Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

I'm still trying to decipher the from Hillary Clinton this week: "you can't tell how far a frog will jump until you punch him." Presumably, she has now lost the amphibian vote. Or perhaps, she thinks a bespoke Bushism might make her look more presidential.

In any case, the question many of us are asking is why Hillary is still in the race, when it seems obvious that Barack Obama will win his party's nomination. One less-than-generous theory is that Hillary is actually running for the 2012 nomination: she is calculating that Obama will win the nomination this time, and is destroying his chances of beating McCain so that she can return to challenge a one-term McCain presidency (who will be 76 years old at that point). A more generous explanation is that the game isn't over until the fat frog sings. The current issue of that leaves open the possibility that Hillary could still win the popular vote (though there are a lot of 'ifs' in that analysis). It is also certainly the case that any candidate can implode in the final stage of the nomination race: perhaps Hillary is hoping that a personal scandal (or Jeremiah Wright-type scandal) will arise to overwhelm the Obama bid.

Some also think Hillary is holding out for the 'dream ticket": an Obama-Clinton joint challenge to McCain. I am doubtful of that analysis. This has been a very dirty campaign, and there may already be too much water under the bridge for a dream ticket. If Obama wins the nomination, he will be looking for a vice-presidential running mate who reaches states and constituencies that he cannot reach (that is the principal criterion for the V-P position). That means southern states, the Bible Belt, and large stretches of conservative, white America. So let me make a prediction -- dangerous, I know -- and invite you to make your own predictions for Obama's running mate.

Obama should seriously consider of Virginia: he ticks all the right constituency boxes and brings both executive branch experience, as a former Secretary of Navy, foreign policy experience, and an impressive military record as a Vietnam war veteran. He is also a charismatic communicator, a bestselling novelist and screenwriter, and on some of the sensitive political issues that might concern some Obama voters. He is the obvious choice.

-- a meeting place of folk, country and bluegrass, though that really doesn't capture the sound produced by Stevie Scullion and Jonathan Toman. Both from Lurgan in county Armagh, they've have been playing music together since they met at university nearly ten years ago. I met them a few months ago after they performed live on The Alan Simpson Show, and I've been following their progress with interest ever since. Their first album is launched this weekend (on Saturday at 3pm at the QFT), but I've been listening to an advance copy on-and-off now for a couple of weeks. Mudd Wallace co-produces and co-arranges Stevie Scullion's original songs and the result is utterly beguiling. I love it.

Cat Malojian is also a stunningly well-chosen name for this sound -- even though, I freely confess, I don't know what it "means" (how un-Postmodern of me). The guys will be guesting on both McLean's Country and Stu Bailie's late show in June. Listen to the band .

Here's a fascinating proposal. The evolutionary anthropologist argues in a new paper that religious belief is a product of evolution. Nothing new there: a number of scientists have explained the rise of religion as an aid to the flourishing of social groups. But this proposal is different. Dow has developed computer software that predicts the rise of religious belief under evolutionary hypotheses. It's a complex proposal, and you may prefer to trust the New Scientist ; but some of Will & Testament's hardcore bloggers will wish to take a look at the .

"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. There was one problem. It was not true. I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the President himself."

So writes Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary, in What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception.

What, you may ask, was Mr McClellan doing within the culture of deception he describes? By participating in the deception, he acknowledges that he fell short of his responsibilities as a public servant. Indeed. He is now, as you might imagine, persona non grata in the White House. But some critics may wonder why it took a book deal for Mr McClellan to rediscover the integrity. Where is when you need him?

A major agreement on the has been agreed by more than 100 countries, including the UK and Ireland. That is good news for humanitarian aid organisations who have been calling for the ban on this weapon of mass destruction, but there is always a snag with agreements of this kind. First, the ban relates to current designs, which means that some countries could commission innovations that escape the terms of the new treaty. Second, a number of significant countries have opposed the ban, including the US, China and Russia. Many of the countries opposing this treaty were also opponents of the y.

A key test of the treaty: Will the UK require the US to remove cluster bomb munitions from its bases on British soil? I suspect the US will quietly change its attitude to cluster bombs even though it has refused to sign the new treaty. After all, the US refused to sign the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, but it has nevertheless chosen not to use land mines since the first Gulf War of 1991.

Today's Sunday Sequence included my extended interview with the former Irish President . We talked about the remarkable changes we have seen in Northern Ireland since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, the transformation of the moral landscape of Ireland during and since Dr Robinson's tenure as president, and the "bullying" she experienced from the Unites States in her subsequent role as .

I asked Mary Robinson if the great changes Ireland has undergone, north and south, in recent years mean that we have moved closer to a re-united Ireland. Perhaps significantly, given that she speaks as a former president, Dr Robinson said this constitutional question "isn't on the agenda" and "doesn't need to be on the agenda". In fact, she said, the notion of a united Ireland " isn't even relevant to the context of what is happening [here nw] ... There is no constituency of pressure for a united Ireland." She explained that when asked by Irish Americans, "Do you see the day?" she replies, "Not really."

You can listen again to this interview on the Sunday Sequence website.

Will you be picking up a "Right-to-Die" Card? It's the size of a credit card, fits neatly into your wallet, and enables you to give an advance directive to doctors that you wish to refuse certain treatments in the event that you become incapacitated. It will become available soon in various locations across Great Britain, including GPs' surgeries, public libraries and even shopping malls. The card will help to implement the provisions of the new Mental Capacity Act, which came into force in 2007. This Act enables adults to draw up "advance directives" specifying circumstances under which they wish to refuse further medical interventions. And, because of the new Act, doctors are legally obliged to abide by a patient's wish to refuse life-sustaining treatment.

All of which may look like a step forward for patient autonomy. Except, that is, if the patient happens to live in Northern Ireland. The new Act applies only to Great Britain. We'll be exploring the Act on Sunday and asking when, if ever, it is likely to apply to patients in Northern Ireland.

Here's an international perspective on our continuing local political debate about "double-jobbing" (having more than one paid political job at the same time). In Northern Ireland, the issue is whether MPs should also be MLAs or local councillors. In Thailand, it's a little different. The Prime Minister of Thailand has just agreed to step down from his second job -- .

The actor , famed for playing Star Trek's Mr Sulu (and, more recently, Kaito Nakamura in the hit series Heroes) Brad Altman, his partner of 21 years. The couple's announcement comes days after California's ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional -- an historic victory for . (Read the relevant case documents online ).

The state of Massachusetts already allows same-sex marriage, and a number of other states, including California, have introduced legislation to allow gay couples to register as civil partners. The California Supreme Court decision means that same-sex marriage will now be possible in two of the 50 states in the union.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton responded last week to the California decision -- with practically the same comment: "Barack Obama [insert Hillary Clinton] has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage."

We wait to see how John McCain will seek to capitalise on the California case in his bid for the presidency. He has previously spoken out against "activist judges"; and, on the face of it, this is precisely the kind of scenario that might well enrage him, since the seven judges of the California Supreme Court (in a 4-3 decision) have voted to overturn a ban on gay marriage that was approved by 61 percent of California voters. Judges would have me point out that they are not pollsters: their job is not to assess public opinion, but to interpret the law accurately and fairly.

California's summed up the basic moral commitment underlying his court's decision: "An individual's sexual orientation - like a person's race or gender - does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold rights." Are those the words of an "activist judge"?

I wonder what the man who appointed the Chief Justice to the bench would think: Ronald Reagan.

Three cabinet ministers voted yesterday to ban research on hybrid (human-animal) embryos: Des Browne, Ruth Kelly and Paul Murphy. All three are committed Catholics and have made their views known previously on what they see as an attack on the sanctity of the embryo. The Northern Ireland Secretary, Shaun Woodward, was one of three cabinet ministers who did not vote in the division (David Miliband and Hilary Benn were the others). Opponents of the new research .

The debate today in Parliament moves to the vexed issue of . At present, the legal limit for abortions is fixed at 24 weeks, the supposed point at which a foetus is said to be "viable". Viability is not simply a biologically determined point at which a child can survive removal from the uterus; it is also a technologically constrained point: with advances in medical technology, we are seeing more foetuses survive birth or removal from the uterus at earlier points. Some neo-natal specialists have reported survivals a week or two earlier than the current limit, and this has encouraged some anti-abortion campaigners to push for a lowering of the legal limit from 24 weeks to 20 weeks. The government is opposing an amendment to that effect (whilst granting a free vote on the issue), and I suspect that this vote will be much closer than yesterday's hybrid division.

, published earlier this month in the British Medical Journal, concludes that babies born at 24 and 25 weeks have greatly improved survival rates, but the survival rates of those born at 23 weeks or less have not risen. That kind of research will encourage many MPs to maintain the current 24 week limit, especially since doctors report that the 20 week scan is often very significant in identifying severe abnormalities. A reduction in the time limit to 20 weeks, as envisaged in today's amendment, would mean that a woman could not opt for a termination after discovering that the foetus she is carrying has a serious abnormality.

MPs last voted on cutting time limits in 1990, with the passage of the earlier Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act.

Incidentally, the same section of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill being debated today could also be amended to extend Great Britain's abortion law to Northern Ireland, but, as yet, no amendment to that effect has been tabled. The Lib Dem MP Dr Evan Harris has already indicated that he may bring such an amendment; we wait to see whether he will do so at this stage or later.

Here's a of the main issues in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill to be debated by Parliament today. Gordon Brown has already to the bill, which would permit the creation of controversial animal-human embryos for use in scientific research (see his article ). That research could lead to new treatments for conditions such as cancer, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease. Some have speculated that Mr Brown's personal situation may have moved him to that position: his youngest son Fraser has cystic fibrosis, a life-threatening inherited disease.

Abortion is only legal in Northern Ireland if the life or the mental or physical health of the woman is at "serious risk". This prohibitive legal stance explains why more than fifteen hundred women from Northern Ireland travel to Great Britain each year to secure an abortion in private clinics. Though they may meet the criteria for a legal abortion under the , they are ineligible for treatment in NHS hospitals because they reside in Northern Ireland. Many of the women borrow money to pay the £600 (or so) fee for the termination procedure.

On today's programme, we debated the case for a extension of the 1967 Act to Northern Ireland with Mark Durkan MP, leader of the SDLP, Dawn Purvis MLA, leader of the PUP, Dr Rozelle Ward, a GP and member of the , John Larkin QC, and the Reverend Nigel Playfair. Dawn outlined the to Northern Ireland, while Mark opposed such a liberalisation to our laws. Nigel developed a theological case for permitting abortions under certain circumstances. Rozelle explained why she opposes a change in the law. And John Larkin engaged the pro-choice perspective with a spirited legal and moral argument. We also heard from Lord Steele, who, as David Steele MP, was the driving force behind the 1967 Act.

Our debate was prompted by the continuing passage through Parliament of the Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill, which amended the 1967 Act, and which could itself be amended to extend that Act to Northern Ireland.

Some questions for you to debate:

(1) Should the Westminster Parliament extent the 1967 Act to NI before any devolution of criminal justice takes place (which would put the matter into the hands of the Assembly) and resist any extension and permit Northern Irish legislators to decide the matter at a future date the Assembly.

(2) If the Act is not extended to NI, should the NHS change its policy so that women from NI can have abortions in GB without having to find the money for a private clinic?

(3) It is probably more likely that Westminster will leave this sensitive matter to a future date when criminal justice powers are devolved to the NI Assembly. In this scenario, it would fall to the Assembly to determine the circumstances under which an abortion could be carried out in Northern Ireland. Which circumstances, if any, would you include in any new, permissive legislation?

I haven't blogged for a couple of days, but that hasn't stopped my regular bloggers continue to debate the relative merits of papal Latin and biblical Hebrew. While you've been fighting over creationism here, I've been in Manchester chairing the annual conference of the d (whose crisp new logo, I discovered, is the work of a Northern Irish design company). Dame Liz Forgan, the former Managing Director of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Radio, is about to step down from her role as chair of the HLF's board of trustees; and is about to be replaced in that job by Jenny Abramsky, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's current Director of Audio and Music (which makes her, incidentally, the corporation's most senior female manager). From the vantage point of the Compass Room in , we had a perfect view of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's new media village, currently under construction.

One of the case studies featured at the HLF conference was the Hollywell Trust's initiative. This project has received quite a bit of e already -- locally and internationally -- but if you aren't aware of it, I recommend taking a look at the project website. The Diamond War Memorial incorporates the names of 756 people who gave their lives in the First World War, and this project is engaged in ongoing research into the stories behind those names. It has also managed to bring nationalists and unionists -- and, though the terms are not co-extensive, Catholics and Protestants -- together in a recognition that this memorial need not be seen as a symbol of division in Derry since the names it enshrines represent bereaved families from every section of the local community. It's a wonderful example of what engaged local people can do to uncover significant episodes of shared history that might -- might -- change our perspective on each other today.

The Vatican has launched . In . Pope Benedict may be the world's greatest advocate of Latin; he has already encouraged the greater use of the Latin Mass. If you are a budding Latinist, you might want to download the , the pope's official Latinist, where the American Carmelite priest makes a valiant effort to make Latin the world's lingua franca.

This could well be called Creation Weekend on Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Radio Ulster. In the Beginning, our dramatic serialisation of the book of Genesis begins this Sunday at 4.30 pm on Radio Ulster. We'll also be debating the moral and literary legacy of the book of Genesis on Sunday Sequence, just after the news at 9.00 a.m., with Baptist theologian Maurice Dowling, the academic Leon Litvack, who's also our regular guide to Jewish affairs, the Christian feminist writer Christina Reece, and Robert Stovold from the National Secular Society. How has the book of Genesis influenced the way we write and speak today? How have the values of this ancient book shaped our legal systems and moral codes? And can the book of Genesis be rescued from the claim that it is a manifesto for misogyny, racism, slavery, homophobia and genocide? Some complex questions to be explored this Sunday morning.

To complete a decidedly biblical weekend, I'll be making a visit to the conference at the Waterfriont Hall in Belfast to meet Ken Ham, the world's most famous Creationist.

Here's the official blurb for the launch of our serialisation of the book:

""In The Beginning" - three deceptively simple words, and perhaps the most famous opening to any book ever written. The book of Genesis has been read by more people, and translated into more languages than any other text in the history of writing." So states William Crawley who, in this unique new series for Radio Ulster, tempts us as surely as that infamous serpent once did, to tune in and try to get to grips with the meaning behind the stories and the people behind the names we think we know so well.

Over eight half hour episodes we learn of the creation of the earth and its creatures and of mankind itself. The fateful mistake in the Garden of Eden, Cain and Abel, the building of Noah's Ark, the goings on in Sodom and Gomorrah, the plight of Babel, the test of faith placed upon Abraham. Isaac, Jacob, Methuselah and Joseph are all there.

This is not a dry regurgitation of the biblical stories and characters we think we know. Crucially William Crawley issues a warning - "What you are about to hear is extremely adult material. This is one of the most dangerous books ever written."

Stunning, specially composed music from Graeme Stewart provides a subtle, filmic soundtrack to the melliforous voice of Jim Norton who narrates Genesis - a voice which lends clarity and meaning to the archaic and poetic words of the King James' translation of the Bible. This may change how you hear the voice of God in your mind's ear forever ...

In The Beginning starts at 4.30pm on Sunday, 11th May on Radio Ulster. The producer is John Simpson.

On today's Talk Back, we debated the economics of kidney transplantation. An that the law in his country should be changed to permit people to sell one of their kidneys. This has triggered outrage in some quarters and a slew of international news articles. Professor Nadey Hakim, a specialist in transplant surgery at London's Hammersmith Hospital, joined me on the programme to defend the proposal. Dr Melissa McCullough, a medical ethics lecturer at Queen's University, argued that the idea was unethical. But is it such an unethical idea? Some key undisputed facts:

1. There is a severe shortage of kidney donors in the UK, which results in thousands of people dying for want of a kidney transplant each year.

2. A kidney donor can survive perfectly well on their single remaining kidney.

3. Donating a kidney poses no significant threat to the life of the donor.

4. Some kind of financial inducement could persuade more people to donate kidneys than at present.

Piece those statements together and they do present a prima facie case for changing the law to permit financial inducements. Professor Hakim doesn't believe a cheque for £24,000 is the only way to encourage donations. We could, for example, give people tax credits if they agree to become donors after they die; or provide medical insurance to those who become donors while alive (though this is more likely to work in the United States).

What do you think? Should the law be changed to permit the use of financial inducements to increase the supply of kidney donations -- either from live subjects or posthumously?

Now released from the : a tale of wartime intrigue and personal enmity in a quiet English parish. The story of the Church of England vicar denounced by his own congregation as a fascist and a friend of Hitler. Did the Reverend really preach a pro-Hitler sermon from his pulpit? Did he try to persuade the children of the village that the Fürher was one of the greatest men who ever lived? And did he harbour not one but two Gestapo agents?

Alas, for fans of wartime thrillers, it seems that the whole thing turned out to be a storm(trooper) in a teacup. Another vicar -- who was a former friend of Mr Tibbs -- appears to have suffered from a form of vindictive gabbiness. But what about this for a reference from the vicar's bishop at the time: "Mr Tibbs is, in my opinion, a foolish, slippery-tongued fellow, but a harmless one."

The Englishman is , now Lord Owen, former Foreign Secretary and co-founder of the Social Democrats. The Scotsman is James Kelman, widely regarded as one of today's most influential writers. The Irishman is Bernard O'Donoghue, an Oxford don from north Cork originally and an accomplished poet in his own right. I spent most of yesterday morning interviewing all three -- separately, I hasten to add -- about their new books.

David Owen, who worked as a medical doctor before entering politics as a Labour MP in 1966, has published a new book examining the physical and mental health of heads of government over the past century. It's a fascinating study, which reveals frightening details particularly of the mental health issues facing some of the century's political leaders. James Kelman's new novel -- Keiron Smith, boy -- is a literary exploration of language and culture through the mind, and voice, of a working class teenager growing up in post-war Glasgow. It is a masterful and compellingly original work of art. And Bernard O'Donoghue's newly minted Selected Poems will, I think, go a long way to bringing him the reputation he rightly deserves as one of our finest lyrical poets.

You can hear all three interviews in the upcoming series of The Book Programme. I won't give too much away here, but Lord Owen outlined his controversial "Hubris Syndrome" theory in the interview. He contends that some politicians (though the condition is not limited to politicians) have developed, in various degrees, a collection of symptoms suggestive of a heightening of self to the exclusion of others and their perspectives. He thinks Lloyd George suffered from hubris syndrome, as did Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, in the latter periods of their tenure. George Bush is another candidate -- though we could probably have spent the entire interview talking about President Bush's issues. I wondered if hubris syndrome is not present in the lives of all politicians -- it may even be the drive behind a particular politician's decision to enter politics. Dr Owen wouldn't rule that out but maintains that the condition is only a serious problem in extreme cases when it impacts negatively upon an individual's performance. The second Iraq War is a case in point: two heads of government, Tony Blair and George Bush, united by a common mental health challenge: pathological hubris.

Hubris syndrome has not, as yet, been recognised by the medical or psychiatric establishments. It would explain a lot though, wouldn't it?

'I think he will have to answer to God about that. I believe [Rowan Williams's] unwillingness to confront [the Nigerian primate] Peter Akinola and others like him who've made statements that I think any reasonable person would find over the edge - I believe God is very disappointed in that.' Bishop the Archbishop of Canterbury for his unwillingness to stand up to the Nigerian primate. Archbishop Peter Akinola's well-known homophobic utterances extend to describing gay people as 'lower than beasts.'

Bishop Robinson was speaking in a Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú HARDtalk interview broadcast yesterday. Read a summary of the interview , and watch the interview . I was scheduled to interview the bishop yesterday myself, but at the last minute he cancelled due to illness. The picture was taken in 2006 when I last interviewed Bishop Robinson. We're standing in the library of the bishop's alma mater, General Theological Seminary in New York City.

Gene Robinson is currently visiting the UK to publicise his , In the Eye of the Storm (see review and serialisation ).

Gene Robinson will enter into a civil partnership with his partner in June, a month before the next Lambeth Conference. He has explained that his decision to enter into a legal partnership was prompted by concerns for his own security and a desire to provide for his partner in the event of an attack. On the advice of the FBI, the bishop wore body armour under his vestments when he was consecrated in 2003.

The leaders of Ireland's four larger churches have inadvertently become an international news story. The Catholic and Anglican primates, along with with Presbyterian moderator and Methodist president, are currently . But when they tried to make an unscheduled visit to the famous Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, they were asked to leave. A local Jewish settler apparently took offense at the crosses some of the churchmen were wearing. The Israeli government was embarrassed enough by the incident to offer an apology to the visiting church leaders, who return to Ireland on Saturday.

(Picture: Cardinal Séan Brady, Archbishop Alan Harper, Rev John Finlay and Rev Roy Cooper visit the controversial .)

Barack Obama has now dissociated himself from Dr Jeremiah Wright, his former pastor, after Dr Wright's most recent public appearance, a . Senator Obama said, 'Obviously whatever relationship I have had with the Rev Wright has changed. I don't think he showed much concern for me or what we are trying to do with this campaign or for the American people.' The impact of the Jeremiah Wright affair on Obama's bid for the Democratic nomination is difficult to assess at this point, but it could still prove fatal. If Obama's former pastor scuttles his chances of becoming the Unites States' first black president, it would be a tragedy of Greek proportions. Needless to day, Hillary Clinton has been making hay -- she has even appeared on the right-wing , on Fox News, to say, repeatedly, that she would not have remained in any church pastored by Jeremiah Wright (in other words, either Obama's judgment is suspect or he secretly agrees with Jeremiah Wright).

Jeremiah Wright claims that attacks on his sermons are in fact attacks on the black church. I've no doubt that many white Americans are struggling to understand the theology and practice of black Christianity. But I am equally sure that many are simply outraged at Dr Wright's claims that America was to blame for the 9/11 attacks, his praise for the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who is regarded by many as an anti-Semite, and his bizarre allegation that the US government created the Aids virus in order to infect black people.

Here's a primer on Jeremiah Wright and black theology:

TIME of Jeremiah Wright.

Wright interviewed by .

Wright addresses b.

A journalistic visit to .

James Cone, a leading black theologian, .