The debate regarding natural selection versus intelligent design will run forever, as such knowledge that provides the definitive answer is by nature denied mere mortals. When it comes to the debate about gay marriage, one thing that science can prove is that interest in the sexual behaviour of others and the wish to impose sexual rules is an attribute very much shared with apes.
Religious fashions come and go, but it is to be remembered that no single religious body has existed in recent history that has dominated all. Each religious grouping has it's own mores about sex, past and present. So where is commons sense? I may have my own religious standards and opinions and a right to practise them, but it is surely not my right to impose such standards and opinions on others.
The burning issue for a democratic government is not about being right or wrong but being fair. For example, what do gay people "cheat" at?
"Though Shall Not Kill" is a commandment in the Christian Bible. Yet we hold services for those in the military. This is a recognition that we do not live in a world that is perfect, and sensible pragmatism enters the equation.
One thing that may possibly be beyond God Himself is the ability to change peoples minds. It is the adult mindset that concentrates on fixing their own shortcomings above casting scorn upon others.
Tuesday, 13 March 2012
Friday, 2 March 2012
All Too Tragically Human Side Of "The Pigs"
Sad to hear of the presumed suicide of PC Rathband
PC Olds had a similar fate, being paralized in one of the 80's riots. Every year, emergency service workers are killed or maimed in the line of duty, and whilst there have been issues with police tactics, manners and professionalism, it needs to be pointed out the the typical cop is far more likely to be helping than abusing us.
As for the suicide of maimed officers, the context must be understood. The big problem is that the sort of people who join the emergency services , like the armed forces tend to be very physically active types. An office worker by contrast may not see their career affected by a life changing disability- computers can even cope to a certain extent with user's blindness , and those who sit in front of the TV for recreation would not be bothered with losing their legs so much.
My dad wasn't a cop but he was very much an outdoor living and fitness chap. He died of a heart attack, and could have probably had another ten years had he given up sport. As it happened, he took early retirement from his council job to sail professionally, and died in command of a yacht. Not being able to go to sea would have been worse than dying for him.
RIP PC Rathband. At the end of the day a lot of people hate the police but are all too relieved to have them arrive at an accident or crime they have been the victim of.
PC Olds had a similar fate, being paralized in one of the 80's riots. Every year, emergency service workers are killed or maimed in the line of duty, and whilst there have been issues with police tactics, manners and professionalism, it needs to be pointed out the the typical cop is far more likely to be helping than abusing us.
As for the suicide of maimed officers, the context must be understood. The big problem is that the sort of people who join the emergency services , like the armed forces tend to be very physically active types. An office worker by contrast may not see their career affected by a life changing disability- computers can even cope to a certain extent with user's blindness , and those who sit in front of the TV for recreation would not be bothered with losing their legs so much.
My dad wasn't a cop but he was very much an outdoor living and fitness chap. He died of a heart attack, and could have probably had another ten years had he given up sport. As it happened, he took early retirement from his council job to sail professionally, and died in command of a yacht. Not being able to go to sea would have been worse than dying for him.
RIP PC Rathband. At the end of the day a lot of people hate the police but are all too relieved to have them arrive at an accident or crime they have been the victim of.
Thursday, 1 March 2012
Workfare?
Perhaps the most talked about policy issue today is the possibility for some of having to work for welfare payments. The stark moral objection is that in today's world of big money salaries at the top of the corporate world, should those already on the breadline have to give up their own time for little in return.
What is certainly true is that the longer a person is out of work, the harder it is to get back in. In fact, many are very willing to take voluntary jobs for this reason. Most would actually find the social life and sense of accomplishment that work provides a lot more enjoyable than watching daytime television.
Something that concerns me is that if the value of unpaid work experience in a commercial business is considered educational, why is the same benefit money not paid to adults in full time education? Do proper qualifications not offer the best insurance policy against unemployment?
Where I feel policy makers and opinion formers go wrong is in their moralistic concern regarding a great mass of people who do not want to work. No such large population actually exists. Those wishing to stay out of the labour market are usually either too disabled for available posts or have more important needs such as to be a carer.
Instead, questions should be asked about how to help those who actually do wish to work. At the moment, despite efforts by DWP staff to help, it is actually very difficult to take a voluntary position if claiming state benefit. Sadly, the Conservative party shares it's worse characteristic with Labour. Great at telling people what to do, but have a big issue with those who try to do things themselves.
What is certainly true is that the longer a person is out of work, the harder it is to get back in. In fact, many are very willing to take voluntary jobs for this reason. Most would actually find the social life and sense of accomplishment that work provides a lot more enjoyable than watching daytime television.
Something that concerns me is that if the value of unpaid work experience in a commercial business is considered educational, why is the same benefit money not paid to adults in full time education? Do proper qualifications not offer the best insurance policy against unemployment?
Where I feel policy makers and opinion formers go wrong is in their moralistic concern regarding a great mass of people who do not want to work. No such large population actually exists. Those wishing to stay out of the labour market are usually either too disabled for available posts or have more important needs such as to be a carer.
Instead, questions should be asked about how to help those who actually do wish to work. At the moment, despite efforts by DWP staff to help, it is actually very difficult to take a voluntary position if claiming state benefit. Sadly, the Conservative party shares it's worse characteristic with Labour. Great at telling people what to do, but have a big issue with those who try to do things themselves.
Tuesday, 21 February 2012
England needs an open minded nationalism!
Something I'd like to see in this country is a nationalism comparable to Gandhi's Indian variety.
So many supposedly English nationalist websites state their objection to "diversity"
Going back a hundred years before the Commonwealth and European immigration of more recent times there was not a single definable "race" that comprised a whole nation. There were Protestants, Catholics and Jews, and upper, middle and working classes. That's nine distinct ethnic groups without considering immigration from abroad.
Some things have changed, with the increasingly secular society we live in. But consider the different genres of music and the sort of people who follow those styles. You might find motor mechanics listening to Heavy Metal or Drum & Bass, office workers into R&B and so forth. Their circle of friends will generally be comprised of people from the same "tribe" - as well as similar music, similar clothing tastes and many other common factors.
The point is that this single culture that so many on the right talk about never has existed. The tribes might have changed along with their demographics, particularly since the jet plane and phones, but despite many people wanting to achieve total unity, it has never happened and never will. Immigration hasn't dramatically changed the situation- Hollywood has had considerably more cultural effect for instance.
A true nation isn't one tribe but many. Some nationalists from the past have tried to pin the national flag to a single ethnic group. Look at 1930s Europe and 1990s Yugoslavia to see where that leads.
I would personally like to stand up for this country, but those who reject diversity are irrelavent as far as I'm concerned. We make our money from buying from and selling to foreigners, in a racist country this simply couldn't happen. Of course there has to be some national ground rules, and the wonderful English language forms the backbone to this. Our legal system is largely based around the "do unto others" maxim, which does not discriminate against any culture.
And how should English culture be promoted? The best way I can think of is to give maximum civil liberty to the individual- again, it's totally non-racist- but at the same time gives people the freedom to make this country great.
The English Democrats to be fair have made at least an attempt at being a useful collective force for England. What they'd need to do to get me involved is realise that Independent and Guardian readers are as potentially pro-English as Mail and Express.
So many supposedly English nationalist websites state their objection to "diversity"
Going back a hundred years before the Commonwealth and European immigration of more recent times there was not a single definable "race" that comprised a whole nation. There were Protestants, Catholics and Jews, and upper, middle and working classes. That's nine distinct ethnic groups without considering immigration from abroad.
Some things have changed, with the increasingly secular society we live in. But consider the different genres of music and the sort of people who follow those styles. You might find motor mechanics listening to Heavy Metal or Drum & Bass, office workers into R&B and so forth. Their circle of friends will generally be comprised of people from the same "tribe" - as well as similar music, similar clothing tastes and many other common factors.
The point is that this single culture that so many on the right talk about never has existed. The tribes might have changed along with their demographics, particularly since the jet plane and phones, but despite many people wanting to achieve total unity, it has never happened and never will. Immigration hasn't dramatically changed the situation- Hollywood has had considerably more cultural effect for instance.
A true nation isn't one tribe but many. Some nationalists from the past have tried to pin the national flag to a single ethnic group. Look at 1930s Europe and 1990s Yugoslavia to see where that leads.
I would personally like to stand up for this country, but those who reject diversity are irrelavent as far as I'm concerned. We make our money from buying from and selling to foreigners, in a racist country this simply couldn't happen. Of course there has to be some national ground rules, and the wonderful English language forms the backbone to this. Our legal system is largely based around the "do unto others" maxim, which does not discriminate against any culture.
And how should English culture be promoted? The best way I can think of is to give maximum civil liberty to the individual- again, it's totally non-racist- but at the same time gives people the freedom to make this country great.
The English Democrats to be fair have made at least an attempt at being a useful collective force for England. What they'd need to do to get me involved is realise that Independent and Guardian readers are as potentially pro-English as Mail and Express.
Monday, 13 February 2012
Whitney Houston and The American Dream
With the sort of money that pop, film and sports stars reportedly earn, it can be difficult for ordinary people to feel sympathetic to their situations. Yet for the famous, quite removed from the superficial pampering they receive, there are many challenges and dangers that the non-celebrity does not have to cope with.
Consider the career of a bank worker. They may well start as a trainee cashier and over a whole career gradually climb the ladder of their organisation, maybe reaching branch or district manager before retiring. For those in entertainment or sport, their career height is often reached before the age of thirty. After that can be a slow and agonising process seeing one's looks, health and talent gradually decline, especially when compared to newcomers on the scene. Those chronicling their rise like a rocket will have their work cut out writing about their descent like a stick, with a dose of playground jealousy thrown in for good measure.
The finances of the famous are little different from the typical family either- just with extra zeros on their bank statements. This does not however stop others wanting a share of the perceived fortune- it must be heartbreaking not to know who your real friends are. Also, those in the public eye tend to attract the emotionally unstable as well as the paparazzi, robbing the celebrity of privacy and security. I can walk into town alone to do my shopping unmolested- could the Beckhams do the same?
The lucky ones may find religion, charity or a related career as a manager, commentator or mentor. The less fortunate get to see the now global "American Dream" turn into a waking nightmare that eventually takes their life. There are uncanny parallels between the lives of Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley. This latest tragedy should make us all consider what "success" really means.
Consider the career of a bank worker. They may well start as a trainee cashier and over a whole career gradually climb the ladder of their organisation, maybe reaching branch or district manager before retiring. For those in entertainment or sport, their career height is often reached before the age of thirty. After that can be a slow and agonising process seeing one's looks, health and talent gradually decline, especially when compared to newcomers on the scene. Those chronicling their rise like a rocket will have their work cut out writing about their descent like a stick, with a dose of playground jealousy thrown in for good measure.
The finances of the famous are little different from the typical family either- just with extra zeros on their bank statements. This does not however stop others wanting a share of the perceived fortune- it must be heartbreaking not to know who your real friends are. Also, those in the public eye tend to attract the emotionally unstable as well as the paparazzi, robbing the celebrity of privacy and security. I can walk into town alone to do my shopping unmolested- could the Beckhams do the same?
The lucky ones may find religion, charity or a related career as a manager, commentator or mentor. The less fortunate get to see the now global "American Dream" turn into a waking nightmare that eventually takes their life. There are uncanny parallels between the lives of Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley. This latest tragedy should make us all consider what "success" really means.
Friday, 3 February 2012
ACTA and free speech
Some worries about the ACTA laws going through the European Union institutions at the moment. Not my opinions or words, just passed on for information. With thanks to "DVH" and "Bullwinkle"
ACTA - the latest threat to internet freedom, just signed by the EU
Pirate Party UK
Yesterday the European Union, the UK and over 20 other countries signed the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). ACTA is an international treaty, disguised as a trade agreement, whose purpose is to increase and harmonise copyright and trademark enforcement. Many of the goals of ACTA are similar to SOPA and PIPA - proposed laws which the US congress recently abandoned following a huge outcry. ACTA is, if anything, even more objectionable.
It is objectionable because of the process it has followed - secret negotiations, conducted without democratic oversight, a process so underhand it led to official criticism from the European Parliament [1] and the resignation of the Parliament's rapporteur in disgust [2]. It is yet another example of the power of corporate lobby groups, who buy influence starting with the laughably corrupt US political body, and then foist extremist laws on the rest of the world.
It is objectionable in its content, as an assault on civil liberties. It is likely to require unprecedented levels of surveillance of ordinary Internet users by ISPs [3][4]. It insists that copyright infringement become a criminal offence in a worryingly wide range of situations.[5] It provides for massively disproportionate penalties, including mandatory imprisonment. Anyone who has followed settlements in copyright lawsuits over the past 10 years will find this hard to believe, but it allows rights-holders to make up even more astronomical figures when demanding "compensation" [6].
The extremist position of ACTA will make the Internet fraught with danger for ordinary users. For example, if a blogger innocently links to another website, and that website, without their knowledge, infringes copyright in some way, they may well face criminal charges and prison time for "aiding and abetting" copyright infringement. For a link.
The provisions on Digital Rights Management ("DRM") are so extreme as to be laughable. ACTA continues to demand that attempts to circumvent DRM be criminal offences, meaning that blind people could face jail time for attempting to read e-books using text-to-speech, for example [7]. But new provisions mean that any tampering with information that identifies "the work, its author(s), producer(s) or right owners" also becomes an offence, so merely renaming a file could become illegal.
Enough is enough. The music, film and fashion industries make more money every year. Even if you assume that copyright must be enforced in all cases, that Something Must Be Done -- just because ACTA is "something" does not mean we should do it. The way it was created is unacceptable, its content is destructive and it is against the public interest. The pirate party and I will do everything we can to stop it, and we urge others to join the campaign against ACTA [8][9]. We do not have to stand for this.
ACTA is a treaty that will eventually introduce a law with important effects on the internet and how we use it.
ACTA has been formulated by technocrats behind closed doors. Attempts to gain access to the process and the documentation accompanying it have been resisted and frequently rejected. Parliaments are being asked to approve it without proper scrutiny or understanding of its implications.
Here's how the Slovenian ambassadress to Japan managed to sign the treaty on behalf of her country:
"On Thursday, 26th January, 2012, I signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) on behalf of the Republic of Slovenia, following the directive and authorisation of the Slovenian government. A somewhat longer clarification of the signature can be found on the Media section of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, which explains the role of the Ministry and my role as the Slovenian Ambassador to Japan. This explanation states that I signed the agreement because I was instructed to do so by the government, and because it is a part of my job.
And yet, why did I sign ACTA. Every day there is a barrage of questions in my inbox and on Facebook from mostly kind and somewhat baffled people, who cannot understand how it occurred to me to sign an agreement so damaging to the state and citizens. With this reply, which is of a purely personal nature and expresses only my personal views, I wish to respond to all those people, all my friends and acquaintances who have remained quiet, all Anonymous, and not least also to myself and to my children.
I signed ACTA out of civic carelessness, because I did not pay enough attention. Quite simply, I did not clearly connect the agreement I had been instructed to sign with the agreement that, according to my own civic conviction, limits and withholds the freedom of engagement on the largest and most significant network in human history, and thus limits particularly the future of our children. I allowed myself a period of civic complacency, for a short time I unplugged myself from media reports from Slovenia, I took a break from Avaaz and its inflation of petitions, quite simply I allowed myself a rest. In my defence, I want to add that I very much needed this
rest and that I am still having trouble gaining enough energy for the upcoming dragon year. At the same time, I am tackling a workload that increased, not lessened, with the advent of the current year. All in line with a motto that has become familiar to us all, likely not only diplomats: less for more. Less money and fewer people for more work. And then you overlook the significance of what you are signing. And you wake up the following morning with the weight of the unbearable lightness of some
signature.
First I apologised to my children. Then I tried to reply to those acquaintances and strangers who expressed their surprise and horror. Because there are more and more of them, I am responding to them publicly. I want to apologise because I carried out my official duty, but not my civic duty. I don't know how many options I had with regard to not signing, but I could have tried. I did not. I missed an opportunity to fight for the right of conscientious objection on the part of us bureaucrats."
http://metinalista.si/why-i-signed-acta/
ACTA - the latest threat to internet freedom, just signed by the EU
Pirate Party UK
Yesterday the European Union, the UK and over 20 other countries signed the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). ACTA is an international treaty, disguised as a trade agreement, whose purpose is to increase and harmonise copyright and trademark enforcement. Many of the goals of ACTA are similar to SOPA and PIPA - proposed laws which the US congress recently abandoned following a huge outcry. ACTA is, if anything, even more objectionable.
It is objectionable because of the process it has followed - secret negotiations, conducted without democratic oversight, a process so underhand it led to official criticism from the European Parliament [1] and the resignation of the Parliament's rapporteur in disgust [2]. It is yet another example of the power of corporate lobby groups, who buy influence starting with the laughably corrupt US political body, and then foist extremist laws on the rest of the world.
It is objectionable in its content, as an assault on civil liberties. It is likely to require unprecedented levels of surveillance of ordinary Internet users by ISPs [3][4]. It insists that copyright infringement become a criminal offence in a worryingly wide range of situations.[5] It provides for massively disproportionate penalties, including mandatory imprisonment. Anyone who has followed settlements in copyright lawsuits over the past 10 years will find this hard to believe, but it allows rights-holders to make up even more astronomical figures when demanding "compensation" [6].
The extremist position of ACTA will make the Internet fraught with danger for ordinary users. For example, if a blogger innocently links to another website, and that website, without their knowledge, infringes copyright in some way, they may well face criminal charges and prison time for "aiding and abetting" copyright infringement. For a link.
The provisions on Digital Rights Management ("DRM") are so extreme as to be laughable. ACTA continues to demand that attempts to circumvent DRM be criminal offences, meaning that blind people could face jail time for attempting to read e-books using text-to-speech, for example [7]. But new provisions mean that any tampering with information that identifies "the work, its author(s), producer(s) or right owners" also becomes an offence, so merely renaming a file could become illegal.
Enough is enough. The music, film and fashion industries make more money every year. Even if you assume that copyright must be enforced in all cases, that Something Must Be Done -- just because ACTA is "something" does not mean we should do it. The way it was created is unacceptable, its content is destructive and it is against the public interest. The pirate party and I will do everything we can to stop it, and we urge others to join the campaign against ACTA [8][9]. We do not have to stand for this.
ACTA is a treaty that will eventually introduce a law with important effects on the internet and how we use it.
ACTA has been formulated by technocrats behind closed doors. Attempts to gain access to the process and the documentation accompanying it have been resisted and frequently rejected. Parliaments are being asked to approve it without proper scrutiny or understanding of its implications.
Here's how the Slovenian ambassadress to Japan managed to sign the treaty on behalf of her country:
"On Thursday, 26th January, 2012, I signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) on behalf of the Republic of Slovenia, following the directive and authorisation of the Slovenian government. A somewhat longer clarification of the signature can be found on the Media section of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, which explains the role of the Ministry and my role as the Slovenian Ambassador to Japan. This explanation states that I signed the agreement because I was instructed to do so by the government, and because it is a part of my job.
And yet, why did I sign ACTA. Every day there is a barrage of questions in my inbox and on Facebook from mostly kind and somewhat baffled people, who cannot understand how it occurred to me to sign an agreement so damaging to the state and citizens. With this reply, which is of a purely personal nature and expresses only my personal views, I wish to respond to all those people, all my friends and acquaintances who have remained quiet, all Anonymous, and not least also to myself and to my children.
I signed ACTA out of civic carelessness, because I did not pay enough attention. Quite simply, I did not clearly connect the agreement I had been instructed to sign with the agreement that, according to my own civic conviction, limits and withholds the freedom of engagement on the largest and most significant network in human history, and thus limits particularly the future of our children. I allowed myself a period of civic complacency, for a short time I unplugged myself from media reports from Slovenia, I took a break from Avaaz and its inflation of petitions, quite simply I allowed myself a rest. In my defence, I want to add that I very much needed this
rest and that I am still having trouble gaining enough energy for the upcoming dragon year. At the same time, I am tackling a workload that increased, not lessened, with the advent of the current year. All in line with a motto that has become familiar to us all, likely not only diplomats: less for more. Less money and fewer people for more work. And then you overlook the significance of what you are signing. And you wake up the following morning with the weight of the unbearable lightness of some
signature.
First I apologised to my children. Then I tried to reply to those acquaintances and strangers who expressed their surprise and horror. Because there are more and more of them, I am responding to them publicly. I want to apologise because I carried out my official duty, but not my civic duty. I don't know how many options I had with regard to not signing, but I could have tried. I did not. I missed an opportunity to fight for the right of conscientious objection on the part of us bureaucrats."
http://metinalista.si/why-i-signed-acta/
Thursday, 2 February 2012
Human Rights Do Not Help Criminals But Prevent Bullying Of Decent Citizens
Of all the legislation passed by the previous government, the Human Rights Act is often portrayed as being amongst the most contentious. I find it hard to understand why the terms "Human Rights" and "Soft Justice" are routinely equated by sections of the media. No legal process is perfect and whatever is stated by the law, some unsavoury individuals will escape the punishment that in moral terms alone they deserve. But the truth is that human rights and law and order are one and the same. It does not matter if our lives, liberties and property are taken from us by another person or the government- we would still be victims of crime. States with the best human rights records are among the safest. Exceptions to this rule almost invariably have a government whose regard for truth and transparency is such that its statistics are unreliable at best.
This is why human rights matters to you. Supposed you were to take exception to a new supermarket opening in your town. You write to your MP and local newspapers, and maybe join a campaign group, which you become a leader of. Imagine if you found yourself arrested for shoplifting in another branch of the store. Security provide lies and false evidence and you end up being convicted by a paid-off court. You lose your job, home and family and spend several months in prison for a crime you didn't commit.
This is what happens in countries where human rights are ignored. There is potentially big money in allowing this to happen here, and one can only wonder about the sort of people who are sponsoring this so-called "tough" talk.
This is why human rights matters to you. Supposed you were to take exception to a new supermarket opening in your town. You write to your MP and local newspapers, and maybe join a campaign group, which you become a leader of. Imagine if you found yourself arrested for shoplifting in another branch of the store. Security provide lies and false evidence and you end up being convicted by a paid-off court. You lose your job, home and family and spend several months in prison for a crime you didn't commit.
This is what happens in countries where human rights are ignored. There is potentially big money in allowing this to happen here, and one can only wonder about the sort of people who are sponsoring this so-called "tough" talk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
