Some Final Thoughts for January

Well, we've reached the end of the blog-a-day month that was January, and I've more or less succeeded in the goal I set at the start of the month/year. I'm not going to post anything now until the 7th of Feb. From then on, I'll treat you to an insight into my thought at least three times a week (further details to be decided later). Since we've reached a bit of a milestone, I thought I should try and round things up for you.

The thing I realised is that nearly all the issues raised (by me) in this Month of Blogging could have been solved if people listened to each other more. There would be no homophobia, as people would listen to the gay's accounts of being gay, and would stop assuming that it's all soul-less lust. There would be no Islamophobia or Christianophobia, as people would consider what individual Christians and Muslims actually believed, rather than what they assume they believe. Both Labour's and the Tories' programmes for government would improve drastically if they considered why people disagree with them. And so it goes on.

The reason no-one listens to anyone is that we constantly assume that our opinion is the only one that matters, or that our opinion is somehow vastly more knowledgeable than anyone else's opinion. I know I inevitably seem that way when I blog, because I'm trying to get my thoughts across without rambling too much, but ultimately, I accept that my point of view is not the only one that exists. I'm not only open to debate- I love debate, provided there's no emotional investment made by either party. Considering what someone else thinks, assessing the reasons they think what they think, and adapting your own views to fit into this new perspective of the world is among the most valuable things we can do as human beings. And a lot of the time, we do do it. But I think we'd all appreciate seeing more of it.

So, that's my attempt to sum up January. We stand on the brink of twenty-eight brand new days. Best of luck with doing whatever you want to do with them, and I'll see you around before this month of February gets into full swing.

Until then, sayronara!   

Manliness

Just a quick post to say that manliness is a stupid concept.

I mean, it was all very well when men had to protect their families from wolves and bears and the occasional rampant woolly mammoth. But nowadays, we're pretty safe from all of that kind of stuff. Any genuine danger to our family in our modern era is likely to be wielding a gun, in which case men aren't going to be in a much better position that women. Firearms have brought gender equality to all.

There are so many interpretations of manliness that are just so wrong. Like promiscuity.

I'm sick of the attitude that "if a woman sleeps around, she's a slut, if a man sleeps around, he's a playa". Especially when the player is spelt with an "a" at the end. That's never a good thing.
Either promiscuity is wrong, or it is not wrong. Pick one, and you may be surprised to know I don't actually care which one it is. Just stop holding double standards. Men even think it's acceptable to cheat on their partners, because "that's what men are supposed to do," or some fertiliser like that. This is more revolting than I can put into words, but luckily, I don't think I need to. Frankly, if men are supposed to break the hearts and trust of women, then I'll go and get a sex change, thank you very much.

There's also the issue of music and other art/media tastes. I happen to very much like the music of Lady Gaga, and I don't see that as anything to be ashamed of. It certainly wouldn't have any effect, negative or positive, on my ability to kill a sabre-tooth tiger with a piece of flint. The presupposition that any art can be "manly" or "non-manly" is completely ridiculous.

And because I'm a loud, unabashed gay guy, I was always going to bring a topic like this back to social attitudes towards homosexuality. I've heard all too often the notion that gay men aren't "real men". This is the kind of attitude that fuels hateful bigots in their hate and bigotry. Also, there's no logical basis for it whatsoever- where you happen to like to stick your penis doesn't change the fact you have one.

I say the following to anyone who ever sets boundaries for what is or is not "manly": if someone has a penis and testosterone, then ta-da, they are a man. End of. What they wear or listen to or how many people of which gender they sleep with has nawt to do with it.

So. Crude not-really-thought-through-rants FTW? Or FTL? Let me know. Or don't. Do what you want with your life.

Good luck for Monday tomorrow. It's never as bad as you expect...

*feedback* This Is A Customer Announcement!

All blog followers are reminded that there will almost definitely be no blog posts today or tomorrow.

I'm going to a deep dark place with no internet access. Assuming I survive, then the blog will re-ignite on Sunday. Just thought you should all know, so you don't panic and lose sight of the point in life and break down and turn to drugs and get beaten up in rehab.
See you soon!

*marches purposefully into the digital ether, in an impressively manly way*

There Is No Them

Today is the 29th of January. In the UK, this day has been assigned as Holocaust Memorial Day, a day to consider the horrific actions the Nazi regime took against the minority groups of Germany, Austria, Poland, and much of the rest of continental Europe. One quote on a poster in my college particularly stood out to me, for some reason:

It wasn't just the Jews. It was the physically and mentally handicapped, the blacks, the gypsies and the gays, who were tortured, shot, gassed and burnt because they didn't fit into someone's narrow template of what it meant to be human. 

~Rabbi Somebody Someone

Copied from memory, so probably heavily paraphrased.

 This quote is significant because it highlights probably the single biggest underlying issue that makes events like the 1940s holocaust happen. We cannot limit the definition of "human" or "person" based on our own limited views, not ever.

When put like that, it seems like a non-issue. Surely no-one in our civilized world actually excludes people from the definition of "human", right? The reality is that people do it all the time, even if we don't mean to. "I hate Muslims who..." "I don't mind all gays, just the gays who..." "People on benefits should all get jobs," "Gypsies should stop taking up our land space," "The mentally disabled are a burden to the state," and on, and on, and on. What comments like this do is they remove the status of "person" from the members of the groups we choose to scapegoat. We turn them into primarily images, based on their faith, culture, or ability. We conveniently forget that these are real, living people, with hopes and fears and ambitions and hates and loves. We forget that underneath whatever demographic group they may fit, they are essentially in the same boat as us. 

I've touched on this a number of times now: it is impossibly to accurately generalise an entire group of people based on a single face. When someone says "oh, he's a Muslim," "oh, she's a gypsie,"  we instantly come up with some kind of image in our head, when really we have no fricking idea. I do it as much as anyone else.

The whole practise of demographics is pretty much completely irrational. Well, okay, the way we use the data found in censuses and the like is completely irrational. If an area has a higher white population, we assume it must have certain characteristics about it. If an area has a higher population of people from a lower income band, we cast aspersions about the attitude/atmosphere of the area. Since income bands and ethnic groups are so diverse, it goes without saying that this practise is ridiculous. Realistically, we cannot place people in categories of more than one. Which would render the whole process pointless.

It's apparent, then, that there is no "them." There is only "us". The human species, a continuous mass of individuals all affected by much of the same thing.

The Holocaust happened because the Nazis were fixated on the idea of "them." they wanted an alien, outsider  group that they could use to blame all of Germany's problems on, when really, the Jewish, gay, disabled and black Germans were suffering just as much as the rest of the country.

I recommend you all go the Holocaust Memorial Day website, and light a virtual candle for all those whose lives were destroyed by an elitist regime who picked out certain people and called them "them". Light the candle with the hope that people will continue to accept the Jewish population as "us", particularly in the Middle East, but also in the West, and pretty much everywhere in the world. Let's work towards a future in which no-one is alienated or marginalised because of what they are, but celebrated for their personality and accomplishments regardless of physiology or heritage.

God bless. :)

Sexist Kettles Pose A Bit Of A Problem.

Well, not actual kettles. Analogical kettles. 

I'm talking about my reaction to this story, in which the radio football commentator Richard Keys has been pressurised into leaving over sexist remarks he made about a female linesman (lineswoman?). He said something about women not being sufficiently aware of the offside rule when he thought his mike was off. Unfortunately, it wasn't off, official people heard, and chaos ensued. After considerable build-up of anti-Keys-fever, he has now handed in his resignation form.

My thoughts on the whole fiasco are simply "the pot called the kettle sexist..."

The thing is, pretty much everyone who exists in the world has made some remark about how men are different from women in some way. Women allegedly not knowing the offside rule happens to one of the favourite "running gags", as I'm sure you all know. The Official Overlords who criticised Keys will most likely have made many similar comments during their lifetimes, and may well have made the selfsame joke about the selfsame lineswoman. 

This doesn't automatically make casual gender-segregation right, necessarily. You are free to decide whether it's morally acceptable or not on your own. BUT, if we decide that such comments are not acceptable, then the course of action we must take is to educate society in it's entirety to steer away from such views, not to pick out individual people making (arguably) sexist remarks for, well, no real reason at all.

Because if you think about it, what actually does distinguish Keys' situation from any other? None that I can think of, even in practical rather than moral terms. The record of what he said would have remained within the BBC, they could have just deleted it and acted like it never happened, if they thought there might have been damage done. 

The aforementioned Overlords want to look like they're making a stand against sexism, but really it would be a lot more useful for them to make a stand against hypocrisy. Because right now, the latter is probably doing more damage.

SO THERE.

It's also worth noting that no-one appears to have actually asked the lineswoman whether or not she gives a damn. I'm pretty sure the answer would be "no".

Happy websurfing!  

"My recovery plan is better than your recovery plan!"

'Sup, websurfer?

Labour and the Tories are at it again. Oh wait, that was pretty much a wasted sentence, wasn't it?
There's been a "surprise" fall in GDP of 0.5%. Ed Balls, the Shadow Chancellor, predictably blames the Conservatives' economic recovery plan, whereas Chancellor George Osbourne has gone with blaming it on the bad weather over the winter.

Um, what? The weather?
Maybe I just really don't understand economics (to an even greater extent than we already knew, that is), but how can snow and ice possibly affect GDP growth? On a slightly more convincing note, Vince Cable has said that the benefits of the government's recovery plan will become visible in the long term, and that we "shouldn't read too much into" the current statistics.
Ed Balls has said that this is one of the first signs of the effect the Tory leadership is having on the economy. He has urged the government to make a "U-turn" in the actions they are taking, continuing with Labour's constant criticism that the cuts are too fast, and will do more harm than good. The Tories have intelligently responded by saying "you worked for Brown when the recession happened, so nothing you say can be good ever ever ever!"
Personally, I think the Tories know that the recovery isn't working the way they wanted it to, and are getting kinda desperate on the excuse front. I mean, the weather? Seriously?
Further reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12275815

On a related note, the Lib Dems have been ranked lower in approval ratings than "other" by a majority of the polling companies featured on the BBC website's poll tracker. I find this both amusing and satisfying. It's almost poetic justice that the lies they told the public got them the highest approval in forever, and now the lies have been revealed, they've got the lowest approval ratings since anyone can remember.

So, that's the politics news of the moment. Sort of.
Happy living!

MORALS etc.

Have you survived Monday? Yay!
My brain, in the inexplicable way that it has, has started organising my natural ethics system into something representable by words. So I thought I'd share it with you all. Just for the "lols," as it were.

My starting point was that nothing can be unethical unless it affects someone else in a negative way. But I decided this was too vague, as "a negative way" could be considered a bit of a grey area. so I've gone with the following:
Something can only be unethical if it creates a situation another person considers undesirable.
This has the initial effect of excluding suicide, substance abuse and most sexual acts from the "unethical" category. It does NOT mean that anything that creates a situation another person finds undesirable is automatically unethical. To establish when another person's desire makes an action unethical, we introduce the "right to will" system. And that's not as terrifying as it might sound.

"Right to will" basically means "do I have the objective right to try and change this situation according to what I want?" To expand on this, we're going to introduce the "perpetrator," the person who has instigated the action whose ethics are under, and someone opposed to the action, who is inventively called the "opponent".
The right to will is essentially a utilitarian concept. If the improvement to the perpetrators life vastly (we'll come back to that quantifier) outweighs the pain caused to the opponent, the action is ethical. If the improvement to the opponents life if the action is not taken is less than the pain caused to the perpetrator by not perpetrating, the action remains ethical.
As cheekily hinted before, I do not consider pain and pleasure to be equals. That is, I do not think it is ethical to cause x amount of pain in order to create an equal amount of pleasure. The pleasure created has to be at least ten times as great, or at least ten times as widespread, to be worth the pain caused.

The third, simplest point is that all humans are morally equal, regardless of demographic group or previous things they have done.

I may come back and expand on this at a time of day that is friendlier to my brain. You're welcome to dispute the various premises of my ethics system, but please note that I am in no way insinuating that this is how everyone's morals should work. I'm just attempting to give you an insight into how I see the world, for whatever reasons we both may have.

And that, as they say, is that.

Arts? Pah! We don't need arts!

Certain members of the Tea Party movement, an ultra-conservative section of the American Republican Party that has be gaining momentum up to and since the Midterm Elections across the pond, have proposed to cut funding for the arts and humanities by 100%. The negative impact of this motion would be colossal, while the amount of alleviation for the US deficit would be a lot less consequential than it might seem.  

Arts are important. As I discovered via Formspring, when Winston Churchill was asked to cut arts funding to help with the war effort, his response was "then what are we fighting for?" Arts doesn't just mean painting, it means music, theatre, literature. The arts are the best way for people of all ages to express and thereby love themselves, and God knows there isn't enough of that happening these days. Frankly, for most of us, the arts pretty much make life worth living.

Now, obviously I'm not suggesting that cutting government funding will mean the arts disappear. But it will make them a hell of a lot less varied and/or accessible. According to the article linked above,  "The American Ballet Theatre, the Joffrey Ballet, a touring Shakespeare troupe, music and poetry initiatives, and arts education programs across the country" are all in jeopardy. Can you imagine all these institutions folding? The diversity and sheer imagination of the American arts scene would be dealt a crucifying blow. 

The article also cites "5.7 million jobs" that could be lost. That's close to one in ten of the population of the UK. This is absurd.

Like I hinted above, it's not even going to help the deficit that much. The proponents of the cuts say that it will save $167.5 million from the National Endowment for the Arts and the Humanities Endowment, and $445 million from the Corporation of Public Broadcasting. They then finish by saying that over the course of a decade, they will save $2.5 trillion.

Where on earth does that last statistic come from? (167.5 million + $445 million) X 10 = 6 billion, 125 million. That's nowhere near the suggested amount. Six billion dollars might sound like a lot, but it government spending terms, it really isn't. According to my working knowledge of Google calculator, it's just over two thousandths of the current US deficit*. It's also less than one hundredth of the amount America spends on it's Department of Defence.

So basically, cutting government funding for the arts is a phenomenally stupid idea. If it is passed (which, assuringly, is pretty unlikely at this stage), then the consequences will vastly outweigh the benefits. 

Sayronara!

*at the time I visited the debt clock- it's going up all the time.    

"You're not a real Christian."

For the record, the above phrase isn't a phrase I ever remember hearing directed to me. Which is nice. But it is a sentiment I see flying around the internet, other media, and sometimes real life, so It's some I'd like to discuss today. If that's okay.
(note that the rest of the following is directed at people who identify as Christian or religious, so the rest of you might feel left out. Sorry.)

"Christian" means "follower of Christ". It does not mean "member of a particular Church" or "literal follower of every sentence written in the Bible ever ever ever". Neither of the latter definitions are mutually exclusive with being a Christian, but they aren't prerequisites either. If you are following the message of Jesus Christ the way you interpret the message of Jesus Christ, you are a Christian. And no-one can tell you any different.

The fact is, you don't know what God wants. And I don't know what God wants. We're just trying to interpret what he wants to the best of our ability, and live our lives thusly. Chances are, you do not have telepathic powers that I do not, so it's a little far fetched to say that your interpretation of Jesus' word is superior to mine.

If I think you have a greater theological/scriptural understanding that I do, then I will ask you, or I will attend a congregation that you are leading. Until then, your beliefs remain your beliefs, and my beliefs remain my beliefs. And that's all fine and dandy. You are welcome to express your beliefs, in public if necessary, but you do not have the right to condemn me for mine.

The attitude of "I'm a better Christian than you" is perhaps most visible and most silly when it comes to disputes between different branches of the church, particularly Catholics and Protestants. Denominations fall out of the most trivial things, like "whether transubstantiation exists," or "whether services should be held in English or Latin". Such disputes aren't even worth running out of breath discussing, let alone segregating Northern Irish cities and inducing civil wars over. It's just all so absurd.

You have a common thing to celebrate. The glory of God and the love of Christ. What else matters? Really, though? What? Mmm? Nothing. Except who has to serve the tea afterwards- that's what I would start a new church over.

Another example is when organisations like NOM scream into the binary abyss that "GOD DOESN'T WANT GAY MARRIAGE!!!" Well, maybe you believe that. And maybe on judgement day or whenever, we'll all find out that you were right. But until then, your interpretation of such a diverse and disputed thing as Christianity is not enough to base laws and such on.

I don't want to limit this to just gay stuff, though. In a similar vein to NOM (in regard to what I'm talking about) are these people, and these people, amongst others.

So, that's that for today. General conclusion- be humble and non-pretentious about your personal beliefs, and be nice to others regarding their personal beliefs. See you tomorrow! 

SIDE-NOTE:

Everyone should listen to this song. It's awesome.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3GkSo3ujSY&feature=channel
I posted the "clean" version because I'm family friendly. :P

Gay Italian politicans FTW.

Hello, websurfers, and may I wish you a very happy Gay Friday!

The gay news of the moment that I find most interesting is that Italy, presently one of Europe's least gay-friendly countries, could be getting a gay Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is the head of government and most powerful politician in Italy (while having less power than the British and Scandanavian PMs).

Italy's police force are notorious for anti-gay discrimination. Gay couples have been arrested in Rome for kissing outisde. The Itallian Ministry of Transport have revoked men's licenses over "sexual identity distubances". The manager of Italy's biggest football club, Juventus, has stated that gay men have no place in football.
So while it's obviously bad idea for anyone to vote for Nichi Vendola just because he's gay, his victory wuold be a huge step forward for gay rights in the west, helping to eliminate homophobia in one of the places where it is most prominent.

Vendola was initially a poet, who rose to become the unlikely governer of the deeply Catholic southern region of Apulia. He is presently the leader of the socialist party Left Ecology Freedom, and has the support of the centre-left Democratic Party. He is also a leading member of Arcigay, one of the more prominent Itallian gay rights groups.

Is it just me, or could he make a really good It Gets Better video?

Also in Gaynewsania, a man from Cardiff has been arrested for sexually assulting a lesbian, Elton has confused people as to whether or not he supports gay marriage, and an admittedly limited survey has found that LGBT people care more about the environment. Oh, and I found out that the co-founder of Facebook is gay. Which is nice. More gay role models for everyone!

Enjoy the rest of your Friday, whether it be a gay one or not.

Whatever shall we do with Pastor Terry Jones?

This just in from Joe.My.God- Terry "let's burn the Qua'ran" Jones has been denied entry to the United Kingdom for being the type of person who likes burning Qua'rans. Simply speaking.
(Let's pause for a moment to consider the irony that I found out about something happening in the UK on an American blog. Such is the nature of modern communication. Moving on.)

The issue this raises is similar to the problem when the UK banned entry to Gert Wilders about a year back. In fact, it's kind of exactly the same. Those who support the entry-denial say that Jones will incite hatred and extremism, those against say that we need to allow freedom of speech for all points of view, even extremist ones.
Which is more important, protecting British people from racial slurs, or preserving freedom for people with minority viewpoints? How do we even begin to answer that question?
It's made more difficult by the fact that when the Muslim extremists that Jones claims to be exclusively opposed to were burning poppies on 11 November, the government allegedly did very little. So preventing anti-Muslim extremism gives the Right a chance to say ZOMG! Pro-Muslim bias!! And, to be honest, they'd have a point.

Okay. Here's my take on it. Leaving the poppy-burning issue for now.
I don't think this is an issue of freedom of speech. Terry Jones' intention when he got to Britain was to address the right-wing group England Is Ours- who are so extreme, the EDL themselves said they didn't want to receive the speech Jones was going to give them. The rally he was intending to address is briefly described in this article, it spouts the usual, ahem, nonsense about only being against radical Muslims, then says something about not wanting any more mosques built in Britain, and suddenly we all know what they really want. People like this don't need to be encouraged by nutters like Jones, add in the nutter-encouragement and it's only going to accelerate the public verbal (and potentially physical) abuse they want to bring onto the streets.
We aren't condemning Jones' opinion. If he calmly stated "I think Islam is evil," then I would argue with him until the cows came home, went out, came back again and died of old age, but I would not ultimately want his point of view to be silenced, because silencing him wouldn't solve anything. With the intended address, however, Jones was ultimately going to incite others to be aggressive and abusive towards Muslims, which is something that needs to be prevented. So yes, the Home Office are doing the right thing not letting Jones into the country.
Regarding the poppies, yes, they should have been prevented from doing that as well, for the reasons above. But the fact that Muslim groups got away with that doesn't mean anti-Muslim groups get a "freebie;" we should move on from the incident and treat hateful rhetoric as it stands.

But ultimately, that's only my opinion. If you want to share your own view, you're more than welcome to share it in the wonderful land of commenting beneath.

Bye for now!

Stats war!

Are the Tories doing a good job with the economy? Lets look at the statistics on either side.

-Unemployment in the UK has risen about 2 million to just under 2.5 million in the last three months, the increase being 49,000. Further rises are expected by analysists, and 2,000 more public sector jobs have yet to be cut.

-Inflation has risen from 3.3% to 3.7% since November. The VAT increase may cause it to rise further. The target the government set for inflation was 2%.

-Average earnings in the UK have rose by 2.1% "in the year to November." It's unclear whether they are still rising, or falling, or just not doing much.

-The number of people on jobseeker's allowance fell by 4,100 since November. The total number of people on JA is now 1.46 million.

So. Yeah.
I don't think it looks good, overall. If you combine the last statistic with the first, it just means that more people are getting neither salary nor benefits, which is not a good thing. The third one would be a good thing, if we knew for sure that average wage was still rising.

What's amusing is that Cameron says that "any rise in unemployment is a huge concern," but it's obviously not a huge enough concern to stop taking away jobs.

Rising inflation. Rising unemployment. Presuming it doesn't get better quickly, which admittedly it might, then I wonder how they're going to justify this come next election? And more importantly, whether people will listen?

Not much else to add to that, I don't think. So over and out!

Acceptable Hatred?

People are like snowflakes.

Snowflakes on their own are harmless enough, but when snowflakes all arrive at one time to induce "snow," it can either be really beautiful, or really dangerous. Similarly, when people get together to form "society," it can go one way or another.
On one side, we can be a creative, wonderful bunch of entities who bring into existence democracy, theology, philosophy, the arts, and the sciences- all with the ultimate intention of improving people's lives. But the darker side of society is something very dark indeed. We can be a greedy carnivorous beast, relentlessly searching for things to consume, and (more relevantly ATM) things to hate.
But humans seem to have this odd idea that "it's okay to hate something if everyone else is hatin' on it too." I would question the judgement of Everyone Else. Everyone Else might seem to have it sorted, but really, he's kinda messed up.
This is what Acceptable Hatred is, where we channel our negative feelings onto things that everyone else seems to hate, even if we have no rational basis to have any negative sentiment for said things. Today I want to look at the way AH is affecting life today.

The most common, and probably least consequential, form of modern AH is when people declare hatred for pop stars/actors of a certain brand. Classic example are Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga, Zac Efron, the cast of Glee, etc. People have a similar thing for Twilight, despite it not being a person.
They don't hate these people, of course. At the very most, they hate their work, but I doubt listening to "Baby" by our friend JB could really fill a rational person with a strong enough negative emotion that could be called hatred. And the subjects of this so-called "hatred" know full well that they aren't really hated, so it's not actually much of a problem. It's just annoying. Especially when someone's instant reaction to anyone innocently stating that they enjoy the work of x artist is "OMGOSH!!! YR SO STOOPID! (x artist) ARE SO CRAP! I HATE THEM!"
What's worse it that purveyors of this particular form of AH are everywhere. You can't escape them. Some of you are ever reading this blog- yes, you know who you are. *considerable glaring*

Still, it's better than most forms of AH. I'd rather someone said "I hate Zefron" than "I hate Germans". Or "I hate Christians."
Ooh, that's my next rant subtly linked to! How convenient.

Seriously, Christianophobia (yes, that's a word, and yes, I'm using it in a fairly liberal context here) is presently one of the most common and most ridiculous forms of AH. No-one who says "I hate Christians" has given much thought to the situation.
Generally, this premise is supported by the claim that all Christians enjoy suppressing populations and enforcing Christian beliefs on non-Christians. This in turn is supported by pointing at certain Christian individuals and saying "look, they do bad stuff!!" occasionally accompanying their point with a heavily de-contextualised, often re-worded bible verse, and saying "therefore all Christians are evil!" Wait, what? I think I missed a number of significant logical steps. Oh wait, you're hatin'. Logic doesn't come into it. My bad.
I really shouldn't have to say this (and for the majority of people reading, I don't think I do), but it's virtually impossible to generalise about what Christians believe. Everyone has their own take on the bible, everyone who decides to follow Jesus has a different interpretation on what he wants them to do with their lives, and you'll be surprised to know that the majority of Christians don't reach the conclusion that they're supposed to oppress all gays, women, blacks and Muslims before breakfast. The ones that do just shout the loudest. Or maybe their voices are just magnified more by the American news channels? I don't know, one or t'other.
Also, it annoys me when certain people define any Christian or other religious believer stating what they believe as "rubbing it in my face" or "infringing on my freedom," but when people like Dawkins publish a 400-page book explaining in detail why everyone should believe the same thing as they do, it's absolutely fine.
(Incidentally, I don't personally have a problem with Richard Dawkins publishing a 400-page book explaining in detail why everyone should believe the same thing as he does- I just don't like double standards.)

So, that's that. Justin Bieber is just a human teenager who has made it in the pop world and is very grateful for it, Christians for the most part do not eat babies or try to burn secularists at the stake, and Richard Dawkins is annoying but has valid points of view. What lovely conclusions for us all.

 Hope you be lovin' 'stead of hatin', wherever you may be. See you tomorrow!

(Video that explains the "I hate religious people" dilemma with more eloquence from 2:15 onwards: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kB-5Srv05M) 

People Love You

This post is directed to all the bullied, the depressed, the ashamed, the insecure. I'm primarily thinking of teenagers, but much the same applies to adults in a similar state of mind. Above all, I'm talking to anyone who is considering or has considered suicide.

Basically, People Love You. It's true.

Firstly, I, along with many others, believe that God loves you. If you believe in God, then it's only logical to believe that he loves you, since he created you, and came up with the idea of of you. If you don't believe in God, then the fact that there are people who can look at you and think "God loves that person" is fairly encouraging in itself, is it not?

Secondly, your parents and other family.
If you live with one or both of your biological family, then deep down, they almost definitely appreciate you, the person they made. I don't know how much you argue or fight or blank each other, but the bottom line is, they wouldn't be fighting you if they didn't care about you.
If you live with adopted or foster parents, then remember that they chose and continue to choose to have you in their homes and raise you. The point about arguments remains they same; the only reason they argue is because they care.
Any kind of non-mentally-ill parent, adopted or biological, would be devastated if their child was taken from the world. Don't do that to them. Whatever they've done, they don't deserve that pain.

Thirdly, the boy or girl who sits in the back of the classroom (or office) and can't help but fancy you. I promise, EVERYONE has one of those. Even my 11-to-13-year-old self had one of those, and he was a twat.

Fourthly, your friends. You are important to them, even if they (like the majority of human teenagers) are incapable of showing it. They chose to hang around with you or whatever they do because of the person you are. That person they chose is worth preserving- don't destroy him/her.
I accept that there are people in life who don't, currently, have friends. You should think long and hard before you make that conclusion- you can think you have no friends, but simply forget about someone. I've done it plenty of times. If you do genuinely have no friends, it's usually because you made the choice to isolate yourself. You can change that, and you should change it, in order to make my point valid. Please note that that was a joke.
What I do say to those without friends is that it's more than probable that people still like/admire you, if from a distance. And said people are still worth holding on for.

Fifthly, me. You're reading my blog and making this thing I'm doing with my time worthwhile. For that, I love you very deeply. If you die, I'll have one less reader, which would be a terrible outcome for all concerned.

Sixthly, and this is the clincher, the people who will love you, if you give them a chance to meet you.
Dark times pass. And when they do, you meet new people, many of which will grow into friends, co-workers, fans, and possibly lovers. Loneliness only lasts as long as you are unwilling to do anything about it. There are people waiting for you in the future, and they'll be pretty pissed off if you don't make it.

As the people who made these videos (and also this one) are eager to tell you, it gets better. Good times are just around the corner, so make sure you drive carefully.
(I'm sorry, extended metaphors are just so tempting...)

So basically, two reasons not to commit suicide. For the people whose lives are better with you in, and for the  good times that are yet to come.

Keep smiling! :)

(NOTE: I know the It's Get Better project is directed mainly at LGBT youth, but as the video contributors constantly tell us, it also applies to any young people who get bullied/are depressed. So, yeah.)

LOVE YOU!!!

All About Euthanasia

The first blog of the day was about access to education- so naturally it follows that I should talk about the ethics of assisted suicide. Or something.

Euthanasia, for those unaware, is essentially the process of helping someone end their life. If someone told you they wanted out (to put it one way), and agreed to let you give them a lethal injection, you have partaken in euthanasia.
Euthanasia is presently illegal in the United Kingdom. Well, technically, it's not illegal, it's just not legally recognised as a thing. Were you in the above situation, you would be charged with murder. This stems from the Suicide Act 1961, which as well as decriminalising the act of suicide, created the offence of "complicity in suicide," which applies to anyone who "aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another". 


The two main arguments against euthanasia are the religious argument, that life is a sacred gift from God that should not be violated, and the argument that it would be too easy for someone to kill a person who did not want to be killed, and pass it off as euthanasia.
I don't think the first one really applies legally any more, particularly as we've legalised abortion. Religion is an elective thing that you follow whose rules shouldn't be forced on anyone else, etc. 
The second one is a genuine concern, but I think it's easy enough to prevent that outcome. 


The plan is this: legalise euthanasia when performed by a doctor in a euthanasia clinic. Eliminate trivial things like "driving person to clinic" as criminal offences. Make sure the doctor is only permitted to perform a lethal injection if they have had a one-on-one conversation with the patient- to eliminate or at least minimise the possibility that the patient is only agreeing to the procedure out of being terrorised. Possibly only allow it for people proven to have a terminal condition, as there are so many ways to get out of other situations where you may be seeing black. Definitely limit it to legal adults, maybe even a higher age limit. 
Sound good? Let me know if there's something you'd change to that plan in comments!


So, that's that. We shall gather again tomorrow... 




 

This Is Not A Blog Post

It's just a couple of sentences and a link.
Basically, go follow this blog. She's too shy to link you herself, but she has some really good stuff to say. ^_^
http://sineadaharold.blogspot.com/

EMA

Forgot to blog yesterday, so today shall be a day of the double-blog. Isn't that exciting!

This morning I want to talk about EMA. Being a human being with opinions and such like, I will of course spend the entire post talking about why it is good and why it shouldn't be scrapped. But then, it's not like you were expecting anything else.

David Cameron consistently says that he wants the way he runs the country to be "fair." This implies he wants to treat everyone in the country with equal value- which is what fair politics is. This means that:
1. Everyone needs to have equal access to opportunities to increase their wealth
2. In real life terms, this means that everyone needs to be able to apply for higher-paid jobs that they have the natural skills to undertake
3. People need to be able to prove their skills with qualifications in order to apply for high-paid jobs
4. Qualifications are gained from education
5. Therefore, everyone needs to have equal access to all levels of education

Working backwards:
1. Scrapping EMA means that not everyone has equal access to A-level education
2. Those rendered unable to access A-levels will not gain qualifications
3. Said people will not be able to apply for the same jobs as those who were able to take A-levels, even if they are perfectly capable of undertaking said jobs
4. So not everyone is able to apply for higher-paid jobs that they have the natural skills to perform in
5. So not not everyone has equal opportunities to increase their wealth

Which is why scrapping EMA is unfair. Similarly, when combined with the increased tuition fees, it will widen the gap between rich and poor more than any other time in this century. Britain is already an incredibly unequal society (one of the least equal in the West); why on earth are we making the situation worse?

The most common argument against EMA is:
But what about those people who get EMA and don't need it/waste it on alcohol or partying?
While this is a problem, it's never a reason to get rid of EMA completely. There are just as many, if not more people who completely depend on EMA and would not be able to do A-levels otherwise. The key question is, why should these people have to suffer because of the actions of those others who have acted wastefully? Why should their quality of life be decreased forever because of a situation they did not cause?

The whole reason we have a state school system in the first place is because we believe education is a right, not a privilege. A-levels are for everyone who needs them- not just those who can afford it. 

No-one agrees with you. Give it a rest.

So, websurfer, to forces of time have pushed our seven-day wheel to that day we know as Friday. Which in the context of this blog, means today is Gay Friday!

If I were to summarise this entire blog post in three words, it would be as below.

Homophobia Is Outdated.

There. That's done. Now you can go away. Or keep reading. 'Sup to you, brah. 

The thoughts I'm about to share with you stem from my reading this article on PinkNews, the British LGBT news website. The man in the article talks about how public money shouldn't be spent on curing those who follow the "perverted lifestyle" of homosexuality. He says that if you make the choice to have gay sex, you knew you were going to get AIDS, and you deserve to suffer the consequences of not bridling your evidently unbridled desires. Or, in other words, "you did something I don't agree with, so I'm going to let you die, LOL."

Initially I was going to do a really long, angry blog post about just how wrong he is, in a number of colourful yet family-friendly ways. I was going to talk about how gay isn't a "lifestyle," it's a natural characteristic the exhibitors of whom follow a vast range of lifestyles. I was going to talk about how we still treat people who are injured in car crashes, when they made the decision to buy a car and drive it. I was going to talk about how AIDS rates are dropping dramatically in gay men, and how it's just as easy to pass STDs via unprotected heterosexual sex, and how the only real reason AIDS rates were so high amongst gays in the first place was because no-one knew a lot about STDs, so condoms were only generally seen as contraception. 

But you know what: I can't be bothered. You've heard it all before. Some ignorant old loud-mouth spews some crap about how gays should be treated; sensible people of various sexual orientations proceed to use logic and rationality to show that they are wrong.

It's all getting a bit old, really, isn't it?

Discrimination against LGBT folk is being lifted all across Europe, North America, and much of the rest of the world. Homophobia is dying. And if Walking with Dinosaurs taught us anything, it's that huge beasts tend to make the most noise in their last, painful moments. 

Anyone who has ever thought clearly about anything now knows that it's unacceptable to treat gay, bisexual and transgender people as second-class citizens. Support for the religious and non-religious right is shrinking. Social conservatism may seem to be a big thing now, but it's only making itself seem like that in a wild attempt to avoid it's doom.

It took decades to rid the Western world of institutional sexism, but (arguably I know) we have got there. It  was a long slog between the days of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King and the removal of the last instance of public racial segregation. But again, we've reached the end of that road. And we're reaching the end of this one, too.

If you want to help kill the beast more quickly, then challenge homophobia, even gilded homophobia, whenever you get the opportunity. Gay jokes can sometimes be innocent, but there are an equal amount of instances where comments such as "that's so gay," "you fucking fag," are signs of underlying anti-gay sentiment. And that isn't acceptable. If there's ever a moment where you think you should ask the question, "what exactly do you have against gays?", then ask it. Ignorance needs to be challenged, and accidentally implying a non-homophobe might be homophobic is a lesser sin than risking the growth and spreading of said ignorance. 

And whenever anyone like the man in the article says homosexuals are lesser human beings, or whenever organisations like Exodus talk of homosexuality as a disease that needs to be cured; then think of gay suicide, think of anti-gay violence. It's people like this, however much they dress up as rational, that cause this sort of tragedy. 

It's arguable that this post has become a lot more like the description in paragraph four than I intended... but, hey. Needs must.

I now hand over to Queen Latifah, with a touching message of hope for all of us. 

Hope you all have a wonderful weekend!     

The ugly side of Youtube...

Namely, this.

The video depicts a black extremist demanding to his listeners that all the black people of the world rise up and exterminate all the white people. He says this is "the solution to the problem," but what the problem is, either he doesn't say or the video isn't long enough to capture.
Not only is the video itself crazy and racist, the vast majority of comments are racially motivated too. There are whites who claim to hate blacks, and blacks who claim to hate whites, and most of the discourse is on the subject of whether the white "race" or the black "race" is more foul.
Yes, I am going to expand on why I put the word "race" in inverted commas. We'll come to that later.

This video is quite an old one, but there are many, more recent videos that say much of the same thing. Neo-Nazism in particular is popular among the dirty virtual backstreets of video hosting.
I think the main problem this illustrates is the fact that we, the Western world, are all too often unwilling to address the issue of racism head-on. We give our younger children vague principles about loving everyone, and occasionally link it specifically to not treating people differently because of the colour of their skin. But I think that when children grow into teenagers, we should re-address the issue more explicitly. We should accept that their are views out their like white supremacy, black supremacy, Nazism; not gloss over the details of what they believe; have open, uncensored discussion about the possibility that people could be in any way superior/inferior because of ethnic background; and reach the only conclusion rational debate on this subject can bring: no, there is no substantive difference between white and black people, only a change in the amount of melanin their bodies produce. Yes, humans are all equally valuable no matter what they happen to look or sound like, or where they happen to come from.

Now, onto the subject of race. The way I see it, racism isn't the view that one race is superior to another race- it's the view that different races exist at all. Race is a vague, insubstantive concept, which there has never been a specific, universal definition for. Most people today base it on skin colour; others in the past have expanded it to eye and hair colour. Some say "Caucasian, African and Asian races," others go further and say "Nordic, Saxon, Slav, Moor, Hutu, Tutsi".
There is no difference in the structure of the genome between any of these "races". They are not different species or sub-species. They all have the same needs, and, broadly speaking, the same desires. They do not need to be treated differently, so why categorise them?
It sounds fluffy/cheesey/whatever, but I don't care. It needs to be said.
There is one race. The human race.

As the cast of a certain love/hate disney film said:
We're all in this together.
Once we know that we are, we'll all be stars.

*commence dancing*

Belgians Not Shaving is Probably Ineffective Politics

According to this, A Belgian actor is sparking a campaign for people in Belgium not to shave until their country forms a proper government. This is in response to Flemish and French parties being unable to form a coalition, making it necessary for a caretaker government to run the country- which they have been doing since June.

I think this is both laughable and admirable. It seems a remarkably pop-culture-ey way of making a political statement- but it is a valid political statement nonetheless. At least, I think it is.
To support my case I would say that a reluctance to be united is what causes most of the problems in politics, particularly party politics. A lot of the time, it becomes a case of "they said this, so we must say the opposite". This is irritating enough when groups are divided on idealogical grounds, but it makes it ten times worse when it's purely cultural/ethnic differences getting in the way.

Then again, at least all the parties are standing their ground, even if they are being overly uncompromising. No-one wants a coalition like the present British one, where one party apparently becomes completely subverted by the policies and ideals of the other. So maybe Mr Poelvoorde (fun name) should just shut up and let the politicians discuss this properly.

What do YOU think?

All Hail the Green Brothers!

So, today I'm going to talk about something GOOD. And to that end, I'd like to introduce you all to the Brothers  Green, also knows as the vlogbrothers.  http://www.youtube.com/vlogbrothers

John and Hank Green are two nerdy American brothers who run a collaborative video blog (or"vlog") channel on Youtube. They also do other things: John writes fiction books for young adults, Hank writes/performs music and runs the website for eco-friendly technology, Eco-geek.

The incredible thoughtfulness, intelligence, humour and compassion that the two of them transmit into the world via their vlogs, books and music has earnt them a vast following of nerdy fans called "nerdfighters." The nerdfighter community is one of the most colossal internet-bases forces for making the world better that there has ever been. They manage multiple charitable causes, from improving poverty-stricken lives in Bangladesh to improving cancer-stricken lives in the West. They instruct people with ways to improve the lives those they encounter in everyday life, such as the concept of "positive pranking." They've also launched an independent music label to support up-and-coming young and less-young artists.  

So, yes. John Green, awesome, Hank Green, awesome, nerdfighters, awesome. I've listened to most Hank's songs, and read John's book Paper Towns, and would definitely recommend them. I would be proud to call myself a nerdfighter, though not a very active one as of yet.


LINKS AND SUCH:
Nerfighters: http://nerdfighters.ning.com/
DFTBA records:  http://dftba.com/
Eco Geek: http://www.ecogeek.org/
John's amazon page: http://www.amazon.com/dp/014241493X?tag=vlogbrothers-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=014241493X&adid=0ACSBMEFSVS71CJEM7F0

DFTBA, by the way, stands for Don't Forget To Be Awesome. A message I think we can all live by a little more. :)

Pro suicide? Pro-heart disease? No. Pro-anorexia? Apparently!

UPDATE: It turns out Mr. Tong's whole pro-anorexia thing was a "hoax"... http://www.twitlonger.com/show/82t0bf
Obviously it was still ridiculously stupid thing to do, and I suspect there are those who have experienced psychological ramifications, but at least the vile things he said weren't genuine, I suppose. This post remains, as a statement against thinspiration and the others who still promote "managed anorexia".   

Oh, Irony Gods. How thou doth mock me.

Remember yesterday, when I said something along the lines of "I hope Monday brings vaguely positive things to blog about"? Well, now I find myself writing about something that literally makes me need to take deep calming breaths every few sentences. Life is like that, you see.

I hadn't even heard his name until today, but now the mere sight/sound of it fills me with rage. Kenneth Tong. As a classic example of the hurtful, hateful lies this man is smearing into the world, refer below:

"Don't listen to your family. They're lying to you. You are not beautiful. You eat too much. Stop. You need to be skinny. You deserve it."

"Wake up. Your disgusting. Your so fat you don't deserve sleep. Go look in the mirror & hate yourself. I don't want you eating today."

"Kenneth Tong: taking away your undeserved confidence. Reminding you not everyone is beautiful, that's just what they tell fat & ugly people."

For more of the fun, take a butcher's at his Twitter page...

Okay. Commence deep breathing.

I think the feelings I'm feeling have now been sufficiently transmitted to you, so I'll try and move away from the anger. 

Instead, have some counteraction:

ONE: Thin and beautiful are NOT the same thing. Thin people are sometimes beautiful, thin people are sometimes not beautiful.

TWO: No concept of "beauty" is anything other than subjective anyway. It doesn't matter in the slightest how many people tell you you're ugly, there will always be someone who thinks you're gorgeous.

THREE: Physical beauty is never worth compromising your health for.

FOUR: Move you thoughts away from contemporary celebrities for a while; think of the legends. The writers, composers, musicians, speakers, politicians who lived decades or centuries ago, whose work we still appreciate today. Did they succeed because of looks? Of course not! For the majority of them, we can't even remember what they looked like. Because it doesn't matter.

FIVE: If no women had curves (by which I mean breasts and hips), the human race would die out, because no-one would raise children.

I know most of that seems entirely obvious, but there are those who believe otherwise; about themselves and others. Tong and his hordes of female teenage victims being prime examples. That's why these sentiments are so dangerous.

Tong promotes something he calls "controlled anorexia." The very nature of anorexia is that it cannot be controlled- it is a mental illness, a phobia of eating that takes you over and eats away at your life. Promoting any kind of anorexia (as you might have guessed from my title) is like promoting heart disease or clinical depression- the latter probably being a more appropriate example.

Tong's self-declared mission in life boils down to manipulating teenage and other insecurity and pushing them towards self-destructive action- with the ultimate intention of selling a pill.

Yes, commercialism dooms us all once again.

You make me sick, Kenneth Tong. Infinitely more sick than any overweight person would ever make anyone.

I know that there are serious health problems with being genuinely overweight, but the fundamental problem with Tong's take on weight is that his definition of "too fat" is anything over size zero. Which, it goes without saying, is a far stretch from medicine's definition of overweight.

If you have enough insecurity about your weight that you would consider starving yourself, please, for the sake of everyone who loves you, talk to someone- preferably an adult- that you trust. DON'T keep the self-loathing bottled up inside, and DON'T let it drive you to self-harming. Yes, starving yourself does count as self-harming. You need food, a hell of a lot more than you need to display your rib cage to the world. 

And if you have twitter, please bombard Mr Tong's feed with rational thought via the process of @-messaging, and thereby provide a visible counteraction to his bile for any self-hating girls, boys, men, or women that are reading. I don't have twitter myself, so can't join in, I'm afraid. 

...well, that was surprisingly coherent! 

I know a lot of you my age have exams at the moment, so good luck with them. Particularly if you're one of those people who horribly freak out about any exam- I pity you deeply. 

Happy Monday, hope you're all eating well! *slight tongue in cheek*

Headlines!

I thought I'd give you a brief summary of THE NEWS. Here we go!

• A serious plane crash has occurred in Iran. At least seventy people has been killed, and thirty-two others have been injured, some of them critically. That's according to this source, which makes reference to the state news agency in Iran, IRNA. Thoughts/prayers/hope for those involved and those related to those involved goes out from me, and I'm sure from the people reading this.
• Something I find interesting, the people of southern Sudan are voting on whether to become independent from the north. I has no idea that was even a political option in Sudan, so I recommend doing  your own research into the background of the independence movement. I don't think the area was ever an independent country, particularly as no-one ever calls it anything except "south Sudan," but judging by comments made by interviewees, prime motives for independence seem to be an ethnic gap between them and the ruling northerners, and desire to avoid civil/international war. As a geography nerd, the thought of a new (pretty sizeable) country to add to the map certainly makes me happy! 
• As most of you will know, a shooting in Tuscon, Arizona, US took place a few days ago, which five people have died from, and which a Democrat congresswoman is in a critical condition. Now, some have released this report, saying that the Tea Party and other rightwing politics provoked this attack, with it's constant condemnation of any remotely left-of-centre action by the government as "socialist" (which is still a HUGE taboo word in America). While I'd like any legitimate reason to criticize the Tea Party movement, I do think this shooting was probably random rather than politically motivated. Besides, if it was, then the shooter would likely have taken the opportunity to twist any ideology to his means, right or left.
• Also, political activists in the UK are gearing up to form the "yes" and "no" campaigns for the upcoming referendum on AV, a new voting system. Arguably, this is the one successful Lib policy the Lib Dems have pushed through, though a really Lib change would be Proportional Representation rather than Alternative Vote. Still, this is an important step forward for Britain's seriously out-of-date electoral system, and I wish the "yes" campaign all the luck I can muster! Click here for further reading.

That's all for now! See you tomorrow, where hopefully I can slightly brighten the dreaded day of Monday. Hopefully I can find something vaguely positive to blog about... 

Oh my GOSH is this messed up!

An extra Copsony tidbit for you- it seems when I do multiple blogs a day, I just can't stop!

Basically, I've just found yet another despicable thing people are willing to do to make money. Joy to the world!  http://cat.blinko.co.uk/wwf-splashTool/SEO/Spy_new_google_v2_01

The app in the (hopefully visible) link above gives the opportunity of stalking your partner or spouse if you suspect them of cheating. It's specifically targeted at men who suspect their female partners of being unfaithful- God knows why that is, when suspicion usually occurs the other way round. Perhaps it's an equal opportunity statement?

I probably don't have to go into detail about why this is bad, but I'm going to anyway:

• It will create suspicion where there was no suspicion before; the ad's first bullet point is "IS YOUR GIRLFRIEND CONSTANTLY CHECKING HER MESSAGES?! FIND OUT THE BOY WHO'S TEXTING HER! Terrible grammar aside, this presupposes that if your girlfriend is constantly checking her phone, that obviously means she's having an affair. Also, most non-single men who read that will then go on to be subconsciously looking out for excessive phone-checking from their girlfriends. They may end up convincing themselves that young woman who texts more than once every half hour is suspicious behaviour... Therefore, more paranoia.
• If someone reading the ad is genuinely doubtful about their partner's loyalty, then the product eliminates the option of talking over the problem with one's partner, which is the only way a serious relationship is gong to work, ever ever ever. That's just common sense! the ad is basically saying, "Don't act like a rational, decent human being! Be a JACKASS, and watch your relationship break down around you! That's the sensible thing to do!"
• On a more basic level, reading someone's texts and accessing their call log against their will against their will is highly immoral in any situation. It's possibly also illegal. I actually don't know... It would be good if it was, though, then perhaps we could get the stupid thing banned.
• There's also the possibility that it doesn't even work- though that's probably better than an app like that existing in the world. 

GRAGH. Despite, I think, being generally better than socialism, capitalism does have it's drawbacks... If you or anyone you know is tempted by a service like that, please do everything in your power to stop them/yourself from falling for it. Ta!

See you tomorrow... a day that will hopefully bring less anger. 

Radical Violent Iraqi Now Less Violent And Radical.

Moqtada Sadr, an Iraqi man who vehemently opposed US occupation of his country, and formed the Medhi Army in response to the American military presence in his country, has given word for his supporters to be supportive of the new Iraqi government.


In his words:

"The Iraqi government has been formed," he said. "If it serves the Iraqi people, and provides services, we will stand by it, not against it.

"All of us will be with the Iraqi government if it serves the Iraqi people. If it doesn't, there are political - only political - ways to reform the government."

Firstly, I think this is a good indicator that things are significantly improving in Iraq. If one of the staunchest anti-Americans is accepting the new government as a true Iraqi government, then they are going to have a much better chance at uniting the various idealogical forces in Iraq.

Also, on a slightly more philosophical note, I think this is an important message to show that many of those we consider to be villains are actually working towards the same goal as we are, they're are simply taking a different route about it.
The declared intention of the occupation was to ultimately provide an effective democratic government for the Iraqi people. The wishes of Mr Sadr were to free Iraq from military control. In the end, both have got what they wanted. 

Maybe that's how we should view political and personal conflict from now on.  

Gay marriage

Aaaargh! I forgot to blog yesterday! PANIC!
Well, not really. I'll just do two today to make up for it.

So, this Saturday morning blog is *technically* a Friday blog, and I've decided that Fridays in January (and possibly Fridays beyond) will be Gay Fridays! I.e, the day I blog about LGBT rights, stupid homophobic things people do, wonderfully homo-accepting things people do, etc.

A fairly obvious place to start is gay marriage. I believe same-sex relationships should be treated the same way as opposite-sex relationships, as both are based on the same emotions and the same principles. As such, gay couples should be entitled to all the same rights as straight couples. And yes, marriage IS a rights issue, because having the legal status of a married couple comes part-in-parcel with property rights, hospital visitation rights and the like- rights that gay couples in most western countries do not have, even if they are allowed civil partnerships.
So, what are the arguments against same-sex marriage?

My religion condemns homosexuality.
Homosexuals, then, clearly either don't follow your religion or interpret it in a different way. Religion is something you follow electively, in this society at least, and you cannot expect someone who has chosen not to follow the same brand of religion as you to obey it's laws. That's just illogical.

But marriage is a Christian institution!
This is closer to a valid point, but your preposition is simply no longer the case. People of all theological dispositions get married, and the government provides non-religious services in registry offices etc. Therefore, marriage that exists outside of the Church does not and should not have to follow religious laws.

Won't churches be forced to marry gay couples/won't teachers be forced to teach that homosexuality is  OK?
Neither of these is the case. No same-sex marriage law (proposed or actual) has ever instructed for a change in the education system or the legal status of religious institutions. This claim is generally used by the religious right-wing to try and con those not part of the religious right-wing to view same-sex marriage as a threat.

That's all for now!

Four Blogs I Follow

The title pretty much sums up what this blog is about. Four blogs, in no particular order, that I happen to follow.

http://www.slapupsidethehead.com/ A pro-gay-rights blog put up by a gay cartoonist. The dry satire he used to deal with the idiocy spouted by conservative Canada (the country he happens to live in) is hilarious. Right now you can read his take of the DADT fiasco by scrolling down on the main page. He's also put up some more hopeful pro-gay stuff, like when two gay "mounties" got married a couple of years back, and everyone was accepting and happy.

http://www.samiles.com/blog/ The only blogger I follow that I actually know personally. Sam is a passionate vegan and a very verbal supporter of green politics and liberalism (though not the Lib Dems). He also reviews apple products, which I tend to skim over, but some of you may find interesting... present topics for discussion on here are the failings of the Tory government, and why government in general is apparently trying to control your mind.

 http://joemygod.blogspot.com/ Another gay-run blog, this features rapid updates about equal rights issues and the various failings and bigotry among the right. And when I say rapid, I mean several times a day. I don't know how he manages it...

And lastly, to keep me some sort of balanced, I try to follow a conservative blog now and then- the blog in question being http://www.naplesnews.com/blogs/im-awake-now-pamela-grothaus/. Prevalently featuring is her reasoning as to why homosexuals shouldn't have rights and why the welfare state (or the American version of it) is a terrible thing.

So, that's that. If you're reading in the morning of the sixth of January, as I am, have a good sixth of January. If not, I hope you're enjoying yourself at whatever stretch of human history you happen to be inhabiting.

Something to chew over...

Greetings, websurfer! I have two instructions for you to follow, if you'd be so kind as to oblige:

Firstly, read through the article found by clicking on the possibly invisible link to the right of this colon: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12118069

Secondly, consider the questions about human morality that this raises. The main point of BBC's article is "OMGOSH! He was so great and now he's involved with crime and stuff! It's so tragic!
Is this the correct way to view the situation? You'll notice the article tries to invoke sympathy for the man, by talking about the psychological problems he had after the 7/7 bombings, and how this lead to him being hooked on cocaine. Do you think they would be doing this for someone who hadn't been involved with the 7/7 recovery? I would have my doubts...

Is this the way we should be thinking of our hero-gone-criminal, then? Does the fact he saved lives and reduced damage during a horrible tragedy excuse him from more severe condemnation, or is every
criminal equally worthy of our judgement, regardless of their past? What if it was a ridiculously huge hero, like Ghandi for instance? Would you condemn him? What if the criminal had once saved your life, or your child's?
But the legalists say that crime is crime, and emotions cannot and should not enter into it. Are they right? Should we forget that real breathing people are involved with crime, and simply equate the crime with the appropriate action? Should we abandon juries, and common sense? Is there any room in the justice system for anything apart from cold, hard logic?

Just a simple news headline expanded into a debate about ethics- you know, as you do. Just to be clear, Simon Ford, the fire-fighter in question, is unlikely to be given a different sentence because of his identity, I was merely referring to the media's "treatment" of him. And no, I have no answers to any of my questions. Just felt like getting you thinking!


On a related note (in the sense that both subjects involve human beings and are things that I'm currently typing about), the rightfully celebrated children's author, Dick King-Smith, has died. King-Smith's books certainly constituted a large proportion of my childhood, and I'm sure nearly everyone reading this will have read and enjoyed at least one of his books at some point. You can read his obituary if you can find the invisible link, which is round about here. ---> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12121506
(If you can actually see the link, you obviously have an advantage in this game.)

I know pretty much all of my news sources have been BBC news so far, and I will try to make them more diverse in future. Just in case it was making you lose sleep at night.

As a certain fictional bouncing tiger would say:
TTFN!

VAT increase?

No thanks! Here's why:

Thanks to the economic crisis, the government needs more money. There are two ways they can do this: raising income tax, or raising value added tax (VAT). Essentially, the difference is that raising VAT means that everyone loses the same amount of money, whereas raising income tax means some people would lose more money than others. At first glance, VAT might appear fairer, but it's actually a lot less fair- to explain why, I'll hand over to Jesus:

MARK 12:41-44

⁴¹ Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. ⁴² But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins,^[a] worth only a fraction of a penny.^[b]

⁴³ Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. ⁴⁴ They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on."

(you can get to my source of bible-quoting by clicking on the verse numbers. They might be invisible, since hyperlinks on this blog sometimes are)

The point is, rich people can cope with giving more money, and it will decrease their quality of life less. When poor people give the same amount, they are affected more. VAT takes the same amount from everyone, regardless of income. The amount of income tax you pay, obviously, is based on the amount of income- so more is taken from those who can afford it.
Cameron is obsessed with being fair recently, but his decision to raise VAT to 20% clearly isn't. Not only that, but he justified  cutting child benefit because "we think those who are most off should have a bigger part to play in reducing the benefit." The obvious contradictions here are laughable.

Chancellor George Osbourne has made the bizzare claim that raising VAT will "increase employment, because people will take it as a sign the government are tackling the deficit." Uh, right.
Firstly, fewer people presently have jobs because presently there are fewer jobs, not because the country being in debt is making them scared to earn money. Secondly, even if that was the case, the extensive cuts the Tories are making would be enough of a sign that they were trying to tackle to deficit, would it not?

Other than that, Cameron has said that raising income tax would "damage businesses." Well, if Cameron is more worried about damaging the business sector than the whole of the rest of Britain's population, I don't think I have anything to say on the matter- other than "you are a terrible prime minister". 

But hey, we'll be able to get rid of the Coalition in five years! There is a bright outlook after all. 

See you all tomorrow!

Thoughts for Queensland and Ivory Coast

I thought I'd just mention the flooding in Queensland, Australia. Though the death toll, thankfully, is very small, hundreds of thousands have been forced out of their homes and away from everything they know, and can be said to have lost their "lives" another way.

The flood covers an area "larger than France and Germany combined," and is expected to last for weeks longer. Even when the waters recede, it will take countless months longer for life in the 20 towns hit to go back to normal. The response organised by the state government and the Australian Red Cross has so far been effective in organising evacuations and supplying essentials.

Further reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12107131

In other news, the leading politicians of Africa are trying to reduce the number of power-hungry discriminatory types among their midst.
The president of Ivory Coast, Laurent Gbadgo, is trying to cling to power despite losing the last election. He justifies this by saying that the election was rigged against him by the New Forces, a group that rose in support of the oppressed Ivorians living in the north of the country (Gbadgo referred to this particular demographic as not being true Ivorians, and many controversial decisions were subsequently made). It's not an entirely illegitimate argument, as the Forces initially tried to remove him with, well, force.

But the African Union and wider international community have riled against Gbadgo, embracing his more northerner-friendly opponent, Alassane Ouattarra. So far tactics have been strictly diplomatic, but France (which has economic and military presence in the country) and the Economic Community Of West African States are preparing for military intervention.
What do you think? Which is the lesser of two sins- invading the Ivory Coast, or let the Coast in question potentially suffer under a very flawed leader (if not actually a dictator)? Personally, I think it's a good idea to get rid of Gbadgo before he causes too much damage, though military action should obviously be a last resort.

The latest news on the so called Ivorian election crisis: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12106533

So, that's some of the international news of the day. Happy Bank Holiday Monday!