QUIZ: Just how unrepresentative is the British electoral system?

I'm going to ask a question. You will then have to think of an answer. Then, you will scroll down and read the actual answer. Then, you will hopefully learn something.


Of all Britain's Prime Ministers, who won the largest total number of votes in a general election? In all time, ever?


You might think it was Margaret Thatcher beating in either 1979 or 1983. It is neither of these.


You might think it was Tony Blair in 1997. Nope.


It wasn't Winston Churchill, Clement Attlee, Harold "Winds of Change" Macmillian, H.H. Asquith, or any of the other really obviously popular Prime Ministers.


Ready for the answer?


It was in fact John Major, in 1992. The Conservative's fourth successive election victory since the start of the Thatcher years; and the one with the lowest majority. That, apparently, is how badly the way Britain actually votes is represented by our electoral system.



As a bonus: the second largest number of votes received in a UK general election ever ever ever was Labour's Clement Attlee in 1951.

An election he lost.


Proportional Representation, anyone? 

Why Feminism Matters

Feminism: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social and economic equality to all.

There has been a lot of misinterpretation and accusation when it comes to the feminist movement. People accuse feminists of degrading men and damaging the family structure. Or they say that feminism is irrelevant, that women have achieved gender equality and anyone who is still actively campaigning in the name of feminism is whining nor no reason.

Both these claims, I'm afraid, show misunderstanding bordering on ignorance. Yes, there are people who argue for the suppression of men and dismantling of marriage in the name of feminism, but that is not what feminism is at it's core. Feminism was started as, and the vast majority of it's adherents keep it as, a force for equality, acceptance and open-mindedness. The ONLY belief that is fundamentally feminist in it's nature is that women are equal to men. This is not a threat to men, as we can (or should be able to) flourish in business and politics and every other area with female competitors just as well as we could in a male-only environment. It is not a threat to marriage, as marriage can and does work as a partnership between two equals (and I would argue it works much better that way).
The other claim, that the aims of feminism have been achieved, is perhaps more damaging than the first. Yes, in a purely political sense, women are upheld as equals, and have all the same rights as men. And that's a fantastic achievement. But it's only half the battle- feminists still have a hell of a lot of work to do socially. How many men still believe it is acceptable to view women only as sex objects? How unequally huge is the pressure on women to look good and appealing to men, as opposed to the reverse? Feminism is needed as a counterweight to the anorexia-inducing sexual consumerist culture that has done so much damage to young girls in the West, if nothing else.

And then there are those who are still anti-feminist once you do strip away all the misinformation. Those of all genders who still say that being born a women should shut doors around your entire life; that you should surrender your will, your consciousness to the direction of other human beings just because those other human beings had the fortune of being born with other sexual organs to you. There is no justification for such a view. Anti-feminism and chauvinism is oppression and prejudice. There is no two ways about it. The pro-male-dominance viewpoint is no different from racism or homophobia. Any assertion that a person's unavoidable demographic group should cause restrictions to be placed around their life is unacceptable in my eyes.

Women are people, and people can think and speak and write and create and debate and contribute. If we were to remove feminism from our political and social consciousness, locking 50% of our human population into lives of servitude and mindlessness, then we haven't just done an enormous, unforgivable disservice to those people. We have lost out on a huge amount of potential beauty and intelligence and improvement to the human condition. Imagine if feminism had happened three millenia before it did. Imagine a twenty first century benefiting from twice the number of philosophers, artisans, politicians and scientists than it is today. It almost makes me weep to think how much has been lost because of humanity's long-standing horrendous, stupid attitude to women.
Well, we've almost reached the end of the path of chauvinism. But that "almost" is the kicker. Stop the feminists now, and we risk sliding all the way back down the hill we've been dragging ourselves up since the original suffragettes. Don't let it happen. Our society can't afford to halve the amount of intelligent people able to express their ideas.

And so, I think we've reached the end of that rantble. I am, undoubtedly, a feminist, despite the presence of a penis. And I really think you ought to be, too. 

You and your Parents

As a teenager, I'm going to confess something.

I don't appreciate my parents as much as I should.

They made me, they've kept me in the house for seventeen years and counting, they accept me for who I am, they've managed to make enough disposable income to keep me healthy and entertained, they're still together, they aren't drug addicts, they haven't hurt me in ten million ways they had the potential to. 

But because I'm a teenager, I tend to forget all this stuff. I place a vastly disproportionate weight on the times I think they've been unfair, or hurtful, or unsatisfactory in some other way. This is true for them more than anyone else I know. I'm usually quite good at focusing on the good in people when they irritate me, but not with my mum and dad. Why?

Because parenting is a job with a lot of responsibilities, the parent-child relationship is the least equal of any relationships formed between humans. Which is to say, parents are expected to put a hell of a lot more effort in the relationship than the kids. And that's okay- they have the potential to do a lot more damage to their kids than the kids do to them.

But despite this, our relationship with our parents is a relationship like any other in the respect that it's a two-way street. We might have a much narrowed stream of traffic to look after (or whatever), but look after it we should. And that means forgiving faults, remembering that no-one is perfect, and just generally being nice when we can.

I think a lot of us interpret the unequal nature of the parent-child relationship as "they should do everything for me, and I don't have to do anything for them"- or something very close to that. But that's not right. Because at the end of the day, your parents are still human, and they have the same emotional needs as anyone else. Humans, perhaps unfortunately, are very needy creatures, and we need love and appreciation from everyone we care about. Otherwise the caring hurts too much. 

So, the point is this. I know your parents have hurt you in some way, and I'm sorry for you in that regard. But please, try to remember that they are imperfect humans with the tendency to mess up, and were never going to be anything else. Try to remember that parenting is probably the most stressful thing humans ever do, and if they've managed to keep you alive and vaguely sane for as long as they have, then they've probably done better than they were expecting. Please, just try to forgive. Many of us seem able or willing to forgive friends, siblings, lovers, acquaintances umpteen times without batting an eyelid; but fall short of doing the same for our parents. Ironically, they are the people who have probably earnt your patience the most.

I don't mean to degrade the significance of any issues you might have had with your parents, and anything they've done to hurt you. But I will always call for compassion and forgiveness, because I'm a drippy-hippy guy like that, and forgiving your parents is not beyond that.

It's not just for their sake, either. It will make your life a hell of a lot easier if your let yourself stop hating/resenting your parents, too. 

Everyone needs forgiveness, and it's probably the easiest need for us to fill. So why not give it a go?

Whistleblowing on Gay Celebrities

There is a controversial practice in tabloid media which involves revealing the sexuality of a previously closeted LGBT celebrity. The reason it's controversial is that you have the people who cry for the right to privacy, and then you have the people who think such information is rightfully theirs. And the kicker is that there are out and proud gays on both sides.

Pro-whistleblowing homosexuals argue that the media should strive in all cases to break down the taboo surrounding homosexuality, and that opening up the closets of stubborn gays is a part of that. Their claim revolves around what many gay activists think; that LGBT youth need successful gay role models to help them accept themselves; and that the gay community as a whole benefits when the heteronomrative majority are exposed to singers, actors and writers they like being gay.

I agree that gay celebrities are beneficial for the above reasons. But it's no reason to violate the privacy of those in the closet.

Coming out the closet is a delicate procedure, and only you know when it is good for you to come out. You know the nature of your relationships best, and you can judge better than anyone (especially tabloid journalists) whether any one or several friends or family members will react badly. This is true no matter how famous you happen to be.
I do not think it can ever be moral to expose something so personal, and risk destroying a person's relationship with his parents, siblings or close friends in the name of benefiting the LGBT community as a whole. People have the right to privacy, and that right should never be overridden to further some ideological cause.

A sprouting of this debate is whether it's okay to whistleblow on anti-gay politicians and activists, in order to reveal the true motives behind their views (self-denial). I admit I've wavered on this- but I think that, essentially, the call for compassion is what is most important to me. Just because someone voted or rallied against gay rights does not give us leave to damage them in the way that being outed can damage.
And, we who argue in favour of gay rights shouldn't need to resort to discrediting our opponents. We have a great deal of logic on our side, as well as the call to love and unity amongst humans. Exposing closeted antigays simply isn't needed.

So, that's pretty much all I have to say on the matter.

You Don't Need That Much Advice...

It's come to my attention that people are losing more and more faith in their own capabilities as human beings.

A few years back, I found myself at the midnight release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Alongside the books were free leaflets for parents about "how to console your child if Harry dies in this book".

At the Waterstone's in the Galleries shopping centre where I live, I'm pretty sure the single largest non-fiction section is "self help", with every Tom, Harry, Sarah and Sue giving you their foolproof way to sort your life out.

If you browse the magazines at the WHSmith's a few doors away, a large proportion of the magazines their are telling you how much weight to lose and how to do it, how to entice and keep hold of sexual partners, how to deal with children, spouses, co-workers, bosses, employees, clients.


But the things is, these writers we put so much faith in are hardly more qualified than we are to judge how to live our lives. You can't get a degree in raising children or conducting a successful marriage. And I very much doubt the tabloid dietitians of the world have fathomed enough of the mysteries of the human body to know how weight loss works to the extent they claim.

And, so much is subjective, anyway. The author of these books and articles being brandished at us don't know our peers, our family, our own bodies. How on earth do they know which techniques work for our own lives?
Different children react to different inputs. Different people are suited to different pathways to physical health. Different partners require a different kind of romantic relationship. So much so, that any claim that a technique is going to work for every relationship, every family, every person is frankly laughable.

And yet, there is a market for all this stuff. Why?

I humbly offer that people have become far too hungry for someone else to take the reigns. It seems that many of us are willing to listen to the advice of any kind of authority on anything, even when, rationally speaking, we know there is little they can know more than us about a situation.
Many things in life are difficult. But we have each been blessed, either by a designer or by evolution, with remarkable rationlising and thought processing abilities. You, reader, have more or less the same mental functions as the people who split the atom, who founded agriculture, who built the aeroplane, who began to understand the human mind. The fact is, you have been designed to face life.

Of course we should listen to the views of other people. But equally, we should remember that they are just that, views, and the mystique of their location behind a word processor does not make their opinions worth any more than yours.

So when you have a problem, go with whatever your brain and instincts tell you is right. Not what the latest tabloiding or blogging sensation has to say on the matter.  

The ELDERLY!

So I watched a Simpsons episode not-very-long-ago in which Lisa accidentally makes a drug that placates cranky old people, and calamity ensues. The conclusion was that Grampa Simpson and his band of senior citizen buddies decide to stop taking the drug because the younger generations need their endless complaining to keep them in line and stop trashing everything.

It raised an interesting point, and openly suggested something I think many of us have been mulling over mentally. Is the reason so many people complain about the older generation simply because they pass judgement on our far more frivolous, materialistic modern lifestyle? When all those grandparents complain about how much better it was in their day, do we secretly suspect they might be right?

Okay. Lets go back to basics.

In many cultures, the older you are, the more revered you are as a source of wisdom and knowledge. This, to me, makes a lot of sense. While no-one should ever make the mistake of dismissing the insight of the young, there is a lot to be said of the value of experience and accumulated wisdom.
But something has happened in western culture which means those above a certain age are generally shunted to the sidelines, brushed under the carpet, and not listened to. At some point, the post-baby boomer generations decided that the wisdom of the old was irrelevant, and that old age was a time of rapidly decreasing social relevance.

Why?

In my view, it all comes from the intensely materialistic and capitalistic culture we have built for ourselves. The culture where consumption is the highest priority, and pretty much everything is judged by it's price. This is a problem regarding retirees in two ways.

Firstly , they cost money rather than making it. According the morality of materialism, this means they have intrinsically less value. Never mind what they've done in the past, or the advice they can give, or anything else- because they are an output and not an input financially, they are always in an inferior position in society to their younger counterparts.

Secondly, everyone above a certain age has grown up before the advent of ultra-materialism. Therefore, like we said before, they are able to judge it from the outside, and that judgement is rarely good. Because of the arrogance of humans, we find it grating to hear any criticism of our choice of lifestyle, especially when it's the life modern society has demanded we take.
This is the most ludicrous of all. It is healthy to hear criticism of whatever choices we take, and good to take on board the opinions of others. But, increasingly, we don't seem to be able to do that. Whenever someone has something negative to say about modern society, whether they are elderly, environmentalism or live outside the West, they are dismissed with sneering Tu Quoque arguments. The old are said to be incapable, environmentalists are hippies and freaks, non-Westerners are impoverished, primitive extremists who need civilising.

I am exaggerating to some extent here. But the central point, that we in the West who conform to consumerism, are all too eager to dismiss anyone who critisises our society as ignorant or extremist, is indeed the case.

And the even more central point, that the elderly deserve more respect than they get from our culture, is not only true, but vital for making ours a gentler, more human and morally superior society.

On Nationalism (the practical side)

So two days ago I posted a idealistic waffle on why I don't like nationalism very much. I would now like to let everyone know now that I have practical ideas regarding how we achieve "true unity", to make up for the hippy drivel which dominated my last post on the matter.

So, without further ado:

• End the war on terror. The terrorist groups we are constantly told about are much less of a threat than most people seem to think, and attacking countries like Afghanistan et al is not helping the situation. Effectively, we just give the terrorists more reason to exist by blowing up the livelihoods of normal Middle Eastern people, and threatening the sovereignty of their governments. We would be much better off, in my opinion, if we dealt with terrorist attacks by improving domestic security.
• Pay our environmental debt. This is the money with environmental groups project we cost third world countries with our heavy industry; with which we have polluted their land and caused freak weather patterns. This would cancel out the debt the third world nations owe us, which is bleeding them dry. Or if the government has an issue owning up to the environmental issues we have caused, just cancel third world debt outright.
• End subsidies on EU and US products. This makes it impossible for African and Middle Eastern businessmen to compete fairly with European and American ones; even in their own countries. Many of them also break international trade law, but unfortunately there is no way to actually enforce these laws.
• Increase aid to the Third World where possible; but reroute it to NGOs. This removes the political element; as governments are unwilling to sponsor regimes they disagree with. NGOs are, generally speaking, also more likely to spend the money on things the people actually need.
  I see giving money to Third World people less important than stopping taking money from them; but more aid would help level the playing field and reduce cultural tension.

So, there we go. 

On Nationalism

I'm writing this because I'm getting increasingly annoyed at comments like "us British were so much better than you Americans at world war two" "I'm an American and I'd like to think that means something" "they just don't understand how we do things here in England". Because I am of the humblest opinion that nationality means absolutely nothing.

I have always been perplexed the idea that because someone born in the same politically-defined region of the world as you were did something, that you should feel pride or shame at that thing being done. Alexander Graham Bell, a brit, created the telephone, so therefore I should be proud that I too am British. Joseph Oppenheimer, an American, created the atom bomb, so all other Americans should be ashamed of themselves. Or so the logic goes.
But, why?! Why does it matter what nation a high-flier was born in, or what culture they grew up in? It says nothing about the rest of the population of that nation; anyone with any sense knows that. Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King both came from the same nations as the people who killed them. Germany has produced both vicious dictators and fantastic philosophers. Britain's people can apparently fight against fascism and fan the flames of colonialism with equal energy and effectiveness.

There are those who believe, quite understandably, that nationalism builds a sense of community and interconnectedness that we all need in our lives. But it is very much a community based on exclusion. Nationalism calls for us to celebrate all the people of our own nation are, and all everyone else isn't. It is completely different to annything resembling a true sense of unity amongst humans.

The uncompromised exclusiveness of nationalism is a huge problem. A British person's responsibility to their fellow man doesn't end at the English Channel, North Sea, or border with Ireland. An American shouldn't has no leave to stop caring about someone else just because they live below the Rio Grande or above the 49th parallel. Yet consistently, we act like we somehow have less reason to care about suffering and the consequences of our actions if it occurs beyond our national borders. Last year, the UK government spent a hell of a lot more on foreign aid than on the NHS. If that fact made you uneasy; you've proven my point.

To clarify, I'm not advocating some sort of unified, world-wide government. I don't think so, anyway. I respect the nation-state as a political structure, and believe that, in this day and age, it is probably the best way to do government. If I was to advocate any sort of change in this respect, it would be to make the areas of sovereignty smaller, not larger.
But that is where my nationalism ends. In short, the world is too vast, too complicated and too wonderful to limit your interest, concern or passion to one political subdivision of it. And people are too darn important to dismiss the billions who live beyond the coasts and boundaries beyond my own nation.

The call to true unity has never been more important, at a time when the great rift in culture and compassion between the West and the Third World threatens to open up and send the world tumbling into chaos. We need to start listening to and helping the people in those far-flung places which are too easy to forget. We need to cast off artificial labels relating to location, culture and ethnicity which, frankly, are ruining everything, and stand as we truly are: as one, continuous, undivided human race.

(8)Leeet's taaalk, let's ta-a-a-alk....

So, hey. I've just learnt something which I though I should share with y'all.

As a bit of background information, I'm intensely insecure, and subsequently paranoid and prone to having internal moments of crazy in which I freak out about everything to do with my life. Recently, I've been having more and more of these crazy moments, for no discernible reason.
My reaction, predictably, was to not tell anyone. Being paranoid, I assumed that if people knew I was a crazy bitch they'd get angry and disappointed in me and stop wanting to know me. So I bottled everything up, which didn't help in the slightest.

But as the crazy moments got worse and worse, and less and less brush-offable, it dawned on me that I really should tell someone. And now, I have. I've talked to three people properly, and once I publish this blog, I will effectively have made it open knowledge for everyone who knows me. (Which seems a silly way to go about it, but I have another purpose, so it's fine.)

Each time I've told someone, they've reacted with compassion, love, and nonhateyness, and really moved me as a result. By opening the door on my crazy, light has finally been able to shine properly on the dark part of my head. I feel so much better, and so much more confident in myself and my relationships with others.

So here's my message: talking to people is awesome.

I mean, obviously there are limits. You don't want to whine about every niggeldy thing that happens to you every day. But when you're really suffering, it's honestly best to be open about it to the people who care about you.
They aren't going to resent you, they aren't going to stop caring, they aren't going to turn you away. They pretty much always want to know, and will help you get through what you're going through, even if it's just a single positive sentence. Sometimes that's enough.

Hiding your dark parts isn't helping your relationships. If anything, it does the opposite. Relationships are built on communication; holding back on such important communication will stifle your relationship. You will start to behave in ways which your friends don't understand. You will eventually give off signs you're hiding something, no matter how hard a mask you put on. And that'll be awkward, and make your connection to those you love brittle.

A problem shared may not quite be a problem halved, but it's one which is much easier to deal with. You don't have to be alone. When you're alone, everything is a hell of a lot more daunting. Talking to people will make your perceive the issue as smaller, which is always a good thing.

So, yeah.
Don't be afraid to talk about bad things in your life. Often, it's the best thing for it.

And that's about that.

Design Change: Enjoy the tumbly orange things.

So someone pointed out to me that because the text on my blog was white, it was an issue with RSS feeds or something. So that gave me an excuse to change the whole design of the blog, from explodey blueness to tumbly orange things. You can also see the dates for each blog post now, which you couldn't do before. Which makes my life slightly better if no-one else's.

But I thought it would be rude to change stuff without acknowledging it somehow.

So this is me. Acknowledging it.

Enjoy. 

"There is NO GREATER EVIL than gay marriage!"

Apparently, gay marriage has recently become a hot topic for debate in the wonderful southern land of Australia. Anti-gay marriage types have subsequently held a rally in the capital city, Canberra, to express their opposary view to men marrying men, and women marrying women.


Not particularly surprising or rant-inducing news in itself. But some of the comments from frontline protesters were simply ludicrous. I mean, there was the usual drivel about how same-sex matrimony will lead to paedophiles marrying children, God flooding the earth in a fit of wrath, and all heterosexual marriages crumbling into dust. But then there was weirdly out-of-control hysteria from the antigays:


"The Australian reports that Ms Hagelin added that there is “no greater evil” than gay marriage supporters."


"Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce said his four daughters could be prevented from marrying if gay marriage is legalised."


...Christians are in a “war for the future of the human race”.


Wow. That's some good crazy.


The utter hysteria that comes from the mouths of some antigay activists is concerning. I mean, "no greater evil"? Seriously?! Will these people stop at nothing to try and convince us that same-sex marriage is actually a big deal?


This is a key point, actually. The reason for all the crazy is that more and more people are developing a "meh, why not" attitude towards same-sex marriage, after recognising that if you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, then SSM legislation doesn't affect your life in any way ever. This is a worry for anti-gay marriage activists, who make a living out of convincing people that their silly discriminatory views on gay people should be sanctioned by law, and so they are resorting to hyperbole, hysteria and downright lies in order to further their cause.


So in a sense, we should rejoice. The antigay cause is a dying one, and from what I've seen, as the next generation of politicians takes the helm, there will be no room for institutionalised heterosexism anywhere in the West. Hooray! 

Rioting, Inequality, Political Philosophy, and all that jazz.

I am entranced, currently, by the sayings of a philosopher I can't currently remember the name of. This random philosopher dude stated that in order to create the perfect society, everyone would have to be taken to a limbo in which they have no idea who they are or what anyone else is. They don't know their race, gender, income band, class or any of the rest of it. All they know is that once the society is built and they come out of limbo, they could be placed into any role within that society. These people then create the laws and structure for the new society, and naturally they have the inclination to make it fair for everyone, because they could be a part of any one class their society is going to create.


This could shine a new light on the riots and things. Because our society doesn't remotely resemble the Hypothetical Limbo Society. The people rioting are playing roles which no-one wants to play.
In our culture, if you find yourself at the certain juxtaposition of age group, income group and location that most of the rioters are at, then your perspective of society is going to stem from the fact that it treats you with disdain and isn't offering you a great deal of opportunity. Uni is expensive, employers are biased, the education system has pretty much given up on you before you walk through the door. You are stuck in a rut of poverty and meaningless you can't get out of.

Of course I'm not saying the riots were good or justified. You only have to listen to the garbled, not-thought-out explanations of rioters to know they don't have a conscious cause; and even if they did, it would not be a reason to burn down people's houses. But we have created a nation where resentment can be easily fostered in housing estates and working-class areas. We have covered the floor with gunpowder, the recent rioters lit the match, you could say.

So much depends on the "birth lottery". It hit home to me, somehow, when there was a rioter being interviewed whose age was reported as being 17- my age. If I had not been born to a fairly well-off family in an area heavily populated by retired people and middle-class-ish families, I could have been doing the same thing right now.
I know, of course, that your own personality comes into it. There have been gentle, loving people adverse to causing harm of any sort born into impoverished families. But no-one can deny that the poor are far more likely to riot than the rich, which shouldn't be the case.

It's easy for those who are well-off and comfortable to say "well, these youths have never even tried to get jobs! why do they deserve any more than they have?" But, you don't know that that's the case. You have never walked in the shoes of any of the ones you are condemning. The fact is, it is a lot more difficult than to be born poor and get rich than it is to be born rich and stay rich. And there are things we can do to change this.

The point I'm trying to make is what this blogger and friend of mine has put so well, that upping crime-fighting and riot-controlling techniques is only dealing with the symptoms of a much deeper problem. And that problem is inequality. Until we establish a nation where opportunity and social mobility for all is a reality, people will want to riot. Not only will people want to riot; but we will continue to waste the talents etc. of a huge percentage of our population, class conflict will stay high, crime rates will increase- I could go on.

I spend a whole blog post (this one) prattling on about the importance of unity. Now I say that unity can only be achieved with equality. Not strict fiscal equality (which is impossible without unrepentably bad things being done), but equality in opportunity and in social status. Until we reach out to the demographic groups we presently detest, this will be a nation divided.

The end. (Or something.)

Inconsequential Ranty Observation Of The Day

While trying to do desperate research for the blog post I want to write next, I types "list of political-" into google, and an auto-complete suggestion "list of political issues".

Huh?! Why would so many people google a list of things which politicians and activists are getting riled about? Are these people who are looking for something to get intellectually passionate about to fill their time?

If so, then that's highly worrying, and shows why so many of the important debates are filled with ignorant, emotionally charged and downright silly writings and utterances. I'm tired or people arguing over things for the sake of arguing; attempting to make themselves appear and feel superior and vent frustration rather than because they actually have a point they want to make. It's making my life a worse thing to live, dammit.

That is all.

When you fear your own uniqueness...

Human beings are better united. I believe this is understood by all of us on some innate level. As such, it is natural to want to feel connected to others, part of a group, etc. 

When we declare something about ourselves that is different from our peers, we feel that we are flagging ourselves up for isolation and alienation. This is an inevitable consequence of a society built up around "what is popular, is right". Combine this with our need for unity, and we become duly terrified of saying we are different in any way.

But here's a fun fact: being different is not the same as being Other.

Being part of a group does not entail being the same as everyone in that group. Your differences are not bad things, they are part of what makes life interesting. Not only that, but encountering them will allow your peers to develop as people.

To clarify: it is natural to want to be connected and united with other people, and to fear being cut off. But we all need to stop associating difference with division. The fact you are different from me does not mean that I should avoid being with you. 

So appreciate who you are, and who others are. Everyone has something to teach the world, and that can only happen if act according to who we really are.

Nothing is ever my fault ever ever ever!

I am annoyed.
Again.

I've been dwelling for a while on how people put so much energy into avoiding anything being their responsibility.  we seen this in the abundance of lawsuits and firms which thrive on encouraging lawsuits, the myriad of "it's not our fault it's yours" type disclaimers businesses have to put up, and just in the general way people talk to each other.

It's more than a little depressing for me to see so many people forcing blame onto others. And it makes me wonder where society might be headed. If things keep up like this, everyone will always deny that they have responsibility for anything, and "responsibility" will be considered a myth or old wives tale that people in the olden days used to frighten their children.

The root problem for this is probably tied up in the stubborn denial people have regarding human flaws. Or their human flaws, at any rate.
In which case, I have news for everyone reading this. You are imperfect. So am I. So is everyone you've ever met.

There really is no point in hiding that fact any longer.

So please, reader, once you leave this place of opinionation, do not shy away from admitting your own faults and errors when called upon to. Please accept that sometimes you do things wrong, and that getting lawyers to bully a group of people into giving you lots of money will do nothing to change that. I will do my best to do the same.

Tottenham Riots Blah Blah Blah

I suppose I really should blog about the riots in London, just to stay vaguely in touch with everyday life. But I don't know what I can say which isn't totally obvious.

Really, I'm just dumbfounded. Dumbfounded by the compete idiocy of so many people.
The questions I have, along with everyone else, is how do they think this is going to do any good? How can they possibly think that by burning down buildings and setting fire to buses they are going to resolve the fact that the police shot a man?

It's so amazingly stupid and counterproductive that I really am speechless.
If the riots hadn't happened, then round about now I would be typing furiously about the outrageous injustice of the police tactics used in the incidence. Instead, I'm complaining to the internet about the infuriating stupidity of the rioters. And I'm positive that that goes for a lot of other people as well, as well as professional new sources.

Do they really not see that they are drawing attention as far away as possible for the cause they're supposedly protesting about? Are they really so blind and fucking idiotic that they can't tell they're doing nothing but damage to anything?

Ugh. Basically, my faith in humanity has taken it's hugest knock yet. And I'm not happy about it.

The Importance of Making Babies

A popular theory amongst people at the moment is that the meaning of life is to make babies. While I accept that creating a new generation of humans is an important part of life, I do not think it is the exhaustive purpose of our existence.

For one thing, we live in a world where overpopulation is more or less the biggest threat we know. The huge and rapidly increasing amount of people living on Earth today is the cause of depletion of resources, using up of space, more pollution, faster global warming, and much more besides. This in turn leads to a more conflicted world as nations and social groups fight take part in an intensified fight for land and resources. In short, rapidly producing children is a self-destructive task, and any philosophy which says everyone should have lots of children is dangerous.

Also, I don't the the naturalist/Darwinist argument for birth being the ultimate cause actually makes sense. Darwin's works state that the purpose of members of a species is to ensure the survival and development of their species. Making new people, obviously, is an important part of this, but it's surely equally important to help make the world safer for the new generation that is made. If one person has ten children but does nothing to look after them, another is infertile but adopt all ten of the children and raises them well, and a third provides water sanitation for the city where the children live, who has best contributed to the survival of the species?


To be totally honest (and sorry, I am about to be intolerably patronising), I think a lot of people subscribe to the idea that  having children is the purpose of human existence just because it's easy. "To make children" is an extraordinarily simple answer to an extremely complicated question. It's also something the majority of us are physically capable of doing. As such, it's a very attractive prospect.


Unfortunately for those people, contributing to the survival of humans and improvement of the human condition is a far more delicate affair than just making lots of babies. There are those who's primary call is to be parents, yes, but there are too many other things which need to be done for every single human to dedicate their life only to their family.


I apologise if I seem to be degrading or trivialising the importance of family and parenthood in any way. That was never my intention. All I am propagating is an objection to the view that the making of children is the only source of meaning to our lives.