Renouncing Romance. Sort Of.

So today I drummed it into my head that I'm probably not going to have a romantic relationship for at least three years or something.
For one thing, I'm unlikely to find anyone in the near future with whom a state of mutual attraction will be established. With one-and-half exceptions, and one more doubtful exception, any guy I've ever remotely fallen for has been straight. And I don't see this changing any time soon.
For another thing, I'm completely incompetent at this thing we call romance. The few who have ever been able to see in me in a romantic light have been put off pretty quickly. My head just isn't anywhere near the ballpark of dating and such.

~AN IMPORTANT SIDE-NOTE~
This is NOT the point you go "aww" and feel sorry for me.
Anyone feeling sorry for me right now will be slapped in the face. Twice. With a brick. Because you are completely missing the point of everything.

I have decided that romance doesn't matter. Or, it only matters when it is actually present in your life, making pining for it or chasing it a worthless endeavour.

I have a new theory regarding relationships.  

It is not the types of relationship in your life that matters; it's the people.
Everyone you ever meet has the power to change the life for the better. Everyone can give you lessons to learn, and new experiences to taste. And since every human being is at least slightly different, the inspiration and teachings they can give you are at least slightly different as well. And, most relevantly, the way in which they will teach and/or inspire you is different.

Humans don't just establish relationships with people. When all goes well, we establish the specific type of relationship that will allow the other person to help us the most. Sometimes it's a friendship, sometimes a surrogate-family affair, sometimes it's a mentor/student collaboration, and sometimes it's romance. 

Therefore romance, as with any other type of relationship, has no objective value. It is a means to an end. It's a bit like a pen- if you give a pen to an average five-year-old child, it's going to have a lot less value than if you give it to Shakespeare. In the same way, if you establish a romantic relationship with someone who had done more good as a friend or as a source-of-inspiration-from-afar, then none of the wonderful things you've heard about romance will happen. But if you build one with someone who can help you most via romance, then awesomeness will ensue.

Of course, it's not always possible to tell how someone can help you most. The only real-life advice I can give, I'm afraid, is follow your instincts wherever possible, and don't try to convince yourself into feeling anything.

So, to clarify the title, I'm not actually renouncing romance- I'm renouncing my obsession with romance. I've spent too much time wanting a boyfriend, when I'm probably just as well off without one.

THE END! 

It's Not As Easy To Blame Religion As You Might Think...

People blame religion for a lot of things. I've heard it said, many a multitude of times, that if it wasn't for religion there would be less war, less conflict, less oppression. I can see exactly where this argument is coming from, and for a long time, I kind of agreed with it. But recently, I reached the conclusion that this is not the case.

Take the Taliban. They claim to be acting on Islamic principles, but it's pretty plain to see that their only objective is power for themselves. They don't care who they kill or suppress, whether it's an obedient Muslim or a blasphemous atheist. They only try to justify what they are doing in Islamic terms to try and convince the moderate Afghan majority that they are the good guys. 

As a Christian example, look at Northern Ireland. To the casual viewer, the conflicts here would seem to be an entirely religious issue. The reason the majority of Northern Irish wanted to stay united with Britain was because they were Protestant and Britain was a Protestant nation; the reason the IRA objected was that they were Catholic and Ireland was a Catholic nation. Virtually all the conflict in Northern Ireland still comes from those two groups; Catholics and Protestants.
But this is not a religious conflict. The division between those who call themselves Catholic and those who call themselves Protestant is not rooted in strong opinions about transubstantiation. To all extents and purposes, the two terms are merely words, words that represent abstract notions of community that you are born into, and does not change with your religious beliefs. Again, religion is only used as a scapegoat for those who would divide themselves from others. 

It's the same everywhere. Yes, people have done atrocious things in the name of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism  et al. But those actions, or actions very similar to them, would have happened regardless of whether those faith systems had been set up beforehand.

Acts of destruction and divisiveness are motivated by the same things they are always motivated by; desire for wealth, desire for power, the desire to belong to an "us" at the expense of a "them". The fact the perpetrators of those acts then tried to justify what they did in religious terms is irrelevant. People have done the same with national identity; Hitler declared he was doing what he did in the name of/ for the sake of Germany. Does this make the existence of Germany the cause of Nazism? Of course it doesn't!

The point is, people don't start out completely innocent, then open a bible or hear a pastor and are suddenly filled with the desire to oppress, divide, destroy, dismantle. It doesn't work like that, and has never worked like that. Those who kill and create misery in the name of religion already want to commit the acts they commit before finding a way to justify themselves with their interpretation of a certain faith. 

If organised religion was to disappear, the world would remain 100% as conflicted as it is now. That is what I believe. Of course, not all of you will agree, and you are welcome to put your counter-arguments forward. Just keep it civil, please!

Happy websurfing!

A Highly Admirable Pastor

"One reason, I think, is that it's easy to condemn homosexuality if you are not gay. It is much harder than condemning pride, or lust or greed, things that most practicing Christians have struggled with. It is all too easy to make homosexuality about "those people," and not me. If I were to judge someone for their inflated sense of pride, or their tendency to worship various cultural idols, I would feel some personal stake, some cringe of self-judgment. Not so with homosexuality. 

"

These words (amongst other words) from a man who used to publicly condemn homosexuality and  gay rights, Pastor Murray Richmond.
Three things delight me about this:

Firstly, Richmond fills me with admiration, because it is so hard to admit you're wrong in this pride-filled world. Also, I'm a sucker for a "redeemed villian" story.

Secondly, the argument itself is excellent. The whole thing is really worth reading if you travel via the link above, and it highlights the hypocrisy of those who express anti-gay sentiment with wonderful clarity and eloquence. It provides good ammunition, as it were.

Thirdly, it gives hope to all those who have been fighting for LGBT equality for so long. We can change the minds of the opposition. It's happened and shall happen again.

"The First Amendment Doesn't Count for Muslims"

The First Amendment to the US Constitution was the act of legislature that ensured no law could be passed that would infringe on the right of American citizens to openly practice their religion. It provided the protection that America was essentially founded over- that is to say, the various groups of Pilgrim Fathers travelled to the New Continent to practice their religion without fear of the theocratic governments of the Europe of the time, and the First Amendment ensured their journey was not wasted.

Now, Bryan Fischer, a major commentator of the American right-wing, has said it doesn't apply to Islam. His justification for this basically goes that there were no Muslims in America at the time the amendment was written, so it's authors were unaware of this horrific threat to American democracy and culture and the Western way of life.

Wow. What total idiocy.

First-off, it shows how completely ignorant Mr. Fischer is of the nature of Islam. As always, he simply looks to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and thinks "right, well, all Muslims are out to kill/suppress me then!". This is roughly equivalent to someone looking at the Westboro Baptist Church in order to judge all Christians. Declaring that all Muslims are out to destroy democracy is pure fearmongering, as I have stated many times before. He conveniently forgets, or perhaps he hasn't bothered to find out about,  the moderate majority of Muslims, who are happy to dwell in or co-exist with a Western democratic state. It is never acceptable to condemn the 95% because of the actions of the 5%.

Secondly, it's more hypocritical than I can even begin to say. The First Amendment does not contain a clause saying "well, as long as we happen to like the religion being expresses, that is". There are plenty of people, liberals, gay people, Native Americans, as well as Muslims, who object to a lot of what Fischer says. But due to the First Amendment, he has the right to say it- as he and his supporters so gleefully point out every few minutes. Now he has come across a religious disposition he doesn't like, and he's trying to find a loophole in the Amendment protecting him, so he can suppress his opponents.

The rights of those who follow Islam are under threat all over the west. We have to stand against this demonisation of one of our most prominent minority groups, or disastrous consequences will follow. What it's easy to forget is that a great number of people do listen to people like Fischer, and their British counterparts. Support for Islam has to be expressed, and those measures which would spread division amongst different religions and ethnic groups in our respective homelands must be challenged at every turn. 

What We Should Be Cutting

In the light of the anti-cuts marches happening today, and constant criticism from the Tories that no-one on the left has provided a credible alternative to their deficit reduction programme, I've decided to come up with things I would cut before withdrawing funding from education and public services. There are a lot of things the government wastes money on that not many people (except the Green Party) bring up.

1. The House of Lords
Pretty much everyone agrees that we need to reform the Lords, to make it more democratic. We should only allow them to continue if they are elected, with shorter terms. But I would go one step further, and say we shouldn't continue them at all. The House of Lords has no real power. They have to pass a bill once it reaches them from the Commons. They can delay it for a year, but after that, it must be passed, even if the Lords were to unanimously object to the bill. They are essentially the Royal Family without the tourist income. No plan for reforming the Lords says anything about giving them more power. So why not do away with it completely, and have a unicameral parliament? I really don't see the disadvantage. While the Lords don't recieve a salary, we would save 792 lots of expenses, as well as however much we spend on upkeep. 
2. Trident
   There is presently a fairly extensive campaign including people from Greenpeace, the SNP and the Greens not to renew the Trident nuclear weapon system.There are a number of cheaper alternatives than the full replacement plan currently in the works, or we can replace the programme as plan but cut the number of submarines. It goes without saying that the present threat of nuclear attack is much lower than it was when Trident was initially bought, and nuclear armament is nowhere near so important that it should be immune to the cuts all other departments are facing. 
3. Replacing Petrol With Hydrogen
4. Okay, so this one is complication, would initially cost money, and would take a long time. However, oil prices are going up and up, and with so many alternative fuels available for cars, it's ridiculous not to replace them. Mass-production biofuel requires a lot of land space, and while it releases a lot less carbon extra carbon than crude oil, it's difficult to prove that it's entirely carbon neutral. Hydrogen, therefore, is by far the best option.
5. Carbon TaxesDetailed here, a carbon tax would provide more money for tackling to deficit while deterring people from releasing too much carbon. 

So, that's that. I'm sure there are many more options I could have put here given the need. The point is, there are many ways the Tories could be protecting our public services etc, they just aren't. So don't believe them when they say it's inevitable.  

Gender Identity

There's a serious lack of understanding going around regarding non-heteronomrative gender identity. I thought I'd provide everyone with a glossary to promote basic comprehension. ^_^

Sex: Whether you are male or female physically.

Gender: Whether you are male or female behaviourally, and whether you identify emotionally as male or female.

Transgender: Someone who's gender is the opposite of their sex. A transgender woman is a person who identifies as a woman but has a physically male body, and a transgender man is vice versa.

Transsexual: Someone who has undergone sex change surgery (though sometimes used interchangeably with transgender).

Genderqueer: Someone who does not identify as "man" or "woman"; who has no gender. Distinctly different from transgenders/transsexuals, since trans people do identify to a single gender, it just happens to be the one different from the sex they were born with. Those who consider themselves genderqueer, however, do not identify as a gender.


Transgender, transsexual and genderqueer people are presently subject to more intolerance and prejudice than homosexuals/bisexuals. People are coming to terms with same-sex attraction, but alternative gender identity is still considered "weird" by most.
If you think about it, it's not that strange. I find it far more peculiar that sex and gender do correlate so much of the time; because they are essentially completely different things.
Belonging to one of the three demographics outlined above is not unhealthy or damaging in any way. It is not a delusion or mental illness, as too many people still think. There is no reason to object to it other than "oh no! it's different from me!"

Lets overcome that reaction, and throw the arms of social acceptance wide open to those who weren't lucky enough to be born the the physical body of the gender they identify with. 

Evidence That People Are Basically Awesome

We hear so much about how people are basically selfish, that kindness doesn't exist, that every action of man eventually leads to his own benefit.

We are so often told of a dog-eat-dog world in which we must fend for ourselves, because no-one helps anyone.

We are subject all the time to the sentiment that faith in humanity is misguided and naive, that only the cynical are making any sense.

There are moments, like these, where I just want to stick two fingers up to the cynics and say "suck it, bitch!". But I can't, because I'm too moved to do anything but stand and gape.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20110318/twl-nuclear-ninja-suicide-mission-to-sav-3fd0ae9.html

It's not the first time something like this has happened, either.
Life-sacrificing heroes were present at Chernobyl, 9/11, in every major war, in every earthquake and Tsunami. It's a sad world where more people know about Adolf Hitler than Edith Cavell.

Yes, people are willing to lose everything to make a safer, better world for others. No, it's not just those trained in the art of rescue and sacrifice like soldiers or firefighters. The men involved in the operation detailed above are technicians, engineers. This is the first time, almost definitely, their work has been anything remotely life-threatening. Yet they have walked into the face of such immense danger with no hope of reward and virtually no hope of survival.

One of the most commonly-asked question in the world goes: "are people basically good, or basically bad?"
The answer goes: "Neither."

People are basically awesome. That, my time-killing web-surfing friend, is the simple truth.