On Desire

So right now, I want to talk about desire. Quite a broad topic, I know. But a series of recent circumstances have got me think about why humans want the things they want, and how to deal with the problems which arise from that wanting. For now, specifically regarding romantic relationships; though I do want to explore the other types of desire via blog ASAP.

So. Romantic desire. Where does one even begin?

The first thing to consider, obviously, is that pretty much everyone wants romance. In some way shape or form, at at least one time in our lives, we find ourselves longing for a relationship based on mutual romantic desire. And as I explored in this post, this isn't necessarily a rational way to view the whole love thing.
What is it about romance that intrigues and excites us more than family, platonic friendship, or mentor/student relationships? Is it just a result of societal conditioning, or is it a part of innate human nature? I'm inclined to think it is the product of the latter being accelerated and disproportionately emphasised by the former.

Obviously, there's the whole reproduction thing to consider. We are, undeniably, genetically driven to desire sex (theoretically, so that we can produce young).  But it's more than sex that most of us want. More often, the desire is based around having someone there to call your own, and sex is secondary. It can be argued that this is just a subliminated version of the sex drive; but I think that's too simplistic.
I think the desire to have a boyfriend/girlfriend is often based around security and self-assurance. We feel that if someone wants us, we are worth more as individuals. Being wanted is not something that can be provided by any other kind of relationship. There's also the feeling of needing someone to be unconditionally on your side when facing the world; which for some reason, perhaps because of that darn thing we call society, we see as most likely to come from romance.
(I'm not reducing all romantic relationships to these wants, not by a long shot. I just think these are the reasons that we obsess over the abstract concept of romance, rather than focusing on how we feel about specific individuals.)


So, onto the other side of the coin. What drives our less helpful desires towards specific people?
One major problem that has been recognised by philosophers, psychologists and casual observers alike is that we always seem to desire those who are unattainable. Either you are in a relationship and develop a "crush on the side", or you start to fancy a married woman, or you obsess over the local nun, or, if you're me, you fall routinely and unfailingly for the stubbornly heterosexual.

It's difficult to fathom the psychology behind this; particularly as it is unhelpful to us in every possible way. But I shall give it a go. For I am unwaveringly adventurous like that.
I think it has something to do with subconsciously wanting to set ourselves high targets, to test ourselves to see how good we are at this whole life thing. It's said (on Doctor Who, and presumably by other people) that the reason we feel excitement in mildly dangerous situations is that our body is testing us to see how well we can cope, how far we can reach. Perhaps the moment we think "oh well, s/he's not available", that triggers the instinct which wants to challenge every difficulty, and that makes it so hard not to think about that person.


That's about all I'm going to write at this moment in time. But I will say this: we may have very little control over how we feel inside, but we always have a choice over how we act. When you hear someone say "oh, I couldn't help it," you invariably know they're talking rubbish. This applies to us, too.
Whenever you find yourself in a situation where you are obsessing unhealthily over either romance as a concept, or your romantic feelings for someone who you know will not repriocate them, you have the choice to deal with that situation as you see fit. You can choose to continue obsessing, or you can choose to put yourself in a place where the desire is marginalised, and work as hard as possible to get over your unhelpful wants. If you do choose to try and get rid of your feelings, than it often does work.

Hopefully you will see that as friendly advice rather than self-righteous preaching...


Anyway. Happy websurfing!

Boris Johnson does have his moments...

Specifically, this moment.

Boris has decided to make Barack Obama pay the congestion charge for driving his limousine and convoy through London. The total charge is apparently £5.2 million, which seems insane- but then, he has a lot of cars, and ignored the charge for a long time.

I think it only seems fair; given that this visit has cost us millions in security. But let's be honest; the Americans probably won't pay it. They are just as paranoid about spending too much as the UK government is at the moment. 

Plus, only Boris is willing to hold him to the charge. Given the pro-Obama and pro-America hype that has spread through Britain during the visit, I'm sure most people are willing to think "what's £5.2 million amongst friends?" 

This opens me up to say a quick word on the "special relationship" in general. Admittedly, I feel very ignorant about the whole thing, since the economic implications are, as with all economics, beyond my understanding.

However, I hate that Britain is going along with what can be described as America's imperialist attitude towards, well, everywhere. I don't think the US and UK should act as the police force of the world; even if we were using that position with the best intentions.
It's my view that America currently has plans to grab as much of North Africa and the Middle East as possible, to keep it in oil for as long as possible. Britain's role in this seems to be provide troops and satiate diplomats whenever we are called upon to by Washington. 

I think there are better ways to conduct foreign policy in Britain than place so much emphasis on the relationship with the US. I think we would be better off being more co-operative in Europe; as one of a group of equals, rather than the effective bitch of a much larger, more powerful country.

My two cents worth at the moment; anyway.

The Consumerverse

We live in a weird world. If you think about it (as I'm sure most of you have at some point), many of the everyday things we do are just plain... odd. Particularly as we don't pay any attention whatsoever to what comes before for after it.

Like buying a sandwich.
That's just weird.
Not that long before now, sandwiches were only attainable in the traditional way: buying bread, buying butter, buying meat/cheese, cutting bread, buttering bread, filling sandwich. A short while before that, most people would have grown the wheat and farmed the cow which gave the beef or cheese, in addition to the above steps.
Now, all we do is see sandwich, exchange money, have sandwich, eat, throw away plastic wrapper.

We have created a world in which the wast majority of us are completely out of touch with means of production for everything we use. As a consequence, we don't work for it. I'm not saying we don't earn it- which can be accounted for by the money we work in exchange for. But we are rarely involved with the creation of anything anymore.

Even the way we attempt to solve the problems that occur beyond the consumerverse seems very unattached. Give money, press button, African child's life is better. It's no wonder gap years are so popular- I don't think you can ever get rid of the human need to be involved with something that seems "real", and in this context, that means being phycially involved with charity rather that just throwing money at a problem.

I'm not saying any of this is necessarily a bad thing. It's probably neither good nor bad, on it's own. But it's worth considering the implications of the world of consumers where we live, where everything has already been made for us, and that which we leave behind is dealt with out of sight.

Is this shiny world of consumption we have woven around ourselves to blame for what is often a totally apathetic attitude towards the environmental problems of the age? Have we become so used to taking what we want from one depository and placing want we don't want in another, without having to be involved in what happens beyond the walls, that we simply can't comprehend the true implications of things like pollution, factory farming, or even poverty? If we saw where our waste went, would we waste less? Probably. If we saw where our food came from, would we be more inclined to do something about it? I suspect so. If we were more often involved with physically creating the material things we possess, would we value them more, and find ourselves in more sympathy with those without the ability to have what we have? I think we would.

Thus conclude my musings of the day. Apathy is bad. Avoid it at all costs. 

War and Peace

(Yes, I am that pretentious.)

The question of the day is this: is peace the absence of conflict, or does conflict arise from the absence of peace?

It was Baruch Spinoza who said that  "Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice". And I think I probably agree with him.

The way I see it, peace was the "default setting" for humanity when we came into existence. Initially, there was no conflict. Then someone came up with the idea of the hierarchy, and people were inflamed with the desire to rule over their fellow man.

This was aggravated when we statrted to separate into different territorial claims. Someone though "my territory isn't big enough! give me some of yours!" and person two was like "uh, NO!". And so fighting ensued.

The point is that I don't agree with the assessment that conflict and the desire to dominate is a natural part of the human make-up. As such, I also disagree with both it's possible conclusions: "we will always fight over stuff," or "we need to develop to a higher level of sentience in order to stop fighting".

The default is peace. Peace is a virtue we are all born with, then it becomes eclipsed by the conflict that is already so well-established in the human world now.

Most hippie-drippy-artsy-lifecoach people agree that if you want inner peace, the answer is to let go of the unnecessary. This, in my opinion is bang on.

Don't start fighting with other people over the unnecessary and/or unattainable. Focus on what really matters. Then you will start to return to the peaceful state you started in.

The Mistake of Social Conservative Christianity

So, the issue is this. As Christians, we often find that many of the principles we adhere to (sexual chastity, material abstinence, placing God before the self, et al) are in direct contrast with modern society. Many Christians, teenage ones in particular, feel like they're being pressured to abandon Christian principles and live life in a very different way  to what they view as moral.

The solution, according to religious social conservatives (American Republicans, British traditionalist Tories, the Polish PiS party, amongst others) is to pass laws restricting activity which Christians view as immoral. This has included abortion laws, anti-gay-rights laws, restricting adoption to married couples, ensuring sex education only talks about sex within marriage.

The problem with this is that we have no right to force our morality on those outside of our faith. Christianity is something you follow electively, and Christian laws are only things which can be followed once you accept Christ  into your life. Seizing control of the state and passing laws to make everyone look and act like good little Christians is illogical and immoral.

The solution is simply to find more resilience against social pressure within yourself. And in all honesty, if you're finding it that difficult, you can't have much faith in your God anyway. The founders of the church lived in sewers and were persecuted by egomaniacal Roman emperors with thousands of highly trained soldiers at their disposal. I'm sure you can handle being seen as unfashionable. 

There is a complication to this issue, involving the Great Commission. For non-Christians following this, or Christians who weren't don't pay enough attention in church, the Great Commission is the bit at the end of the Gospels, when Jesus says "go and make disciples of all the nations, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you to do." This can be interpreted in a social-conservative sense; instructing people to adhere to Biblical principles with the backing of the law.

However, if you apply a dose of common sense, you will probably find this is not the case. As I sort-of said above, the way to spread the Gospel is not to read someone a list of laws to follow whilst holding a gun to there head. It is said throughout the New Testament that man cannot achieve holiness/salvation/Christian-ness through his own works, only through faith in Christ. Making people follow Christian laws is not the answer, simply because following Christian laws is not enough to be Christian. All we can do in light of the Great Commission is to be open about what we believe and argue our stance when called to, making the case that There Is A God Who Loves You And Died To Save You From Hell. Nothing beyond that will do any good, as people have to make the choice to follow Jesus themselves.

That's all for now, kids!

The Seeking Of Attention

Or: "How Blogs Keep Distracting Me I'm Supposed To Be Revising"

It is a truth, universally acknowledged, that people don't like attention seekers. Myself included. We often find of our peers that they do irrational things to keep the focus of conversation (and, oddly enough, attention) on them. Whilst doing this, they often seem oblivious to the needs and qualities of others.

However, we may not really be in a position to judge. It is my view that nearly everyone attention-seeks to degree.
We accept that it is a fundamental need/want of human beings to be liked, respected and accepted by their peers. I have never met/been aware of ANYONE who does not have that basic need. 100% of the time, when people say they don't care about whether other people like them, they either a) are blatantly lying in an attempt to appear cool, b) haven't thought it through or c) are referring to a particular type of respect from a particular group of people.

So the point is, everyone wants people to like them. And if you want to get people to like you, you sort of need to get them to pay attention to you first. Which is why everyone who has the confidence to be an attention seeker is, in their own way, an attention seeker.

Of course, when we talk about "attention seekers," we aren't talking about everyone who has ever sought the attention of anyone else. We mean the loud, obnoxious types who do excessive amounts of stupid stuff and run around with proverbial neon signs saying "LOOK AT ME!", or the pretentious bastards who refuse to talk about anyone or anything except themselves and their own achievements.

But really, these people just have different tactics of achieving what we all want from other people. In my opinion, we only find it annoying because they're being blatant about it, and perhaps because they are reminding us of one of our less convenient wants.


So, I'm not really sure what the point of that was. Maybe just another statement against over-judgementality.

Happy websurfing!

The Copson Agenda

Disclamer: this post has no relevance whatsoever to the news today. Just so you know.

I thought I'd give a run-down of political policies I'd like to see implemented, and would try to implement myself if I had any kind of power over anything. Not really a "manifesto", as it only covers a few key areas and says nothing on the economy for very obvious reasons. More just a List Of Things I Care About.



Political Reform
-Introduce a referendum on Proportional Representation
-Enforce a cap on the amount of money parties are allowed to spend on election campaigns. This levels the playing field for smaller parties, and by reducing the need for party spending, removes much of the influence of big investors like the City of London and trade unions.
-Increase the power of local government, as blanket policies from Westminster often do not meet everyone's needs

Social Policies
-Legalise gay marriage
-Remove discrimination against same-sex couples in state adoption agencies, though not in private agencies (this may already have been done)
-Legalise some soft drugs, definitely cannabis, investigate all other currently-illegal drugs to assess impact of legalisation
-Allow much less regulated carrying of non-lethal weapons; tighter control over lethal ones
-Ban all blood sports
-Ban all animal testing

Foreign Policy
-Withdraw troops from Afghanistan and Libya
-Do not invade any foreign territory unless there is a proved risk to Britain or a close ally (and in the latter case, only invade on said ally's indication)
-Referendum on EU membership (whilst heavily campaigning for a "Yes" vote)
-Referendum on any EU regulation with a perceived reduction in British sovereignty

Law Enforcement
-Reduce time police are allowed to hold terror suspects without trial
-Severe investigations into riot-control techniques; law which demands trial for any police officer who violates basic human rights
-Elected sheriffs (or whatever the name is for the chief police leader guy in a regional constabulary)  

And that, as they say, is that.

Hey! Voters! Leave them Libs alone!

The Conservatives are playing a twisted, deceptive game with their coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats.

Presently, pretty much everyone is blaming Nick Clegg for the public service cuts that are being made by the coalition. It's understandable, really; he said he was different, he said he would make university cheaper, he said he the Lib Dems in parliament would counteract big cuts to the public service. But he joined a coalition agreeing to raise tuition fees, hack away at libraries, etc. etc.

But it's not like the Tories won votes by more honest methods. In 2010, Cameron said "I'll cut the deficit, not the NHS". This year, under Conservative healthcare reforms, hospitals are having to make savings of 50%. In 2010, Cameron said in order to re-ignite the economy, he would tackle youth unemployment. Now, unemployment is rising for everyone, everywhere, including youth.

I'm not saying Nick Clegg is perfect or wonderful. But I am saying he's taking a disproportionate amount of the blame for government policy. What's happening now, effectively, is the Tories are making their idealogical cuts to pretty much everything, then letting the media pin everything on Clegg, so that they have a scapegoat. And everyone's falling for it.

The thing that is most frustrating about this is that so many people voted against AV as a protest against the Lib Dems. Well, congratulations! Not only have you got us stuck with a less democratic voting system, possibly forever, but you actually ended up supporting the party who were really responsible for the thing you were protesting against!
I know that wasn't the only reason people voted No to AV. But it was a huge part of it.

In summary, then, it's perfectly understandable to be angry towards the Lib Dems at this current point in time. But don't let the Tories hide behind them, and get away with so much of the blame which they deserve. 

Tories May Be Planning To Introduce Watershed on Gay Kisses

According to this and this, amongst other sources, David Cameron may have plans afoot to ban kissing between members of the same sex on television before 9pm. What a hugely stupid idea.

It's difficult to really address the situation without just stating the obvious; particularly as I don't have any Cameron-quotes to try and counter directly. I don't know how he's trying to justify this; so there's not a great deal to dispel.

But just to reiterate what you, reader, must surely know already: this will achieve nothing other than demonising homosexuals, branding homosexual activity as wrong when a liberal, virtually-secular government should be neutral on the issue, and sending out a message that homophobia is the right way to go.

It can't be the actual imagery the Tories want to protect our children from; as the still-permitted hetero kisses will look virtually the same. So they must just be trying to deny that gays exist.

I've said it so many times: keeping homosexuality a taboo subject during primary school only ensures that children first encounter the concept through a negative, derogatory lens. It keeps understanding down, and sows division and prejudice in places where there shouldn't be. 

I sincerely hope those in the House of Commons have more sense than to brand homosexuals as perverted and dirty in this way. Gay rights have come so far in Britain. Don't start turning back the clock now.

This term's Conservative party promised to the LGBT community that they were different from the Thatcher's Section 28 Tories. The fact of the matter is, they still need to prove it to us. 

When You Vote Tomorrow

When you vote tomorrow in the AV referendum, think about the position you are in.

Right now, Britain is caught in a system which favours two-party politics and the red-blue seesaw. Real political accountability has been all but wiped out. The House of Commons is used as Labour and the Conservative's personal battleground for rhetoric, with substantial change in Britain firmly off the agenda.

You have the opportunity to lay the first stepping-stone towards genuine parliamentary reform. It's an opportunity no-one has had in the past, and it's an opportunity which no-one is very likely to get in the future. Voting yes to AV is shouting YES to accountable politicians, a real opposition, and a parliament which reflects the diversity of opinion in Britain. And only a government like that can make any real progress in this country. 

I'm not going to repeat all the arguments I made in my last, fairly-recent post on this topic. But I am going to repeat this, over and over: This Is A Once In A Lifetime Opportunity, And Britain Needs You To Support Parliamentary Change.

Please, don't waste this chance. We've waited too long to start the long, messy process of ditching two-party politics. Don't make us wait any longer. We can't afford it. Vote Yes. Change Britain. 

Osama bin Laden, and the death thereof

Yesterday, as I'm sure you will all be aware, it was announced that Osama bin Laden, the leading Al Qaeda terrorist behind 9/11 and various embassy bombings, had been killed by US forces in Pakistan. And there was much rejoicing throughout the land. But a few remained suspicious, me included.

People seem to have readily accepted bin Laden's death as a Good Thing without much in the way of explanation. The automatic equation in people's minds seems to be "bin Laden = terrorist; dead terrorist = good" without any consideration of the practical consequences (positive and negative) of such an event. Personally, I think the best bin Laden's death is going to do is to throw al Qaeda into disarray for a while. But the advantages of even this, when we've heard a whole lot of nothing from al Qaeda for a while now, are fairly minimal.

Besides this, there are three main things to be suspicious about: was he actually killed yesterday? Will his death prevent any terrorist attacks? and How will the US government use this event?


The first point of suspicion is more merited than you're probably thinking right now. There's a fair lot of oddness surrounding his death.
For a start, his body vanished almost immediately. The official line is that it was buried at sea, within 24 hours of his death. It was buried within 24 hours because Islamic tradition demands it should be, and at sea because extremists might use bin Laden's tomb as a "shrine". But why would American soldiers care about Islamic tradition? They don't show the same respect to the rest of the Muslims they kill/have killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and recently Libya. And the reason for a sea-burial is a very weak one. If bin Laden's death is going to ignite the passions of the extremists, then it's going to ignite away, regardless of whether or not they know where the body is.
Another fairly simple point is that there's no footage of his death. Not that there would be; but it's worth taking under consideration that with no body and no image of the killing, we have no actual evidence the killing took place.
Just to clarify; I do not think bin Laden is still alive. I think the most likely scenario is that he died a while ago, the American government realised they missed an opportunity to incite lots of patriotism, and so faked his death yesterday. After all, he's been number one on the wanted list for nearly ten years, and every government/organisation that was allegedly supporting him had been decimated or dismantled. How was he supposed to survive that long?

Secondly, if he is dead, then like I said at the start: it isn't going to change a whole lot. The temporary confusion of what is now a fairly non-threatening terrorist group is not worth a particularly huge celebration, as far as I'm concerned. The vast majority of extremists currently capable of wielding an attack are outside the command of bin Laden's al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda are, effectively, no longer the problem. Even is they were, the death of their figurehead (like I said) isn't going to stop them completely, if to any substantial degree. If Britain was at war, and the Queen was shot, we wouldn't suddenly stop fighting.

Thirdly, we need to be aware of the intense nationalist/imperialist surge that will occur in America and, to a lesser extent, other countries in the West as a result of this event.
It goes without saying; because the US navy seals have (allegedly) taken out a very dangerous terrorist, there will be  a lot of patriotism, and a great deal more support for America's operations in the Middle East/North Africa. Those who think the military presence in Afghanistan, Libya et al is pointless will simply be directed towards bin Laden's death, and expected to say "oh well, we are doing good then!".
Patriotism is not inherently a bad thing. But at a time when the American government is gaining more and more control over nation's and people's it should not, and Western imperialism is on the unmistakeable rise, any surge in nationalist-patriotic feeling has to be regarded with caution and wariness.

That's about all. In summary, you don't have to accept bin Laden's death as an undeniably good thing, and be ever-vigilant regarding the motives of the American and other governments. 

NDP breakthrough in Canada

On Monday, the Canadians had their general election. Unfortunately, the strongly antigay Conservative party won a majority- but there was some good news.

The New Democratic Party, the former fourth party in the House of Commons, rose a staggering amount to become the second-largest party, and the official opposition. This is the first time in history the Liberals and a Conservative party have not been the two biggest parties.

As little as I know about Canadian politics, I do know that this means hope for third party and minor party supporters everywhere. You don't have to give up and vote for one of the main two. Vote for what you believe in, and work towards a breakthrough. They do happen.