I didn’t hate it, but I didn’t exactly love it either, although I was greatly moved by the reuniting of lost loves with their shared memories. That was a masterful payoff for the viewers who have been so heavily invested in the lives of those who inhibited the mysterious island for the last six years.

But, in the end, I feel that the “sideways time line as purgatory” reveal was a bit of a cop out. Indeed, one can imagine concluding any number of shows the same way—a bunch of characters meeting up in the afterlife and chewing the fat over old times and shared experiences before “moving on” to their final destination. Thus, while the ending allowed for the main cast of characters to attain ultimate closure, it felt completely detached from the events that were rapidly rushing to a conclusion on the island-based half of the show.

Indeed, I felt that the emotional power of the afterlife time line (to call it what it is) overwhelmed the rest of the show, making the final battle, the final flight, and the final sacrifice all seem rather perfunctory. It certainly made it hard to appreciate the depth of Jack’s sacrifice when you have already seen him being joyously embraced by the ones he cared for. The desperate battle for survival and the constant struggle to do the right thing that made up life on the island was overshadowed by the final group orgasm of happy reunions, and that’s a shame.

And, as many other reviewers have already pointed out, we didn’t get any closure at all relating to the true nature and origin of the island. I am a great fan of ambiguous endings. There is nothing worse than a show that tries to spoon-feed its viewers a happy ending where all the threads are tied up in a neat little bow. But, come on guys, you could have given us something! I guess, given that one of the central conceits of the show was the blatant and incessant non-answering of questions revolving around the central mystery of the island, we should have expected something like this, but it’s still deeply unsatisfying all the same. It certainly leads to the suspicion that the writers really could not figure out a decent back story for the island and decided to take the easy way out.

All in all, I think it’s disappointing that they didn’t try harder to tie the ultimate ending in with the history, nature, and fate of the island. And there was at least one way they could have done that without losing the power of those moments of joint recollection.

The show had already established the power of the island to influence and alter the course of people’s lives, no matter where or when they lived. We saw how Jacob harnessed that power in a life-long effort to draw suitable candidates for his replacement to the island. So, why not have Hurley—as the new “number one’—make use of that vast power to bring about a happy ending for his friends? The alternative time line could be exactly that, an alternative reality—a parallel Earth—in which the Oceanic flight 815 did not crash, but one that Hurley can use power of the island to influence. 

The alternative-reality characters would still be the flawed, purposeless losers that Jacob had sought out, but instead of being transformed by living on the island, Hurley could have “rescued” them by using the island’s power to transfer the memories of their parallel selves into their minds. Thus their lives would be transformed for the better as their shared memories awoke, and their fate would remain coupled with the events as they had played out on the island. It is certainly something a character like Hurley would have done given the chance as protector and guardian of the island.

As a footnote, in a bizarre coincidence, “Lost” was not the only major drama on TV to conclude this weekend by revealing that the show was, at least in part, set in a kind of afterlife purgatory. The BBC drama “Ashes to Ashes,” along with it’s prequel “Life On Mars” concluded a five year arc Friday night with the revelation that all the characters in the show are dead too, and living out their daily lives in a kind of policeman’s version of purgatory, where they can work out their issues in preparation for moving on to their final destination. The ending does make more sense for the British pair of show, because the two stars involved were victims of serious head trauma and were assumed to be hovering between life and death, but it’s still a fascinating coincidence that two completely unrelated teams of writers should have plumped for exactly the same final conclusion of their show several years before they ended on the same weekend.

But then a new radio station hit the airwaves here in Austin, Texas. Relevant Radio came to town, and it turned out to be every bit as rabidly right-wing as the other Christian radio stations. But it was an interesting change from the usual religious fare on local radio, and I still tune in once in a while, when I am driving around town.

One thing that I quickly noticed is how steeped in superstition Catholic conservatives are. While fundamentalists can be just as credulous when it comes to things like demons, evil spirits, and witchcraft (hence the pogrom against poor old Harry Potter), they tend to stop short of integrating specific superstitions into their religious doctrine. Catholics, on the other hand, are quite comfortable doing it, with the cult they have built up surrounding Mary being the prime example, to the point of claiming that she was “immaculately conceived.”  There is no end to the number of apparitions, divine miracles and interventions attributed to her over the years.

Just the other day I was listening to a priest responding to a question about guardian angels, another superstition they have wrapped into official dogma of the Catholic church. A listener had asked whether it was just believers who had a guardian angel watching over them, or everybody. The priest obviously took this question very seriously, because he had taken the time to look up all kinds of Catholic texts to find the answer. And it was clear from the two or three examples he quoted that the correct answer, according to Catholic dogma anyway, was that only believers have guardian angels.

What’s amusing is that he didn’t accept that answer.  Even though the texts he found were quite categorical in their assertions that guardian angels only watch over believers, he seemed to sense that this would not go down too well with those Catholics who have loved ones who don’t share their faith. After all, what loving mother likes the idea of having a personal guardian angel watching over them if her rebellious teenage child is denied the same protection. So, 1000 years of Catholic teaching be damned, the priest’s final answer was that all people must have guardian angels watching over them.

So, it is true what they say about religion. If you don’t like the answer you get, you’re free to make up another one more to your liking.

He concluded the segment by telling the story of how a friend had once fallen 30ft off a ladder—a fall that should have killed him, supposedly, but he had only suffered a couple of broken bones and some bruising. Because he survived, he concluded that his guardian angel must have cushioned his fall (perhaps breaking a couple of wings in the process?) The only thought that went through my mind was the incompetence of the guardian angel. It would have been far easier to prevent his friend from slipping off the ladder in the first place—perhaps by placing a holy finger on his back to steady him, or by adjusting the position of his feet so they didn’t slip off the rung. If I was God, I would have fired that angel for gross negligence!

But that’s the problem with integrating this type of superstitious nonsense into religion. The more specific you get, the easier it is (or should be) for people to see how silly it all is. It’s one thing to attribute your miraculous survival to providence, or Providence, as in God’s will, (it wasn’t your time to die) but it’s quite another to imagine that there is some invisible friend and protector lurking around you at all times, and yet isn’t quite able to do his job properly when the time comes to take action.

Of course, the truth is that whether or not you survive a 30ft fall is down to dumb luck—how you fall and what you land on. You aren’t likely to survive a 30ft fall, but at least one in ten people do, so it is not unheard of, and there is certainly no need to attribute your survival to anything supernatural.

I am not alone in noticing this paradox.  As Christopher Hitchens says, at the beginning of chapter six of his book “God Is Not Great,”

There is a central paradox at the core of religion. The three great monotheisms teach people to think abjectly of themselves, as miserable and guilty sinners prostrate before an angry and jealous god who, according to discrepant accounts, fashioned them either out of dust and clay or a clot of blood. [...] On the other hand, and as if by way of compensation, religion teaches people to be extremely self-centered and conceited. It assures them that god cares for them individually, and it claims that the cosmos was created with them specifically in mind.

Of course, religion’s paradoxical view of humankind’s position in the universe is extremely useful to its adherents. It allows them to assume the aura of extreme abasement and modesty when claiming to be doing things in “God’s name,” while simultaneously allowing them to attack naturalism and atheism as concepts which reduce human beings to nothing better than unthinking farmyard animals.

Since, as unsaved human beings, non-Christians are supposedly deserving to a fate far worse than the one the lowliest of farmyard animals will suffer, it’s hard no to laugh when non-believers are attacked in this manner. I guess using their twisted logic, a special place in Hell is a step up in importance from simple oblivion… somehow.

I am at somewhat of a disadvantage since I’m a hunter and pecker, not a touch-typist, but I can still win the odd 4×4 round when the word count is low (and the real pros aren’t racking up massive totals). As for 5×5, well, if I get on the first page of the scoreboard I am doing well!

One of the interesting aspects of the site is the number of people who use their screen name (which can be changed at any time) to make a political statement. Hence you get the Obama supporters, and the Obama haters, and a fair number of people proclaiming “Jesus Loves You”, “Jesus Is Lord”, or “U Have a Friend In Jesus” and so on. I must admit that occasionally they would prompt me to change my screen name to something like “Jesus, Your Imaginary Friend” — a little petty I know, but it used to irritate me that they would pester the rest of us with their proselytizing when all we want to do is play Boggle for a few minutes. In the end I just used the screen name “Above Us Only Sky” and left it at that.

Another cool aspect of the site is that you can form teams with other players—particularly fun if you’re not one a regular high scorer. Since I started playing the 5×5 board, I have noticed that it’s the religious teams that get the most traction, followed by the usual pro/anti-Obama teams. Thus you will almost always see a “Team JesusIssovereign” (of course it’s got to be more explicit than “Team Christian”), a “Team Atheist,” a “Team Jewish,” and even a “Team Catholic.” Thus the religious divide that exists in society reaches even into Boggleland! The one notable exception is the regular “Team Pirates, Aarrgh!” because you can never have too many pirates playing Boggle.

While I don’t doubt the commercial’s ability to tug at the heartstrings, when you actually analyze what they are saying, it doesn’t really make a terribly good or even honest argument against abortion.

First of all, they claim that 25% of all pregnancies in America end in abortion. That is simply untrue. There are 25 abortions per 100 live births in America, meaning that one in five pregnancies end in abortion, which is only 20%. Now you may argue that 20% is still far too many, but twisting a simple fact like that does not reflect well on the integrity of the anti-abortion activists who put together the ad.

Second, the ad makes the assumption that an abortion rate of 25% means that there will be 25% fewer children growing up in America in the future. That is also a dishonest assertion. The abortion statistics are clear:

• Over 50% of women who have abortions are younger than 25 years old,
• Nearly half of all women having an abortion have not already started a family,
• Almost 80% of women having an abortion earn $10,000/year or less.

Essentially, what this tells us that at least half of all women are having abortions because they are not ready to start a family yet—because they are still in school, or are simply not ready to settle down yet, or are not financially secure enough to start raising a family.

Thus it’s only reasonable to assume that many of these women will indeed go on to start families and have children later, and are likely to end up with the same number of children in total, whether or not they had an abortion first. Indeed, young women who are not struggling to make ends meet while trying to raise a child alone are likely more able to devote more time and effort in attaining a stable long-term relationship, and so it could well be that those who do have abortions end up with slightly more children, on average, than young single mothers.

I can’t find any studies that look into these numbers, but I believe it’s pretty safe to assume that the “net loss” of number of children to America through abortion is far less than the 25% claimed in the ad — perhaps lower than 15% or even 10%.  It is certainly true that there are millions of children alive today only because their mothers did have an abortion before they were born.

Finally, while we all like to believe our children will grow up to be the next great American success story, in reality, there’s just as much chance that they will be one of the nation’s great failures. For every child that grows up to be President, there are hundreds more who grow up to be murderers, muggers, and rapists. And given that the majority of women who have abortions are at or below the poverty line, the sad truth is that there is even less chance that had those children been born, they would have grown up to be the cream of the next generation. So, even though abortion may have denied America of some future heroes, it is equally true—and probably even more so—that abortion has saved America from a great number of future criminals and villains.

Of course, none of this is likely to sway the ardent anti-abortionist, who is just as likely to use thoroughly discredited arguments against abortion—like the non-existent link between abortion and breast cancer—but I think it’s always worth pointing out their half-truths and lies wherever you find them. If abortion was such a terrible blight on society then there would be no need to stoop to these dishonest tactics.

So why have I never discovered an author whose books just keep getting better and better?

I mean, if these amateur scribblers find it so easy to improve their craft book after book after book, then why do the professionals have so much trouble?

Stephen Baldwin of the famous “Baldwin Brothers” Hollywood clan is a veteran actor who has starred in over 60 films and TV shows. He is no stranger to the Hollywood life of glitz, glamour and the public eye.

In 2003, he had an experience that changed his life forever. He became Born Again Christian, giving his life to Jesus Christ. Over the next few years, he became very vocal about his faith, using his spotlight to boldly preach the gospel. However, because of this convictions it has caused him the loss of many jobs and the most recently, a highly publicized bankruptcy.

He has been publicly ridiculed and insulted by people who think that he has been abandoned by God. A simple search through the internet will reveal that people not only mock Stephen, but mock God.

In response to this (with the permission of Stephen’s ministry President Daniel Southern) we have established RestoreStephenBaldwin.org. A privately funded and managed website. Our vision is to see Stephen Baldwin publicly restored in front of millions. Stephen’s platform will increase allowing him to reach even more people with the Gospel and God will get all of the glory. Publicly.

And just in case you think this is a joke, they have put together a very detailed FAQ to explain how serious they are about this:

Q- Why doesn’t his family help him?
A- His family does not perceive Stephen’s predicament as a matter of spiritual warfare. They see Stephen’s outspoken Christianity as poor choices therefore they will not help.

Boohoo!  Baldwin’s family is rich beyond the dreams of avarice. I am sure that if their little boy Stephen was really in serious trouble, they would be perfectly happy to help him out with the odd thousand or two.

Q- What happened to his wealth?
A- When he became an outspoken Christian in 2002 his income went down by 70% when he refused roles with gratuitous sex and violence.

Yeah, right, that’s got to be it, and nothing to do with the fact that he can’t act his way out of a paper bag. And just think of how many thousands of hard-working Christian actors must be out there who would love to have 30% of Baldwin’s 2002 income.  Perhaps if Baldwin wasn’t too busy prostituting himself on tawdry reality shows like “Help I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here” and “Celebrity Big Brother” then he might actually start making back some of his lost fortune.

And another thing, you don’t get millions of dollars into debt just from being mocked and laughed at. You get that way because you have been living way beyond your means and made some terrible financial decisions.

Q- If Stephen was not involved how did you get permission to do this?
A- Daniel Southern is Stephen’s spiritual advisor and the President of Stephen’s ministries. We contacted Daniel who gave us written permission to build the site .

Then shame on Daniel Southern. He should have said no to this dumb venture as soon as he was approached.

Q- Why does Stephen need personal wealth?
A- Stephen’s influence is in Hollywood. Hollywood worships money and without it you are seen as a loser and cannot be an effective influence to this group.

Utter crap. Baldwin’s family and business connections buy far more access than an extra million or two in his pocket would. This whole venture makes him look like a money-grubbing loser and will likely make it even harder for him to earn a salary in Hollywood.

Q- How much money does he need?
A- From what I read in public court documents Stephen needs several million dollars to pay all of his creditors but he deserves hundreds of millions for his Job like faithfulness in the face of relentless loss and persecution.

Bwahahaha!! This kind of nonsense is typical of the conservative Christian community here in America. Compared with the real persecution Christians (and all kinds of other people) suffer around the world, this conservative Christian persecution complex is absolutely laughable. Baldwin deserves hundreds of millions of dollars just because some people have said mean things about him? The person who created this site is single-handedly turning Stephen Baldwin into the biggest crybaby in America.

Q- What percentage of a gift actually reaches Stephen?
A- 100% goes directly into his bank account through online gifting. The bank account was arranged by Daniel Southern. Daniel was Billy Graham’s Crusade Director for almost 20 years.

If Baldwin accepts a penny of this money, he’s a far bigger fool than I already thought he was. His career is never going to recover from the amount of ridicule this venture is going to get him. And everyone who stuffs money into Baldwin’s bank account are just as big an idiot as he is.  There are thousands of other charities who need the money much more than Baldwin does, many of them run by Christians. They’d be far better off giving their spare change to one of them than lining the pockets of a Baldwin brother.

Q- Was Stephen involved in the movement planning, concept or site development?
A- No

Doesn’t matter in the slightest whether or not  Stephen was personally involved.  The mere fact that Baldwin and this organization have not already shut down this farce is a permanent stain on his reputation.

Q- Who does Stephen try to reach with his ministries?
A- From Hollywood to large arena events in the inner cities drawing troubled youth with motocross jumping and Extreme games.

Then pay him a salary or a fee to perform the work he does for Christian causes. That’s what honest people would do.

Q- What about other people who are hurting in this economy?
A- Those that just came to your mind mail them a token gift also.

Better yet, double the token gift to the charity that springs to mind and forget padding Baldwin’s personal bank account with your money.

Q- Is this about the economy?
A- Like everyone else it is a factor but the economy is not the reason Stephen is in financial trouble.

Several of my friends have lost their jobs in the last few months, some of them Christians, and I’ve yet to see any of them begging for handouts from anonymous fellow believers over the Internet. I’d also wager that none of them was earning anywhere close to what Stephen Baldwin is pulling in this year, despite his financial woes.

So, is Stephen Baldwin really that dumb? I guess we’ll soon see.  If this site isn’t pulled within the next 48 hours then I don’t see how we can come to any other conclusion.

One topic that came up—and invariably does in these debates—was the issue of charitable giving, and the fact that religious people give appreciably more of their time and money to charity than secular people.

While Hitchens attempted to rebut that assertion by pointing out that religious charitable giving often comes with strings attached—i.e. as part of some type of evangelical outreach to win more converts—I think the basic truth that religious people give more is hard to deny. Hitches also talked about the Richard Dawkins Foundation’s effort to raise money for survivors of the Haitian earthquake which, while laudable, but doesn’t begin to cover the shortfall.

While I was looking for more information on the subject, I came across this article on the Hoover Institute’s web site, Religious Faith and Charitable Giving by Arthur C. Brooks. The numbers Brooks presents are quite compelling:

The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.

But note that the difference doesn’t just apply to Christians. People of all religious faiths are equally generous with their time and money. So whatever the reason is, it’s not a reason specific to one religion. Thus believers cannot legitimately claim that their generosity is because of some intrinsic moral virtue or rectitude of their faith. There must be factors at work that are common to all major religious groups.

Furthermore, the importance of charitable giving isn’t restricted to one political group within a religion either:

Note that neither political ideology nor income is responsible for much of the charitable differences between secular and religious people. For example, religious liberals are 19 points more likely than secular liberals to give to charity, while religious conservatives are 28 points more likely than secular conservatives to do so. In other words, religious conservatives (who give and volunteer at rates of 91 percent and 67 percent) appear to differ from secular liberals (who give and volunteer at rates of 72 percent and 52 percent) more due to religion than to politics.

Religious liberals are also much more likely to donate time and money to charitable causes than their non-believing counterparts. (This does not surprise me in the least since my parents are both liberal Christians and have always donated a lot of their time and money to charitable works.) Now it is true that liberals typically believe that the government should have a greater role in helping the poor and needy in society which, in turn, should reduce the need for private donations, but that belief certainly doesn’t stop religious liberals donating their time and money at the higher rates typical of all religious believers, so the reason why religious people give more is little to do with politics.

Finally, after a lengthy critique of government welfare and how he believes it is harming religious faith and charitable giving, Brooks gets around to addressing the causes of why religious believers tend to be more generous than non-believers:

It might be that religion simply has a strong pedagogical (endogenous) influence over giving and volunteering. Houses of worship might teach their congregants the religious duty to give, and about both the physical and spiritual needs of the poor. Simply put, people may be more likely to learn charity inside a church, synagogue, or mosque than outside.

I don’t think there is any doubt that houses of worship are highly influential when it comes to charitable giving. But it’s much more than just teaching people that they should give.

First, congregants are not only taught that it is their moral duty to give, they are often told in no uncertain terms that “they will be known by their fruits”—that if they are indeed faithful to their religion, they will show it by donating their time and money to worthy causes. This is an incentive above and beyond just telling people that it is the right thing to do.

Second, religious leaders are constantly reminding their congregants of their religious duty to give generously, particularly in times of crisis. For example, how many American pastors passed up the opportunity to preach a sermon about the moral responsibility of looking after those less fortunate than ourselves in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? Very few, I’d wager. And it’s not just the leaders who regularly remind believers about charity, it’s peer pressure too. In any congregation there will always be a number of people looking for help with one worthy cause or another—looking for people to help staff the local homeless shelter, looking for sponsors for a marathon run in aid of earthquake victims, and so on. If you are an active member of religious community, it’s hard to avoid all these requests for your time and money.

Finally, religious institutions encourage charitable donations by setting up the infrastructure that makes giving as easy and painless as possible. Every Sunday in millions of churches around the world, a collection plate is passed under every congregant’s nose. In many of those churches, you can even set up a monthly direct debit to send your money from your bank account to the church’s own coffers without lifting a finger. And as a bonus, you get to save some money on your taxes too. There are stalls in the church coffee room selling Traidcraft goods in aid of Third World poverty, and tables set up where people can volunteer their time to help out in the local community—no need to organize anything, just turn up on the day and help. The list of ways that religious institutions help people donate their time and money to charitable causes is endless.

It’s also worth remembering that while most organizations charge a membership fee in order to help fund its financial obligations, religious organizations typically do not, and thus all monies collected from members in support of their operations are classed as charity, thus greatly boosting the overall amount religious people donate.

Compare all that with the experience of the non-believer. There is little question that the vast majority of non-religious people believe that charitable giving is a good and moral thing to do. Even without access to a vast religious infrastructure to help them, two-thirds of all non-believers still donate money to charity on a regular basis. So why don’t non-believers donate as much or as often?

Simply put, they lack the same motivations and opportunities that religious people have.

Non-believers do not have their moral duty to give to charity preached at fifty-two Sundays a year. They do not have a collection plate waved in their face every week reminding them of their obligation to make a donation. They do not typically frequent places where large on-going efforts to raise money for charity are underway, and they usually only have their consciences stirred when some great tragedy hits the news headlines—like the Ethiopian famines, Hurricane Katrina, or the Haitian earthquake.

So I don’t think that it is at all surprising that non-religious people give less of their time and money to charity. But it’s not because non-believers are intrinsically less moral in any way, it’s simply because they lack the same obligations, encouragement, and outlets that religious people have.

Brooks finishes his article with an excellent suggestion:

If charity is indeed a learned behavior, it may be that houses of worship are only one means (albeit an especially efficacious one) to teach it. Secularists interested in increasing charitable giving and volunteering among their ranks might spend some effort thinking of alternative ways to foster these habits.

From personal experience, I know this can be done. I used to work for a corporation that provided the means to donate part of your paycheck directly to a charity of your choice. Once a year, they asked for a volunteer from each department to give a presentation to their colleagues reminding them of the good causes that are helped by the money donated through this program. They then spent the next month encouraging their employees, almost daily, to sign up and donate part of their paycheck every month for the next year.

This is small beans when compared to the things religious institutions do, but it works. Millions of dollars are raised every year through programs like this—millions of dollars that likely would not have been donated at all without them. I am not afraid to admit that my charitable giving has dropped off quite steeply since I left full-time employment, precisely because I am no longer regularly exposed to exhortations and convenient opportunities to donate on a regular basis. Yes, I know it would take the minimum of effort to go to the website of my favorite charity and start a monthly direct debit from my bank account, but human nature dictates that when we’re not regularly reminded of the importance of donating to charity, we tend to let it slip from our mind.

The Internet has certainly helped when it comes to getting the message out, and for creating ways to make it easier to donate your money and time. And if you wanted to donate a small sum to the Haitian earthquake appeal earlier this year, you only had to tap about 15 keystrokes on your cell phone using the “text HAITI to 90999 service,” but I think it would be foolish to suggest that anything can fully replace the utility of the vast ecosystem surrounding charitable giving that religious institutions have built up over many decades, even centuries.

If there is one hope, then it would be in efforts to give many more people a taste of what it’s like to donate one’s time to charitable works. Study after study have shown that engaging in regular volunteer work can be a great benefit to one’s mental and physical health. It doesn’t matter if the volunteerism is conducted through a religious institution or not, almost everyone who tries it, even for a short time, begins to experience those personal benefits first hand, making it more likely that they would want to continue doing it on a regular basis.

Naturally, it is also important for non-believers to introduce their children to the concept of charity. When I was a kid, the church I attended would hold sponsored walks and other activities that exposed me to such things. I don’t have any children of my own, but my brother and his wife (who are both non-believers) have two daughters, and just this past Christmas, the girls unilaterally decided that they didn’t need all the usual expensive Christmas presents, and suggested that we spent less on gifts to each other and spent the rest on charitable gifts in each other’s names instead. The rest of us agreed to take part, and as a result we must have raised between $500-$700 for various charities just within our extended family.

So there are plenty of ways to encourage charitable giving and instill good habits outside of the auspices of a religious group, though I do not underestimate the scale of the task of matching the charitable work encouraged by and performed through religious institutions. But the key point to remember is that there is nothing mystical or supernatural about the greater generosity of religious people. It is merely a product of the education, indoctrination, promotion, and facilitation carried out by the religious institutions they belong to.

As you can see from the chart, the page views exploded in the next three days to nearly ten times the average for the first part of the month as people clicked through from Google, but then the numbers collapsed again overnight on April 16th.

So what happened?  Well, on the evening of the April 15th, Judge Barbara B. Crabb published her opinion ruling that the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional. Naturally that caused a whole torrent of news articles and blog posts about the issue which immediately pushed my little NDP hijacking story off the front page of the results. As of today, I eventually found my post at the very bottom of the 19th page which is why nobody is clicking through from that Google search any more.

There is still a trickle of people coming from Google looking for information about the National Day of Prayer, but they are using more specific searches like “obama abolish national day of prayer” and “christians hijacking national day of prayer” and I suspect that will continue on the run up to the day itself before petering out altogether.

There have only been two other spikes in page views for this blog. The first was when Andrew Sullivan linked to one of my two posted YouTube videos (I got nearly 2,000 page views that day) and the second was at the end of last year (when I think some other popular site did the same thing).  Of course, I wasn’t even posting anything on the blog at that time, so it was only weeks later that I discovered that my blog had been “discovered,” if only fleetingly!