Governments
I have been reading a lot of things recently about Tony Blairs departure, which will be soon to come. Some people have actually been hoping for a hung parliament next election, which would mean that labour would have a majority, but not an absolute one, and a coalition would have to be formed to create government. The argument against, this, apparently, is this is a bad situation to be in. In a hung parliament, laws are made slowly and rarely, and the government can get little done. First of all, I question quite how true this is- there exist many countries that have coalition governments that seem to be fine, but second of all, is this necessarily a bad thing? No government has got more than 50% of the vote in the UK.... I think for this entire century, although there might be one example. This is, of course, ignoring the people who do not vote at all, but either way it seems that the majority of people did not want the government in power, or at least did not have them as their first choice. The huge labour majorities obtained in 97 and 01 were based on 30 something percent of the country voting for them. So they were able to force through laws that 70% of the country may well disagree with. In this situation, I rather think a hung parliament might be a good idea.
Another thing that irritates me is the arguments made by many that Tony Blair should be kept as leader of the labour party because he led them to electoral success. Yes, clearly electoral success is the goal of any party, but not at the cost of passing laws, or going to wars, over things they disagree with. I know these are politicans we are talking about, but surely there are some principles worth hanging on to?
Meh, it is a forgone conclusion that Gordon Brown shall be the next labour leader, and we shall see how he does.
On the Road
I am heading to Bath yet again tomorrow, for my very final year in it's hallowed halls. Hopefully all will be fine, and undoubtedly I shall continue posting on this fine blog for your continued enjoyment.
Often, when reading the recipes for certain foods, I often wonder how people discovered that such things were nice in the first place, when some recipes involve cooking things for about 6 hours. The best surely has to be that highly poisonous fish that can be prepared in such a way as it doesn't kill people. How on earth did someone discover that one? I guess someone who was heavily addicted to danger, or just really hungry, and couldn't be bothered to go to the shops instead, so cut a fish a lot into tiny pieces. I always sort of think with desperate dishes like that, however, that as I am NOT desperate, I don't have to eat a deadly fish, or a locust, or nettle soup for that matter, and can eat nice normal things that better off people enjoyed. Maybe I'm not exciting enough, but the possibility of the food I am eating containing deadly poison is normally enough to put me off eating it....
sign language
I know sign language is very expressive and all, but sometimes it just feels inappropriate- I was watching the news about Richard Hammond's crash while at the side of the screen a man was making mad waving gestures, and his face was gurning like a mad thing.......
In other news,
this is pretty funny, although NSFW
John Reid
Attention all moderate Muslims! Has your child expressed doubt about the current government? Do they think the war in Iraq.... was a BAD idea? Are they very religous.... dangerously so?
Then your childen could well be terrorists! Do not be alarmed, simply contact your local police station or MP, and a friendly detachment of armed police will come and shoot your second cousin. After the mix up, however, your child will eventually be collected, where they will be detained indefinitely, and you will never have to worry about them again!
[ok this isn't EXACTLY what John Reid
is saying, but I kind of get those vibes....]
male restroom etiquette
Long, but rather funny.
Little Miss Sunshine
I am not in the mood to write a long post, but suffice to say this film is fantastic, and you should definitely go see it. It's an indie comedy that suffers from the normal problems attached to indie films- it's characters suffer from genuine pain, but it never seems to make the game go on to long. I loved it.
Respect my Authority!
I have always had a disrespect for authority figures whom I perceive to be less intelligent than me, especially in school, when completely illogical polices would be set by teachers who's arguments tended to be "don't talk back to me!" Wow, what an engaging environmen for young minds! The classic example of this was the banning of cards in sixth form. See, they decided that free periods wre to be our own, and while they encouraged us to study, it was not compulsory, and many people would sit around talking quietly. This was fine, but as soon as someone got a pack of cards out, this was apparently wrong. There was absolutely no rational justification for this, and in response, on the last day we filled the teacher most vigiliant in this policy's office with cards.... Ah glorious day!
Anyway, I have a serious point behind this, and it is the tendency for certain people to be immune to critisism. These include teachers, but also doctors and the police too. There appears to be a taboo in politics to actually pointing out that, while the job all people are doing is noble, this does not actually make the people noble. Power corrupts, as the cliche goes, and mistakes can be made by anyone. This is critical in understanding why eroding civil liberties are a bad thing. Yes, in a perfect world where we not only had a perfectly incorruptible police force, but also a police force incapable of making mistakes, then eroding these liberties would be fine. After all, they would never be wrong, so anyone they suspected of being guilty, would be. Sadly (or perhaps not), we do not live in a world of perfection , and the liberties granted to the average citizen are there to protect them from abuse of power, which is SO easy to do. For crying out loud, here in the UK we have the example of two innocent people being shot, one killed, because they were suspected of terrorism erroneously. As far as I know, no-one has been disciplined over this. No-one. For the death by shooting of someone.
This, incidentally, ties into a certain tendency, certainly by the right wing, to talk about red tape, and how it gets in the way of police/teachers/doctors/nurses doing their job. Often, however, this paper work exists to try and protect against mistakes or abuses of power by said proffesionals. I am no claiming that all of it is necessary, merely that it is not necessarily the great evil some claim it to be.
I am fairly sure that most people have experienced, or know someone who have experienced, an abuse of power, or a serious mistake, by every one of these professionals.... so why is there a blindness to this? Well, firstly because no doubt the majority of these proffesionals are trying to do the right thing, even if failing, but also because they all do essential tasks. I do not mean to minimise either of these, but I do think it is easy to forget that these people are human, just like the rest of us, and that must be taken into account.
crazy driving test nonsense
I have my driving theory test on friday. For those who do not know, its 35 multiple choice questions, of which you must get 30 correct, then 14 video clips where you have to spot the hazard quickly, and click to note it.
The video clips, hazard perception, are frustrating enough- many things in the clips COULD develop into hazards, but don't, but if you click too much, the program thinks you're cheating, and if you click too little you won't click in time for the hazards, and lose points accordingly. I don't really think it is a very accurate test of hazard perception at all- If they want to do that, they should elongate the driving test instead. But I don't get a say, sadly.
The multiple choice is better, mostly restricting itself to questions about the highway code, but it does sink into absurdity at points. First of all, whats with all the questions about trams? Like we're going to encounter many of those on the roads! For crying out loud, I'm not sure I've seen a tram in the whole of the UK.... not that I have been everywhere, but you'd think it wouldn't merit, on one practice test, two questions. Along with this, there are some bizzare environmental questions. For example, it asks what the effects of pollution from cars are. I feel like I'm in a georaphy lesson rather than one testing to see if I am safe to drive on the road.... Another example is a question which shows a picture of a tram and asks why it is good for the environment. Again with the trams! Obsession much. Both are part of an agenda, which, while admirable, is surely not something essential to know about before one can drive....
Oh well, I have to do it before I can drive, and even have to pay for the privelege, which is nice.
infection of evil
This is very interesting. It is something we all know, but I personally have never thought about it. Why do we form emotional attachments to objects, to the point of mysticism- that is if you could have a perfect replica of something you owned and attached value to, but knew it was one.... you probably would refuse, even though physically there would be no difference.
To be honest, I would reccomend reading the thread, as most of the ideas I would bring up are covered there, various examinations of being disturbed by the idea, for example, or getting a serial killers heart in a transplant... it has been infected somehow, perhaps...
This brings me to a discussion I was having with a friend the other day about teleportation. Even if it was physically possible, he argued, it would be wrong because it involved killing someone. The argument goes, teleportation involves essentially disintegrating a person, and then at some other point reconstituting them exactly as they were just before this process. He argued this would not be you, but a clone. But how? You personally would notice no difference, if it wentperfectly, as your mind along with your body would be in exactly the same state as it was before. To me, I do not believe that this would be a different person. If it has my consciousness, it is me. Consider if, through some incident, my mind was transfered into that of a beetle's... clearly in no way would that be physically me, but my thoughts would (in this bizzare example) remain intact. After all, our skin leaves us during in life, in fact all our cells will be replenished and die during our lifetime, so in effect we will be a completely different person, although it would take a lot longer than teleportation.
What do you guys think?
Cheese meme
For those of you not in the know, a meme is essentially some task for which a blogger is "tagged" to do.
Challenge thrown down.... challenge accepted!
If you are curious that is wensleydale with cranberries I am eating. And very tasty it is too. Now to tag people.
Caitlin, as she set me the task
Alice, for she loves cheese
Ben.... just because.
trapped in the closet
This
brilliant south park episode was banned in the UK. I don't know how many of you will have seen it, but it's definitely worth a look. Also, what not to do when
drinking after work
The difference between law and morality
I think that most of us would agree that law and morality are not necessarily the same thing- we can all tink of examples of injust laws, probably in our own countries, if we think hard enough. In fact, I would go further than this, and claim that a law can be moral and it CAN be moral to break it. A simple example is surely the speed limit- certainly in towns it is set as low as it is to save lives, but also on motorways, apparently as cars go above 70 mph the amount they pollute increases rapidly (I admit I heard some minister or other say this, and have not seen any evidence, but suppose it to be true for sake of argument). So it would be moral to keep it at 70 to reduce pollution. But suppose one needed to get to a hospital, or some such important event- in that case I do not think it would be immoral to go faster than the speed limit.
This, incidentally, is why we should be a little more cautious about changing law. Often the media will present an anecdotal answer about where the law has let someone down, and imply this means the law should be changed. But one has to think of the consequences- perhaps to save this one person we would end up hurting hundreds other. The law is a heavy, blunt instrument, and should generally be set where it helps the most people. If it is not doing that, then there is something wrong. One can often, however, make slight changes in the way one applies a law rather than changing that law.
Which leads me to torture. Now I have had arguments with some in the past about torture. The thing is, it seems easy to deplore torture from a detatched point of view. But suppose, say, you knew, or at least highly expected that someone knew the location of a loved one they had kidnapped, and time was running out. Wouldn't you torture them? I'm not necessarily implying electro shocking, but you might well hit them, to get the information faster. The same applies to the classic hypothetical of the ticking bomb, and the only person who knows where it is. You probably might try to beat the information out of them. This does not necessarily mean it is right from a moral high ground point of view, but it is, perhaps, more excusable. However, torture should still definitely be illegal. As soon as you allow a loophole, that power will be abused, because thats what happens. What you can do is the same that happens with murder- sentencing can be different. So where circumstances might have led to desperate measures, there might be a lesser sentence, perhaps not much of one at all in very extreme cases. But it must be illegal. One must know even as one engages what one is doing that it is forbidden by law, and their actions become all the more serious because of it.
Abortion
I always like to tackle the simple issues....
So, abortion. I'm gonna come right out and say I'm pro-choice, after all this is hardly an issue to look at objectively, I doubt it is really possible. The problem with this argument, when I have encountered it on many and sundry forums, is that it becomes quickly polarised, with both sides accusing the other of being disgusting human beings.
The truth is, of course, that both are stark choices. Do you kill an unborn child, which has the potential to be anything in life, or do you force a woman to bring to term a child they do not want, probably cannot afford, and are probably not ready to raise, undoubtedly causing much misery for both the mother and the child.
So why am I pro-choice? Several reasons. First of all is to do with where you draw the line. Where exactly does life start? Any sperm or ova could possibly lead to life, but the vast majority don't- see my post below on contraception. So is the point where a sperm and an ova meet special? Maybe. Some claim that this is all you need for life to form, but this is not entirely true- miscarriages can certainly happen, and without the womb, that litle bit of genetic tissue is not going to mean much. It's difficult, certainly, but I think the line to draw is the point where a fetus can survive outside. Ultimately forcing people to keep an unwanted child causes nothing pain for all concerned, and in some places, and this I think is vital, illegal abortions happen anyway. When abortion is banned, and was banned, it still continues, but the only people who can have safe abortions are those who are well off, while the poorer may well resort to far more desperate and dangerous methods.
Additionally, this is an issue where I think it's very difficult for men to hold the moral high ground when being pro-life. After all, they never really have to deal with it either way- they can just walk away, and even if they don't, they don't have the clearly visible signs of pregnancy, and the many and sundry hindrences this can cause. It's very easy to make a choice when you don't have to deal with the direct consequences after all.
I would like to quickly deal with the issue, raised by some, that people enter into abortion lightly. I really do not think this is true. I think it is a horrible choice for anyone to face, and I think most treat it with severity, and will remember that choice for the rest of their lives.
Ultimately, I would be happy to live in a world where no-one wanted abortions, but I don't, and I believe the choice must be there.
contraceptive
I started writing a post about abortion and then realised I actually needed to deal with this one first. See, while I agree that abortion is indeed contentious, I really don't think this issue is. Religious proscription against contraceptive basically seems to swing entirely on the idea that sex can only ever be used if procreation is your aim- or at least you would not be displeased if such a thing happened.
The bizzare thing about is that the rythmn method is allowed, which, for the uninitiated, is having sex as far as possible from when the woman is ovulating, and thus reducing the odds of pregnancy (but coming nowhere near to removing them, because the body isn't necessarily the most regular and predictible thing at all). I don't understand this at all... how can it be wrong to kill the sperm by trapping them in rubber, but not wrong to kill the sperm by sending them to an empty womb? To be honest, if you're happy about using this method, I don't see why you don't use others....
It's a subject which, to me, there is no defence of being against these things. It takes an EXTREMELY bizzare reading of the bible to squeeze out opposition to contraception out of it, and if you do, you have to be opposed to masturbation as well. Well, male masturbation, I suppose woman come across ok. Never mind, of course, that the sperm dies anyway- it has a life span of 24 hours (ish), and is always being replenished, so whether you "waste it" or not, unless you are having an exceedingly large amount of sex, that's a lot of sperm that goes to waste. It's madness I tell you, as are the opposition to the pill, and the emergency pill (which does NOT kill anything. It merely prevents an ova from being released- if you are already pregnant it is far too late), because even if one was to become permenantly pregnant from the age of about 12, there'd still be eggs going to waste- I forget the actual figure of eggs sitting there waiting, but it's quite a few. We could, I suppose, extract and store them, but that's just insane.
The sad thing is that these objections cost lives in places where AIDS is prevelant (and yes, if people lived by true christian values they would not sleep around at all, but A- what humans have you been living with? and B- Why SHOULDN'T someone be allowed to sleep around if they want to? and C- misinformation is spread by some, and the access to condoms nowhere as near as good as it should be), and certainly cost a lot of unwanted pregnancy. Ironically, as has been pointed out by some, the effect of good sexual education and provision of contraceptive would be a fall in abortions.... but what the hell.
[please note, while I attack religious beliefs here, this is by no means an attack on all religon, or those with religious beliefs. I merely am attacking a contradictory belief that appears to have no basis either in logic, morality, or even the bible itself.....]
blame south park
South Park has got me singing inappropriate things, from Everyone has Aids to Blame Canada, both of which are amusing in context, but might cause some glares from others. I have a tendency to get catchy tunes that gather hatred to me. The worst example of this has to be the Manic Street Preacher's "If White America Told the Trutth For One Day its World Would Fall Apart" (I know, catchy title). It's an excellent punky kind of song, but at one point it includes a rather rocky version of the national front song
"There ain't no black in the union jack." Sadly, this is the only lyric that is clearly audible, so I often find myself singing it, and devoid of context.... that could cause me some serious injury indeed.....
Fur- inconsistencies
As you probably know, I am a vegetarian. This is a personal choice, and while I do believe it is the right thing to do, I do not expect other people to follow me in this.
But something that has always intrigued me is the widespread opposition to the fur industry. After all, what exactly is the difference? One animal you are killing for clothing, the other for food, but neither are anywhere near necessary anymore. The fur industry is admittedly cruel, but so is much of the meat industry- yes some will attempt to buy free range but make little attempt to check if someone else feeds them, for example, and I am pretty sure that many who would never buy mink have eaten at KFC many a time.
The answer, I think, is convinience. It's easier not to buy fur, which after all is hardly the nicest material in the world, than to not buy meat. This argument is probably far enough, seeing as most vegetarians are doing the most thing- we should probably actually be vegans, but it is far more difficult to do so without inconviniencing yourself and others. The main issue, then, for me, is the way, while vegetarians usually accept that they are not truly doing all they can, being a vegetarian can produce in many an expression of shock, even disgust. I'd just like people to think through their beliefs a little more carefully before attacking mine....
organ donation
A new law has been passed in the Uk which means that relatives have no right to overrule the wishes of the deceased over organ donation. That is, and I didn't realise this, before hand relatives were free to stop the deceased from donating EVEN IF SAID PERSON HAD AN ORGAN DONOR CARD. This is definitely a step in the right direction, I feel.
I know there are some religons that believe you need your body intact for the next life, but christianity certainly doesn't- unless everyone is getting it wrong byburying people and letting them be eaten by worms, or indeed cremation, and thats really the big religon. When you get down to it, unless you take some serious, Egyptian style steps to preserve your body once you die, then it will decay, and it will be lost. Isn't it so much better to save peoples lives with things you really don't need, whether you cease to exist or your soul has gone somewhere else?
I know that ultimately we have to respect peoples wishes, but there is a shocking lack of organs still... so many more lives could be saved if people would get over superstition.
Having said that, given a choice over a loved ones body, I would be uncomfortable with donating their organs without knowing what they want, which is why being on the organ donor list helps, because you make a clear sign of your wishes, thus reducing any unpleasent guilt attached with it.
Respect My Authority!
I have always had a disrespect for authority figures whom I perceive to be less intelligent than me, especially in school, when completely illogical polices would be set by teachers who's arguments tended to be "don't talk back to me!" Wow, what an engaging environmen for young minds! The classic example of this was the banning of cards in sixth form. See, they decided that free periods wre to be our own, and while they encouraged us to study, it was not compulsory, and many people would sit around talking quietly. This was fine, but as soon as someone got a pack of cards out, this was apparently wrong. There was absolutely no rational justification for this, and in response, on the last day we filled the teacher most vigiliant in this policy's office with cards.... Ah glorious day!
Anyway, I have a serious point behind this, and it is the tendency for certain people to be immune to critisism. These include teachers, but also doctors and the police too. There appears to be a taboo in politics to actually pointing out that, while the job all people are doing is noble, this does not actually make the people noble. Power corrupts, as the cliche goes, and mistakes can be made by anyone. This is critical in understanding why eroding civil liberties are a bad thing. Yes, in a perfect world where we not only had a perfectly incorruptible police force, but also a police force incapable of making mistakes, then eroding these liberties would be fine. After all, they would never be wrong, so anyone they suspected of being guilty, would be. Sadly (or perhaps not), we do not live in a world of perfection , and the liberties granted to the average citizen are there to protect them from abuse of power, which is SO easy to do. For crying out loud, here in the UK we have the example of two innocent people being shot, one killed, because they were suspected of terrorism erroneously. As far as I know, no-one has been disciplined over this. No-one. For the death by shooting of someone.
This, incidentally, ties into a certain tendency, certainly by the right wing, to talk about red tape, and how it gets in the way of police/teachers/doctors/nurses doing their job. Often, however, this paper work exists to try and protect against mistakes or abuses of power by said proffesionals. I am no claiming that all of it is necessary, merely that it is not necessarily the great evil some claim it to be.
I am fairly sure that most people have experienced, or know someone who have experienced, an abuse of power, or a serious mistake, by every one of these professionals.... so why is there a blindness to this? Well, firstly because no doubt the majority of these proffesionals are trying to do the right thing, even if failing, but also because they all do essential tasks. I do not mean to minimise either of these, but I do think it is easy to forget that these people are human, just like the rest of us, and that must be taken into account.
YWM
I got happy slapped getting off the train from Brighton (it occurs to me this is yet another anecdote from Brighton. I'm pretty sure it's the last one though). Some 17 year old male, in a party of about 10 loud mouthed louts, ran past and slapped me round the side of the head, causing a fair amount of pain. I chose not to react, as I was about to get off the train, and there were 10 of them and one of me. Still, it makes me a little annoyed. I hate large groups of men like that- boozed up or not, they get worse the more of them there are, as not only do they feel invincible, but they enjoy impressing each other with their acts of anti-social behaviour. Such actions are incomprehensible to me... why cause pain to a random stranger who has done nothing to you?
This is probably not a new phenomenom, and it's one I've complained about it before, but I really do hate the lad culture. Yes, a group of 10 drunken females of the same age can be quite as frustrating, but they are far less likely to attempt to pick a fight with you, and for that they must be given according kudos. I'm not entirely sure what is to be done about such groups of men, other than to smugly smile to oneself and remember that while their lives have a ticket to nowheresville, I get to enjoy things in life they shall never appreciate because whatever intellect they have is entirely wasted. It's not enough compensation fo course, ideally one needs to be in a position where one can hire and fire them. That'd be fun.....
overheard in new york
I came across
this blog the other day, overheard conversatons in NY. Check it out, it's quite amusing.
99 Monster
Another quick anecdote from Brighton. I, having decided to holiday at a seaside resort, decided I wanted some ice cream. Unfortunately a quick search of Brighton seemed to show that the only readily available ice cream was that nasty 99 stuff, while I really wanted proper scoops.
Disappointed, I endevaoured not to have anything, even reprimanding my friend Toby for buying something completely unnecessary. But while he was queueing, I got to thinking that maybe it was a little sad that I wasn't having any ice cream at all... if I was not having nice ice cream, I might as well have some. So I decided to have a cone.... but then I thought I might as well have a flake, so decided on a 99. And then I saw.... the 99 monster. Only 25 pence more, curiosity got the better of me, and I plumped... for this.....
Needless to say, I did not manage to eat all of this, although I did get about half... I also ate the two flakes attatched to it. Seriously though, I'm not sure who would want that much ice cream (although, upon seeing it, both Fred and Toby bought one....)
Steve Irwin
Steve Irwin died today, from a sting from a sting ray. Apparently the last time someone died from one was 1945.... so it's a tiny bit ironic I guess, considering how much danger he exposed himself to, that he gets this incredibly random death
brighton
I spent last week in Brighton, which explains the lack of posts, in case you were wondering. Although not the lack before hand, I suppose.
Anyway, I have little of excitement to report from that week, other than I suck at golf so badly, it hurts. Well..... pitch and putt anyway. Who knows, perhaps on a proper golf course I would shine with sudden newly found golfing brilliance..... but I doubt it somehow. I did manage to get a good first swing the first time, but the problems came when more exact power was required, and I continually made the ball fly from one point to another. Of course, none of my shots topped Paul's, whose ball went flying over a windmill and into a field, lost forever. Perhaps he was thinking we were playing crazy golf.....
I have also never managed to skim stones, which is pretty much all you could do with the sea in the weather that prevailed. Well... I suppose I could have swum, if I wanted to suffer from hypothermia afterwards... or is that being too warm? Never mind, I can still throw stones, although even that is fraught with peril when confronted with my sheer ineptitude, with one stone narrowly missing a small child at a ninety degree angle to where I was aiming at.....
I have also learnt a vital lesson that when 5 people with greatly varying tastes in food go looking for a restaurant, it can take absolutely ages to find anywhere to eat......
Finally, a picture of Paul covered in stones, for your viewing pleasure...
