Remove the Spleen!

What is it with scriptwriters?

Whenever someone needs a serious sounding injury in a soap opera or drama... they always opt for the same one... the poor old spleen:

What is so special about it... and why does it receive such abuse in the world of film and far more often in television?

Spleen: a highly vascular ductless abdominal organ of vertebrates that resembles a gland in organization but is closely associated with the circulatory system, that plays a role in the final destruction of red blood cells, filtration and storage of blood, and production of lymphocytes, and that in humans is a dark purplish flattened oblong object of a soft fragile consistency lying near the cardiac end of the stomach and consisting largely of blood and lymphoid tissue enclosed in a fibroelastic capsule from which trabeculae ramify through the tissue of the organ which is divisible into a loose friable red pulp in intimate connection with the blood supply and with red blood cells free in its interstices and a denser white pulp chiefly of lymphoid tissue condensed in masses about the small arteries.

Apparently the lack of a spleen can make people vulnerable to certain infections like septicemia. This is all very interesting but all the same... why is this organ so readily butchered by writers?

During my student days it was a source of constant mirth. It even became a bit of a game... the winner was the person who could quote the most programmes that had featured splenectomies in their plots.... a bit like counting Christian fish symbols on cars... or seeing how many nice ladies wave back at you when you wave at them.

My guess is that spleens are organs of some significance (but not completely vital), that are probably also kind of vague for mainstream audiences to truly understand. If you removed the appendix... no one would care.... it lacks gravitas. Therefore when a spleen is removed... the audience can be lulled into thinking the injured character's situation may be graver than it actually is.

I'd be intrigued to know other peoples thoughts on this utterly random subject.

If you want to read up on the spleen, you can follow this link to the wiki entry.

Finally as an act of defence for the humble spleen, I am going to quote the apostle Paul:

"On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it."

1 Corinthians 12:22-26

Footprints

I've been thinking a lot about my "online footprint" in recent days.

A proportion of the British press have expressed concern over Google's future plans, most significantly the Independent, which carried this worrying story on it's front page this week. When I think of all the different sites that I am registered with, all the online groups that I am part of... even under a plethora of pseudonyms, I realise that I have a fairly significant presence. I'd argue that among the people I know closely... none of them is as established on the Internet as myself. I'm not boasting... it is not about any delusions of "celebrity", it's just that I have been much more thorough in exploring the cyber neighbourhood than they have. That is the trouble with being an extrovert trapped in an introvert's body.... you grow rather fond of armchair expeditions.

An example of how worryingly accurate Google's algorithms can be arrived in my statistics page this week. Half a world away from Nick's Sanctuary, I regularly visit a bulletin board under a pseudonym of one of the knights of the round table - Galahad. Now another description of a sanctuary can be "safe haven". The other day, Google directed somebody to my blog simply on the search term "Galahad's safe haven". I performed a search on Technorati and a cached Google advanced search, specific to the url for Nick's Sanctuary. Guess what? I don't refer to Galahad at all... Google knows me well enough by association... the same is true of other handles I travel under - scary.

Google's chief executive has revealed the following corporate vision:

"The goal is to enable Google users to be able to ask the question such as 'What shall I do tomorrow?' and 'What job shall I take?'."

It is bad enough having a "nanny state" without having to worry about a "nanny site". The Independent has also pointed out that Google has bought up a genetic research firm - 23andMe and is also bidding for DoubleClick - a cookie web tracking software company. It does all sound rather worrying.

However I didn't just want to look at potential corporate Orwellian threats... I wanted to make people think seriously about their blog content, particularly fellow Christians.

Footprints are funny things... you can walk along a shoreline and leave a set of hundreds of personal impressions in the sand, knowing that when the tide comes in... they will all be long gone. Yet there are places on this planet, where footprints endure long beyond the time they were created - in the form of fossils.

The question I wanted to ask is this: when you leave your marks on the web, which ones will remain? Which articles are going to be the ones that people remember and actually have an effect on others... and which ones will simply wash away with time and tide?

You may never know. So I encourage you all to write from the heart, the things that really matter... the more important things you write down... the better chance that your better qualities will be preserved - set in stone.

For Christians this idea carries extra depth. I spoke about former US president Jimmy Carter the other day... in my research I stumbled upon a question that had been a key motivator in his early development:

"If you were arrested for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?"

It has become a cliche... but the truth behind it remains all the same.

Now I want you to think about the famous poem "Footprints" - the story of a man walking with Jesus along the beach who at times of hardship and stress, discovers that one set disappears. Jesus points out at the end of the journey, that in those times... he carried the man on his shoulders.

The question I want to challenge myself and any other Christian reading is... of all the experiences I/we write about... do people see two sets of footprints (those of Jesus as well as our own), in our blogs? Also, do we have the conviction to write about the hard times in such a manner that people can see Jesus carrying us through our difficulties?

I'm not talking necessarily about content here... but attitude. There are many Godcentric blogs that make me wretch - one or two even have the bare faced cheek to claim to be speaking as Jesus in the first person in terms of spirituality and also political endorsement. They seriously need a reality check.... they come across like the "super apostles" who Paul had a problem with.

When I visit a blog, especially a Christian blog... I am less worried about the subject matter and more interested in seeing how the personality of the author comes across - and where applicable, how their relationship with God is conveyed in their style of writing.

When I write, I want people to know I'm totally on the record..., yes I want them to see God... but I also want them to know I'm a genuine human being too... I want to relate to others. I want to walk among them not upon them.

Isn't that what you want?

Blog Snobbery

I've been noting with interest the rise, fall and apparent demise of the experiment that was 2000 Bloggers.

The short story version of it was that a bloke called Tino decided to take a snapshot of the blogosphere, a sort of first come, first serve scrapbook. The fundamental idea of his project was to showcase 2,000 blogs - warts and all. The more established great and the good, alongside the humble offerings of novices... the interesting eye catching blogs, alongside the mundane everyday ones.

Unsurprisingly perhaps, this began to throw the link valuing system into a little bit of chaos, causing less established blogs to gain ground on the big guns.

I can understand how this can sometimes be a bad thing, the people who would be most likely to look for these sort of projects and exploit them, would be entrepreneurs, viral marketeers and corporate bloggers... and we all know how tedious and annoying those blogs often are (when I use traffic exchange programmes I always filter out business and marketing blogs).

However, I've noticed in the comments of some of the detractors, an air of snobbery and ego. They fear that an increase in ranking terms for the lowest common denominator will damage their readership and will dilute the purity of the blogosphere. In effect what they are saying is "You can't come up here! You aren't good enough, aren't professional enough, aren't intelligent, humorous or insightful enough to join us in the ranks of the elite!"

It's hokum. Worse than that it's a form of electronic fascism. This is not the Roman Empire, we are not divided into patricians and plebeians. We are together, an online example of global diversity.

Don't misunderstand me, there are some wonderful blogs out there... important ones too. Blogs that expose the political machinations of corrupt governments, blogs that seek to expand human understanding between different cultures... and many of these are wonderfully researched.

When it comes to my blog, I have no delusions of global takeover. My hope is that over time, people will be touched by the things that I write about. I don't care if I'm of the moment or on message with the topics of the day, that's nice... but it's just a bonus. What really matters to me is if somebody finds my blog on a search engine in a decade and is touched by something I wrote say... last year, then as far as I'm concerned I've done my job. All I seek to do is pass on what I have learned, or share joy and pain in equal measure... in the hope that future readers may know that they are not alone.

I believe that blogs should be allowed to stand and fall by the quality of their content and not by their reputation or press. If that means that a new kid on the block starts making inroads into the readership of the heavy hitters, simply because they get lucky with a few links and establish themselves, so be it. This happens all the time in nature, the dominant male of many species community groups eventually gets toppled by some upstart, it is the way of things. Similarly how can the saplings in a rain forest grow, if the big trees don't fall down every now and then, leaving a gap in the canopy?

I'm not completely against protectionism with regard to the blogosphere, I just feel it should be like the Galapagos Islands. We protect it from the outside interference of those who are intent on changing it's nature... but when it comes to the natural development of what people blog about and who sets the agenda, let the people decide. If they see something of note, then they will comment on it, link to it and spread the word.

Have faith in the fellowship of bloggers.