them access to the tomb. There was a huge stone (weighing as much as a ton) sealing it. And they knew nothing about the armed soldiers that Pilate had set to guard it. With a Micawber-like hope that something would turn up they approached the tomb.
When they got there depression turned to alarm. The stone had been rolled away, but instead of the body of Jesus, a young man in a white robe was there. This in itself must have been bewildering. Only priests wore white and priests were not young men - you had to be at least 30 years old to become one.
He is not here. He is risen! No wonder the women were trembling and bewildered. But why? Peter's mother-in-law had been miraculously healed by Jesus, the paralyzed man had taken up his bed and walked, the daughter of Jairus had been raised from the dead, blind Batimaeus had received his sight, Only the previous week Lazarus had been raised after being 4 days in the grave, and Jesus himself had declared to them "After I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee".
They had seen and heard who Jesus was and is, yet they had not believed the evidence of their eyes and ears.
The defeat had seemed so overwhelming, yet it was a victory. The Devil had thrown his worst at Jesus. The military had inflicted extreme violence on him. The civil authorities had vented their spite on him. The religious authorities had spewed their hatred upon him. Yet he walked free. Death could not hold him.
He was the lamb without blemish. He was without sin. No-one could lay a glove on him. No accusation would stick. The wages of sin is death, yet he had no sin to earn such a wage. Instead he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities and the punishment that was upon him brought us peace.
Had he a single sin, death could have claimed him and kept him. The daughter of Jairus, the widow of Nain's son and Lazarus all had to die a second time. Not so Jesus. His resurrection was of a different nature. He was raised eternally, It was a complete victory. He was raised to show that the price he paid was enough. Had he remained in the sepulcher we might have suggested that he died for our sins, but we would always wonder, "Was it enough?" His resurrection showed that it was complete. For all past sins and all sins to come, no more duty is due.
Go and tell his disciples and Peter, instructed the Angel (for such he was).
Trembling and bewildered the women fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone because they were afraid. And here ends story the according to Mark, what he called "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God".
Of course, we know what happened next from the other gospels. How Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene and she reported to Peter and John, how he appeared to the two on the road to Emmaus, on two occasions in the upper room, to the disciples by the lake, on the Mount of Olives and on one occasion to 500 at a time. But Mark leaves us there. The final verses in our modern Bibles are a later addition, not necessarily untrue, but not Mark.
Why did he stop there? Because the victory is Christ's alone, achieved despite our failures. We continually let him down. We desert him, deny him, betray him and even when we have seen a miracle are afraid to speak out. What is our excuse? The pitch was too muddy? We didn't have our best players out? The opposition was too strong?
We all like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Manchester and London, north and south, working-class and middle-class; this was a match. The two managers, the fiery Scot, Sir Alex Ferguson and the cerebral French professor, Arsene Wenger, provided another contrast. Moreover, whereas most football in England is broadcast on pay-TV, this game was being shown by the BBC. All the nation would be watching.
Manchester United have won the cup 18 times and Arsenal 17. Manchester have a mix of youngsters and more experienced stars, including Giggs and Scholes from the golden generation of British footballers, as well as the brilliant youngsters, Rooney and Ronaldo. Arsenal seem to produce a stream of gifted, black, French stars and their young Spanish midfielder, Ces Fabregas, has dominated all season. But when the teams are announced there is disappointment. Both teams had omitted their chief goalscorer. No place for the mercurial Ronaldo or the huge Adebayor, but captain Giggs, schemer Scholes and stopper Hargreaves were all missing for United and Arsenal lacked both their first choice full backs as well as the emerging mid-fielder Flamini. Still at this time in the season injuries are to expected, and that is why the teams have large squads. No reason not to expect a well fought match.
In the event it was completely one-sided. Arsenal were humiliated. It was as though only one side had turned up. United were first to every ball. They won 4-0 and it could have been ten. In the second half Arsenal showed their nasty side and began to cheat. After the match Wenger blamed the state of the pitch as if it were worse for his side than for United.
In Mark 16:1-8 everybody seemed to have accepted defeat. Jesus, the hoped for Messiah, had died on the cross, defeated by the Roman occupier at the behest of the religious authorities, betrayed by one of his own followers, denied by his most ardent disciple and deserted by the rest.
The women knew where they had buried him, so while it was still dark they went to the tomb expecting to do a woman's duty; wash the body and anoint it with sweet smelling perfumes to disguise the stink of decomposition. They were in disarray. They were at a loss as to who would grant them access to the tomb. There was a huge stone (weighing as much as a ton) sealing it. And they knew nothing about the armed soldiers that Pilate had set to guard it. With a Micawber-like hope that something would turn up they approached the tomb.
When they got there depression turned to alarm. The stone had been rolled away, but instead of the body of Jesus, a young man in a white robe was there. This in itself must have been bewildering. Only priests wore white and priests were not young men - you had to be at least 30 years old to become one.
He is not here. He is risen! No wonder the women were trembling and bewildered. But why? Peter's mother-in-law had been miraculously healed by Jesus, the paralyzed man had taken up his bed and walked, the daughter of Jairus had been raised from the dead, blind Batimaeus had received his sight, Only the previous week Lazarus had been raised after being 4 days in the grave, and Jesus himself had declared to them "After I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee".
They had seen and heard who Jesus was and is, yet they had not believed the evidence of their eyes and ears.
The defeat had seemed so overwhelming, yet it was a victory. The Devil had thrown his worst at Jesus. The military had inflicted extreme violence on him. The civil authorities had vented their spite on him. The religious authorities had spewed their hatred upon him. Yet he walked free. Death could not hold him.
He was the lamb without blemish. He was without sin. No-one could lay a glove on him. No accusation would stick. The wages of sin is death, yet he had no sin to earn such a wage. Instead he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities and the punishment that was upon him brought us peace.
Had he a single sin, death could have claimed him and kept him. The daughter of Jairus, the widow of Nain's son and Lazarus all had to die a second time. Not so Jesus. His resurrection was of a different nature. He was raised eternally, It was a complete victory. He was raised to show that the price he paid was enough. Had he remained in the sepulcher we might have suggested that he died for our sins, but we would always wonder, "Was it enough?" His resurrection showed that it was complete. For all past sins and all sins to come, no more duty is due.
Go and tell his disciples and Peter, instructed the Angel (for such he was).
Trembling and bewildered the women fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone because they were afraid. And here ends story the according to Mark, what he called "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God".
Of course, we know what happened next from the other gospels. How Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene and she reported to Peter and John, how he appeared to the two on the road to Emmaus, on two occasions in the upper room, to the disciples by the lake, on the Mount of Olives and on one occasion to 500 at a time. But Mark leaves us there. The final verses in our modern Bibles are a later addition, not necessarily untrue, but not Mark.
Why did he stop there? Because the victory is Christ's alone, achieved despite our failures. We continually let him down. We desert him, deny him, betray him and even when we have seen a miracle are afraid to speak out. What is our excuse? The pitch was too muddy? We didn't have our best players out? The opposition was too strong?
We all like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Bobi's girl.
Despite the internet, we get more and more paper delivered by post each day. Our post box, which was an original fitting built into our front porch 80 years ago, has become too small. So Diane and I decided to purchase a new one. We bought a Bobi, which is a steel box with a proper lock. Of course, it is too large to fit in the porch. We decided to fix it to the side of the house.
Here was our first difficulty. Our house is covered with a rendering with lots of bobbles in it, making a bobbly surface not flat enough to fix the Bobi to. Our first solution was to put felt washers in between the box and the wall. Finding felt washers that were thick enough to make a difference was hard, but eventually I found some that were designed to protect a hardwood floor from furniture feet, which seemed to fit the bill.
The second difficulty was in drilling through the steel box. I had to go out and find appropriately sized titanium drill bits. Our local hardware man was sure he had some somewhere and eventually we dug them out. Only £1 each, but the time it took finding them!
The third problem was in holding up the heavy box for long enough to mark the holes in the wall to match those we had drilled in the box. We solved this problem by building a plinth of bricks to rest the box on while we marked up.
We marked and drilled the holes in the wall, but then came the fourth problem. When we tried to screw through the box, the holes didn't match up and the felt washers weren't thick enough. We had to abandon this plan and think again.
The solution was obviously to attache some battens to the wall and then attach the Bobi to the battens. I looked in the garage loft, but here was the fifth problem: no wood of the right size. Off I go again to the hardware shop to buy a piece of wood. Again, easily solved at less than £1 though by now my petrol is probably running at nearer £5.
This time I fix the battens and the box and all seems well.
That was yesterday and today we have our first delivery. Not the postman, today is Sunday, but someone delivering leaflets by hand. I see the young woman go to the porch, pause, then walk round to the side of the house. As soon as she is gone I nip out with my key to see what she has delivered.
Can you believe it? It is a leaflet offering alternative health products. Full body holistic massage £30, hot stone massage £45, Indian head massage £25 and the one that really fascinates me, Hopi ear candles! 45 minutes for £25. I would want more than £25 to sit with a candle in my ear for 45 minutes.
Here was our first difficulty. Our house is covered with a rendering with lots of bobbles in it, making a bobbly surface not flat enough to fix the Bobi to. Our first solution was to put felt washers in between the box and the wall. Finding felt washers that were thick enough to make a difference was hard, but eventually I found some that were designed to protect a hardwood floor from furniture feet, which seemed to fit the bill.
The second difficulty was in drilling through the steel box. I had to go out and find appropriately sized titanium drill bits. Our local hardware man was sure he had some somewhere and eventually we dug them out. Only £1 each, but the time it took finding them!
The third problem was in holding up the heavy box for long enough to mark the holes in the wall to match those we had drilled in the box. We solved this problem by building a plinth of bricks to rest the box on while we marked up.
We marked and drilled the holes in the wall, but then came the fourth problem. When we tried to screw through the box, the holes didn't match up and the felt washers weren't thick enough. We had to abandon this plan and think again.
The solution was obviously to attache some battens to the wall and then attach the Bobi to the battens. I looked in the garage loft, but here was the fifth problem: no wood of the right size. Off I go again to the hardware shop to buy a piece of wood. Again, easily solved at less than £1 though by now my petrol is probably running at nearer £5.
This time I fix the battens and the box and all seems well.
That was yesterday and today we have our first delivery. Not the postman, today is Sunday, but someone delivering leaflets by hand. I see the young woman go to the porch, pause, then walk round to the side of the house. As soon as she is gone I nip out with my key to see what she has delivered.
Can you believe it? It is a leaflet offering alternative health products. Full body holistic massage £30, hot stone massage £45, Indian head massage £25 and the one that really fascinates me, Hopi ear candles! 45 minutes for £25. I would want more than £25 to sit with a candle in my ear for 45 minutes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)