Steve's random and often belligerent Journal [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Uncle Steve

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Links
[Links:| [Unconsidered Trifles] [Post a Secret] [The Independent] [BBC News] [Guardian] [BBC photos page] [Cat Town] [Get Human] [The Slant] [The Onion] ]
[Best:| [The Greatest Fantasy Novel Ever Written, etext] [CD: 'Has Been'] [Patricia McKillip] ]
[Food:| [RealGoodTaste Blog] [cocoa-loco] [Artisanduchocolat] ]
[Charity:| [The UK Wolf Conservation Trust] [London Wildlife Trust] [sweet-charity.net] ]
[Misc:| [Why you should support Tibet] [The only link to 'Celtic' history/myth you need] [Chambers' Book of Days] [Awesome online board games shop from Canada] [Maelstrom forums] [Odyssey forums] [Interregnum forums] ]
[My Pages:| [Flickr] [Facebook] [We Heart It] ]
[Wishlist:| [MY WISHLIST!] ]

(no subject) [Nov. 22nd, 2009|11:55 pm]
[Tags|, ]

I've been very busy seeing lots of friends recently, and am off to Wales tomorrow for a few days.

I do have several ideas for deep and meaningful blog posts (especially on "what, you mean Blair lied about Iraq and there wasn't enough planning or equipment? Surely not, I am in shock, etc (the good news being that amount of negligence is technically a war crime)"), but will leave you with this gem instead:

Link2 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Nov. 10th, 2009|01:18 pm]
[Tags|, , , ]

In the UK we have a newspaper called "The Daily Mail". Most of us are pretty sure it's a long-running joke, and that someday soon the owner will stand up and go "HA! I WAS KIDDING! FOOLED YOU!" and we can all have a good laugh while beating him around the head with the nearest available heavy objects.

Recently it has crossed into territory more suited for The Onion spoof newspaper. One particularly bigoted piece caused over 22,000 complaints.

But today, oh. So special.

Basically, women should learn to be sweetly pretty, and get back in the kitchen.

We're used to stories from the Mail saying "gays are icky", "it's all immigrants' fault" and "everything gives you cancer". But this is quality stuff today from Quentin Letts. It starts with "why can't everyone stop being so common and be posh instead?"

I've linked the page above, but just to deny them some clicks, here's a summary:


- "(Women) have lost the centuries-old idea of being demure in public. The sort of slender-lipped, self-questioning, hesitant lover played by Celia Johnson in David Lean's 1945 film Brief Encounter is now found only in recently arrived immigrant families."

Given the Daily Mail's attitude to Muslims, perhaps he shouldn't be championing "centuries-old ideas of women being demure in public"? Citing a woman who would rather go through one of the most famous tragedies on film rather than speak out loud to the man she loves is presumably not meant as irony here.


- "a grottiness not seen on this crowded island since the early 1800s before Sir Robert Peel formed his police force to tame the grottier purlieux of London."

That's right, the police were formed to tidy up the common folk.


- "One consequence of (Germaine Greer's) convention-shattering ways was a destruction of modesty and decency."

If "modesty and decency" were broken by feminism, you may want to double-check that women wanted them in the first place.


- "The very notion of being a gent became redundant if men and women were the same."

Only if your idea of women is that they are delicate passive flowers who need to be especially looked after because they mustn't do anything for themselves. Otherwise human beings should be treated well regardless, unless you're an arse. Edit: In fact, this quote directly says he'd like women to not be treated equally to men in society. Nice.


- "And so the institution of marriage, which has done more than anything over the centuries to glue society together, is weakened."

Utter bullshit. It's not weakened, and society hasn't relied on it. It didn't even exist in the present form if you go back a few "centuries".


- "This suits the equality freaks. They hate marriage. All that 'love, honour and obey' stuff shivers their timbers."

Yes, why is 'obey' in there on only one side? You arguing FOR it?


- "Yet married couples stay together longer, produce stabler children and generally have a kinder, happier time than their cohabiting counterparts."

Not true. How do you measure a 'kinder, happier time'? And "married people stay together" is hardly surprising, that doesn't mean they SHOULD. Parents staying trapped in a marriage 'for the kids' have children who do worse in school and life than single mothers or anyone else.


- "How different things might have been if Germaine Greer had become a happily married mother."

Yes, he actually typed this.


Then Quentin finishes off having a go at people with short haircuts, because shaved heads on men suggest "oikishness" and no "sophistication".

This wasn't written 40 years ago (or 60). It's a (depressingly) well-read tabloid, and it's allowed to produce the kind of bile that used to be in comedy shows:



Fuck you, Quentin Letts. The Daily Mail's prejudice against the poor, immigrants and liberals is well-known, now they apparently hate women too. Well, any who do anything beyond blushing prettily and talking about kittens.
Link40 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Oct. 27th, 2009|03:54 pm]
[Tags|, , , , ]

Drawn to my attention by [info]burkesworks:

As well as family details, the next UK census will want to know the name of any visitors sleeping in your house on the night it's issued. Which will often be your non-live-in sleeping partner(s), in other words. So don't be having an illicit affair that night, or snuggle up with anyone you don't want the Government to know about.

Or Lockheed Martin (the US arms manufacturer) to know about. They're in charge of collecting the data, and while UK-based contractors will do it there are little legal things which mean it's possible that Lockheed get to see it and shortly after (thanks to the Patriot Act) so do the US intelligence agencies.

The Treasury Minister assured us in 2008 that this wouldn't happen though. Well, not assured. She hoped it wouldn't.

"Ms Eagle said ... she was "pretty confident" there would be robust safeguards on the security of data."


Anyway, that's not my point. I want to start a new Internet Meme:
"Which fake name should we use for overnight visitors in the overly-intrusive 2011 UK census?"

Yes, which alias should we all put in the 'overnight visitors' column to show that
a) there's someone there (which I believe we legally have to indicate or get fined), but
b) we're not going to tell you their actual names you unbelievable crapbuckets?

I like the early suggestion of "Keyser Söze" (the mystery man in "The Usual Suspects") mostly because of [info]nalsa's reasoning that
"I want to hear a Lockheed Martin employee throw a stack of completed forms against a desk and shout "who is Keyser Söze?!"

Who should be the lucky Casanova who gets his/her name quoted by half of Britain on the same night? Answers in the comments, please!*

*I know "Gordon Brown" would be funny. But it's kinda a horrible image. Ditto Harriet Harman.
Link46 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Sep. 12th, 2009|01:58 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

Nah, it's too funny/horrifying not to post. [info]athena25 found this little gem of the internets:

Her loving family turn up at her place of work to announce that she doesn't need to do it anymore, and can be a stay-at-home mum like the Bible wants for all women! So get in the car.

Just some extras at the bottom of that page which really make it special:

"Eve did not have a seperate function apart from Adam. Eve's function was defined perfectly in terms of Adam's function. When we understand what Adam was doing then we can understand why Eve was created...The purpose that God had in bringing Eve out of the side of Adam was so Adam would have a helper for his job, for his vocation...not a seperate vocation of her own."

"[To be] discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands,
that the word of God be not blasphemed." Titus 2:5, KJV

---

I have a feeling some of my flist may have opinions on this.

Oh, and [info]athena25 also brought to my attention that PETA have started a campaign to call fish "Sea Kittens". Their website has cartoon fish, in cartoon furry cat suits. I am not making this shit up.
Link22 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Sep. 2nd, 2009|09:10 pm]
[Tags|, , , , ]

Right, time for a rant.

Melanie McDonagh at the Telegraph thinks we need a middle-class baby boom, because despite a 1% rise in births (apparently due to the recession) it's not the right sort of people who are having babies. The following is from an actual British newspaper, not The Onion:

"In other words, it's not the mortgage-paying, marrying middle classes who are having the babies, at least not to the same extent as everyone else. Despite today's talk about changing their priorities, most middle-class girls tend not to have children in their twenties, which is probably when we should have them. If you're a girl graduate, you bide your time, get your career sorted, get a mortgage (myself excepted) and then you start thinking about marriage, about children. By the time you've managed to secure a flat with two bedrooms, it may be a bit late for much of a family.

That's why organisations such as the Optimum Population Trust seem so beside the point, proselytising about how we shouldn't have more than two children. The people most likely to take their views to heart are the agonised Anglo-Saxon liberals, for whom excess fecundity is never going to be much of a problem in the first place. They don't seem to cut much ice with the Somali mothers you see in West London."


Ah, where to start. The racism? The loaded use of "Anglo-Saxon", which in modern terms can only mean "white"? The line that your twenties is when you should be having children? The implication that only rich people are graduates, or that career vs family is the only choice and women shouldn't be picking 'career'?

There's also a story by Amanda Platell in the Daily mail, but I refuse to link to that kind of guaranteed bigoted bullshit. I'd safely assumed it was worse than the above, and more proudly racist/misogynist/stupid. This turned out to be true, which is more than can be said for her claims ("We are now the second most densely populated country in the world" - er, no. 52nd.)

I was going to write 2000 words on just what is wrong with this picture, but I've found Laurie Penny did it for me over on Lib Con. (Caution: lots of swearing. Justified, but lots of it.)

Britain does have a baby-boom problem. We need more kids now to pay for a growing elderly population, just like several other countries need currently. Using that to fearmonger racism, snobbery and immigration bollocks is not the answer.

[Edit: There is no answer. Society has changed, and the old numbers don't work. Of course, no-one is talking about finding a new way to do anything, but we can be certain that the current system isn't it. Trying to plug the leaks by getting your preferred type of women to breed more is perhaps not a realistic or remotely moral solution to this.]
Link23 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Jul. 31st, 2009|06:56 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , ]

I have a confession to make, and it's probably going to really offend at least 3 people on this flist.

I hate Louise Hay affirmations. Hate 'em.

It's not that I don't believe verbal reinforcement works (it certainly does).
It's not that I don't rate being 'a source of love' as a life goal, I think it's one of the best.

It's the small details in some of them I just can't get past. For example:

"I love myself; therefore, I behave and think in a loving way to all people
for I know that that which I give out returns to me multiplied.
I only attract loving people in my world, for they are a mirror of what I am.

I love myself; therefore I forgive and totally release
the past and all past experiences and I am free.

I love myself; therefore I live totally in the now,
experiencing each moment as good
and knowing that my future is bright and joyous and secure,
for I am a beloved child of the Universe
and the Universe lovingly takes care of me
now and forever more.

And so it is."
- Louise Hay

--------

Here's my version:


"I wish to be loved, therefore I surround myself with people who are capable of giving love, instead of repressed and emotionally crippled assholes.

I love myself, therefore I learn from my mistakes while at the same time realising that the past will not change no matter how many times I think about it.
I will acknowledge that I am a fallible human being, and that we only learn by making mistakes, so some are inevitable.
The fact that I strive to be aware of them, regret them, and face the future vowing not to make them again, is enough. I do not reject my past, I learn from it.

I will cut away this endless 'regret of the past' and 'fear of the future': both are futile since one is now permanently set and the other always unknowable.

We cannot tell whether events will eventually be good or bad for us, so should not waste time worrying beyond the stage of basic responsibility to others.

My future is most certainly NOT secure and joyous, so I must make the most of every second today.

The Universe will snuff me out with as much indifference as it does everything else.

I will be aware of the inevitability of my eventual death and the death of all the people I know, and the works we may achieve. I will find a way to be okay with that, or I'll be running from it for my whole life. Not enough people realise that you really COULD get hit by a bus tomorrow.

I will find joy in the present moment, every moment. I could be dead, or imprisoned in any number of ways - social, physical, emotional. Finding good all through the day is easy once you start. I do this not because I fear facing harsh reality, but because reality is often set to 'depressing' and needs some help from those of us who expect better from it.

I will be a source of love to others, because the small stuff counts and you don't want to die having been an asshole."

-------

I'll write a self-help book one of these days. It will feature the word "asshole" quite often, as well as strong swearing and systematic debunking of new-age comfort blankets. I will make millions of pounds.
Link20 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Jul. 29th, 2009|08:45 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

Today has been hilariously shit from start to finish, so here's something to put it in perspective:

Thirteen Sudanese women were arrested in a popular Khartoum cafe for wearing trousers. Ten of the women were flogged at a police station two days later, and fined the equivalent of £75. (Women wearing trousers is illegal under Sudan's Islamic law, and enforced by a "Public order police force".)

Lubna Hussein is a female journalist, and one of the three women who decided to go to trial instead. She now faces at least 40 lashes. She has a UN job which grants her immunity, but she's deliberately resigning from it in order to challenge the law.

She appeared at court today, deliberately wearing the same trousers and outfit that got her arrested. TO THE TRIAL.

I don't have words for how great that is. I wish I had one-tenth the courage this woman does.

It's easy to take on an automatic anti-Islamic bias when you see things like this, but I don't hate Islam. (Given how disgusted I am by fairly liberal Christianity, you'll appreciate I don't *like* it much, but this isn't an unreasoning hatred and isn't aimed at its adherents. It's that my liberal western position disagrees with the mindset, some of the ideals, the laws, what I think it does to people, and whether it's a positive or negative force in the world. For example. But it's not an automatic bias, I consider each facet in turn and am open to changing my mind. Several aspects of it are truly good by any universal standard. Others, I have issues with.)

So if I'm forming an opinion of a discrete event based on evidence without it being down to prejudice, I'll say this: I have consistent issues with Islamic governments and their laws. (The first attempt at that sentence included the words "make me want to vomit and then set fire to the people responsible").

I'll do my best to be culturally sensitive to the way of life (some of) Sudan has chosen (presumably not including all the women), while at the same time vehemently hoping the World's press make enough fuss of this case that she succeeds in overturning the law. The planet I want to live on does not include this level of fear and paranoia, or inequality and violence against women. And I didn't need reminding of how far 75% of the planet has to go to reach the heady heights of enlightenment the UK shows so well (holy shit, we're meant to be the ones who are good at equality. Now THAT'S depressing.)
Link9 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Jul. 23rd, 2009|09:52 am]
[Tags|, , ]

In Texas, a panel of 'experts' are proposing that "children be taught that there would be no United States if it had not been for God."

The panel, who are actually involved in setting policy, want lessons to "emphasise the part played by Christianity in the founding of the US, and that religion is a civic virtue".

Urge to kill, rising. We're back to the "anyone who doesn't have a religion can't have a moral code" bollocks.

"One of the panel, David Barton, founder of a Christian heritage group called WallBuilders, argues that the curriculum should reflect the fact that the US Constitution was written with God in mind including that "there is a fixed moral law derived from God and nature", that "there is a creator" and "government exists primarily to protect God-given rights to every individual".

I don't really need to give my opinion on this issue, do I?

"According to test results, one-third of students (in Texas) think the Magna Carta was signed by the Pilgrims on the Mayflower".
Link18 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Jul. 13th, 2009|01:36 pm]
[Tags|, , , ]

I really dislike Satanists. I know this isn’t a very controversial stance to take – it’s on a par with hating people who think it’s okay to play loud music on trains, or that George Bush could have done a better job. But I still dislike them, for quite specific reasons.

This video (of sci-fi author Bruce Sterling ripping into the people he’s meant to be giving a closing speech to) has been doing the rounds. It is sheer brilliance, and you should all make time in your day to watch the whole thing.

At one point he says something which reminded me why I don’t like most Satanists.

The majority of Satanists are officially doing it wrong. They think they’re being rebellious and rejecting their parents' / society’s norms. They think they’re breaking free of the Christianity, but of course they’re not.

Satanism keeps everything about the religion: that the same God exists, that sin exists, the rather recent versions of Heaven and Hell are where it's at, that Christian events happened. It’s not outside the box, it’s just on the opposite side of the same box. If they were really radical, they’d be doing something actually different – a different religion entirely, new gods, a non-dualist good/evil outlook. But no, they tie themselves to the original paradigm by simply choosing to support the other player in it. THIS ISN’T RADICAL OR NEW.

Of course, not every Satanist does this. Some are metallers who kick over gravestones and do drugs because they don’t know any better (and yes, there are lots of these guys). Some of them view the Adversary as a liberating hero, who helped mankind so that they would “have knowledge of good and evil”, gain awareness of their true state and be “as the gods”. (This isn’t strictly right either, since the snake in Eden isn’t the Devil. But we’ll move on for now.) So they see Satanism as not a deliberately evil religion, but one that venerates a Prometheus figure, giving fire to humans so that they can realise their true potential and not remain being deliberately kept blind, ignorant and compliant by the Gods (plural, masculine and feminine, depending on which paragraph of Genesis it’s in). And that’s fine, I can understand the urge to do that too. There are lots more strands of it, mostly along similar lines.

But nearly all of the people I’ve met who claim to do it are blinkered, smug and egotistical, convinced that no-one else is as daring as they are. Well, I’ve got news buddy: hedonism isn’t challenging. Strictly doing the opposite of something which is already spelled out for you doesn’t take imagination. And keeping all the boundaries the same while moving a little to one side of the picture isn’t ‘change’.

Which brings us on to politics. My previous post asked for something to believe in, since everything is shit. Lots of the sentiment in Charlie Brooker’s piece echoes what Sterling says in the above video, about being in a transition to nowhere. Our politicians don’t have firm agendas, their agenda is to be popular at whatever comes up. And they won’t choose which way to go until they know what the public want, or until they can see that a particular choice will strengthen their hold on power (in which case to hell with the public). They’re in power only to stay in power, they have no real platform. And they’re all like this. Whoever you vote for won’t move you out of the box, just a bit to one side of the same box.

So that’s politics out. Religion isn’t doing so well these days. The media is a mess, most of the population are mouth-breathing peasants, and food is either bad for you or too expensive.

We need to break the box. We need a real alternative, one that actually changes things – not the other end of the same prison. Why do we need it? Aren’t we doing okay already? Er, no. Everything is shit, and in order for it to remain this shit, we have to stamp on poorer countries. Not good enough.

There’s plenty in life that I enjoy, and value, and see as beautiful. I'm grateful that I'm alive, not in prison, not crippled, not in pain, not in Africa, not indescribably hideous.

But that’s not the same as finding something to believe in. Ideals, and a movement which will make them reality. All I know is, it’s not in the current toybox.
Link23 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Jul. 9th, 2009|02:17 pm]
[Tags|, , , ]

Pope Palpatine Benedict is just a comedy machine. Here are some lines from his latest, which are being taken by many to refer to modern neopaganism amongst other things (a top dislike of his):

“There are certain religious cultures in the world today that do not oblige men and women to live in communion but rather cut them off from one other in a search for individual well-being, limited to the gratification of psychological desires. Furthermore, a certain proliferation of different religious “paths”, attracting small groups or even single individuals, together with religious syncretism, can give rise to separation and disengagement. One possible negative effect of the process of globalization is the tendency to favour this kind of syncretism by encouraging forms of “religion” that, instead of bringing people together, alienate them from one another and distance them from reality. At the same time, some religious and cultural traditions persist which ossify society in rigid social groupings, in magical beliefs that fail to respect the dignity of the person, and in attitudes of subjugation to occult powers. In these contexts, love and truth have difficulty asserting themselves, and authentic development is impeded. For this reason, while it may be true that development needs the religions and cultures of different peoples, it is equally true that adequate discernment is needed. Religious freedom does not mean religious indifferentism, nor does it imply that all religions are equal.”


Now, I can't give a direct translation of most of that into what he's really saying, because I'd have to invert every single statement so it matches reality. The short version would be that everything he accuses “smaller” religions of – the rigidity, magical beliefs, failure to respect the dignity of individuals – is exactly how a large number of people view Catholicism. But let's compare in more detail for a moment:

Neopaganism involves far less 'subjugation to occult powers', in my opinion. In fact, the idea that we as humans are not worthy and should unhesitatingly give thanks and praise to a perfect deity is deliberately avoided - rather most paths encourage working with the concept of deity in an experiential way. "Discernment" is critical, unlike some branches of Catholicism which instead extol faithful obedience to pre-written rules.

In fact, unquestioningly trusting 'faith' in that way is very much about "gratification of psychological desires", while neopaganism deliberately encourages you to be aware, ask questions, challenge yourself psychologically, and rely on your own experience rather than the words of others.

Most paths of neopaganism have no figure at the top who is infallible and the head of a hierarchy. There may be teachers and leaders of small groups, but they usually earn their place by knowing a lot and having experience, as well as giving up their time to teach others. Individual freedom and consent are paramount (no wonder the Pope hates it).

“In these contexts, love and truth have difficulty asserting themselves, and authentic development is impeded.”

Funnily enough, “love and truth” are concepts very much focused on in many paths of neopaganism, with a specific view towards personal development. Knowing yourself more fully, exploring yourself and multiple ideas about the universe.

I am not aware of how the Pope would like us all to ‘develop’, unless it is entirely according to the rules of his Church. Having more faith in God, and only asking questions so as to lead to a greater understanding …of the Roman Catholic God, seems to be the way of it.

Now, I know that some branches of Christianity are more relaxed, and that others do encourage you to question. But for every Alpha Course there’s an Opus Dei, and this is the Pope we’re talking about. Hearing him lecture liberal new religions on rigidity and hierarchy is just high comedy.
Link4 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Jul. 8th, 2009|06:03 pm]
[Tags|, , , ]

From [info]reynardine:

"Professional musician Dave Carroll, of the Sons of Maxwell band, had his $3,500 guitar broken by United Airlines, who refused to take responsibility for it and cover his loss. So he vowed to write three songs about the experience and share them on the Internet. The whole story is here at his site."

First vid is here. It had me laughing by the end:

LinkLeave a comment

(no subject) [Jun. 26th, 2009|12:16 pm]
[Tags|, , , ]

Johann Hari has a piece on Marriage in today's Independent saying exactly what I said two years ago.

On the plus side, he now has stats to back it up.

Short version: Children of people who only stay together "for the kids" do worse than anyone else. Worse than with single parents, divorcees, everyone. School dropout rate, failing grades, binge drinking, drugs, crime, early pregnancy are all higher.

David Cameron thinks that £40 a week incentive for married couples to stay locked in a bitter, loveless marriage will "fix Britain". He thinks that marriage - any marriage, as long as it's one man and one woman - is critical to society not exploding, regardless of the state of the actual relationship.

He's a moron, and he's wrong. And so was the previous Conservative leader.

As I said, about three weeks short of two years ago. (See that LJ entry for my thoughts on this, it goes into some detail and I find I still agree with it.)
Link11 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Jun. 8th, 2009|06:22 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , ]

I think I'm with the Wildhunt blog on this one.

During a three-hour long lecture on "Rediscovering God in America" Newt Gingrich said:

“I am not a citizen of the world. I am a citizen of the United States because only in the United States does citizenship start with our Creator. [...] I think this is one of the most critical moments in American history. We are living in a period where we are surrounded by paganism.”

Whee, I had no idea the suprsekrit Druid plan for world domination had been so successful!

But seriously, while many bloggers thought this meant he was a grade-1 asshole, the Wildhunt points out that he may not have known the effect his words were having. (Just so we're clear, he IS a grade-1 asshole. But on the merits of everything else he's done in his public and private life up to now, not necessarily this.)

"Lou Engle ... presided over the event, and who has a long history of anti-abortion and anti-gay militancy (including providing a theological framework for the murder of doctors who perform abortions). It should surprise no-one that Engle has ties to C. Peter Wagner of the “Third Wave of the Holy Spirit”, with its emphasis on prayer-war and destroying the “Queen of Heaven” (who they see as the Virgin Mary of the Catholics, a major demon, and the Goddess of the Pagans all rolled into one)."

Interesting, since you could very much link the title 'Queen of Heaven' to many pagan Goddesses- coughcoughnextissue.

See, Gingrich (along with Mike Huckabee) was talking to a special group of charismatic Christians, including some of the same lot that Sarah Palin belongs to - we'll just call them 'nutjobs'. Anyone within ten miles of the Third Wave loons takes 'pagan' to be a veeerrry large catch-all phrase, and believes in some quite interesting ways of fighting this paganism. (He'd better not mention his adultery, either.)

So it might just be he's a hateful conservative-christian opportunist slimebag who wants separation of Church and State revoked, and not actually as bad as some of the other names involved in this mess.

A Gus diZerega puts it: "Three old white geezers giving their race and gender a bad name, speaking to a crowd that gives its religion a bad name."
LinkLeave a comment

(no subject) [Jun. 8th, 2009|04:33 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

The BNP (Bas**rd Nazi Party) got some seats and votes in the recent elections. Everyone has an opinion on this, and think I need to hear what it is.
I don’t.
I predicted exactly what would happen, and why.

My stance on the BNP winning: “Good”. They got elected, they should have the seats.

How did they get elected? Does the populace become racist during a recession? No. In fact, the BNP got less votes than last time. What happened was that everyone stayed home.

But how on earth could so much of the Labour vote disappear?

For the last ten years it has been obvious that New Labour is remarkably similar to the conservative party on many issues (Blair used to borrow their policies down to the letter). Traditional Labour voters have no-one on the Left to vote for. The Lib Dems are getting there, but are still too centrist for many. The Greens aren’t remotely credible right now (much as I’d like them to be, and I have voted for them in the past).

The BNP promised (with some very poor wording and unworkable rhetoric) that they’d be centre-left when it comes to money. When enough people are facing bankruptcy and Labour are saying a vote for them means more of the same, the votes go somewhere else. It’s not difficult to follow. “If something doesn’t change I’m stuffed, I’ll take the only option” is a real event in a recession.

So it was a little bit due to desperation and a lot due to thousands of people feeling that the two main parties don’t represent them. I expected the Lib Dems to get more of the discontented vote, but the sad fact is the UK is full of people who think social and monetary conservatism are just fine. The Tories stayed in a power a looong time. New Labour stayed in entirely too long as well. The majority of the public aren't phobic about right-wing policies.

But it wasn't Tory voters going to the BNP, it was Labour voters staying away and a few of them going to the BNP.

perhaps the most startling finding came when we tested anecdotal reports that many BNP voters were old Labour sympathisers who felt that the party no longer speaks up for them. It turns out to be true. As many as 59 per cent of BNP voters think that Labour "used to care about the concerns of people like me but doesn’t nowadays"

Give us a system where a few thousand middle-England voters don’t decide everything, and a real choice between parties including someone credible genuinely on the left, and you’ll see a change in voting. Until then, you’ll get record-low turnouts and the BNP.

As I’ve been saying for about ten years now.
Link29 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [May. 27th, 2009|12:03 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

Aaaahahahaha!

The website of the British National Party is back online following a reported distributed denial of service attack over the weekend.

"Nick Griffin, the leader of this bunch of racist scumbags the BNP claimed it was a "conspiracy by Marxist cyber criminals" ... The email (addressed to "Fellow Patriots") claims that the assault originated from "eastern Europe and Russia".

BNP Deputy Leader Simon Darby alleges in a blog posting that the organization behind the attack is Searchlight, a well known group of anti-fascist campaigners.

A spokesman for Searchlight dismissed these claims as baseless mud-slinging.

"We're amused and honoured at the suggestion but this wasn't actually our doing," a spokesman told (this site).

The BNP's Darby said it had reported its suspicions about the attack to MI5 and the police, actions only likely to result in a charge of wasting police time, according to Searchlight."


Come on, who doesn't want to be a 'Marxist Cyber-criminal', eh? Anyway, couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of bigots, etc.
Link16 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Apr. 28th, 2009|10:10 am]
[Tags|, , ]

This is all kinds of special.

A new bill makes sex education compulsory in all UK schools… but with two clauses.

One is that faith schools will be able to teach their ‘values’ as part of the lesson – such as sex outside marriage, contraception, and homosexuality being ‘wrong’.

The other is that parents can choose to have their children opt out of sexual education completely, *on religious grounds*.

Where do I even start?

“What we're trying to do, and I accept it's difficult, is find a balance between young people having an entitlement to knowledge, facts, information but where schools, particularly schools with a particular faith interest or other disposition, also have a right to put that in context of their particular institution.”

Um, no? You can say what a particular religion approves of… IN A RELIGIOUS STUDIES LESSON. Not in the sex ed or science lesson, if it interrupts with the effectiveness of teaching the mandated curriculum. "Homosexuality is wrong" in the lesson the Government intends to put it in as content to help equality? Is that even legal within equality laws?

Oona Stannard, director of the Catholic Education Service for England and Wales, said: "PSHE is a very important part of a child's education and it should be in the curriculum, but the approach to what is taught ought to be in line with the wishes of parents and should uphold the ethos of the particular school."

No, no, no. What is taught should be based on what they need to know. The direction of PSHE is to prepare children to know about their bodies, but also dangers in society – drugs, unprotected sex and disease, etc.

You do not get to “uphold the ethos of the school” by teaching creationism as fact in science lessons, and you do not get to say “contraception is always wrong” in a Sex Ed lesson.

But then, I have a major problem with the idea of faith schools in general. Not the way we used to have them – I went to a Catholic secondary school, and the religion didn’t interfere with the lessons, ever. I understand that parents should be free to raise their children according to their own choice of views... but we're talking about critical education here.

I don’t even have time to go into why I think this is abhorrent. Anyone care to help me out?

(I haven't gone into detail on my thoughts here, there's some extra discussion in the comments. Short answer = allowing the church to choose ignorance over education is not something I'm in favour of. You provide all the facts and let moral choices be made with full knowledge of the alternatives.)

---

Update: Part 2.
Link19 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Mar. 16th, 2009|10:06 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , , , ]

I have no words for how utterly stupid and awful the "Grow your own drugs" show on BBC2 was. I didn't see the first two eps, but it is about how herbal ingredients from the garden can be used to treat minor ailments. And sell his book.

I'm not complaining because it was unscientific or I think these things have no effect. (It was very unscientific, but it knew it. "Of course, this isn't a clinical trial, but our subjects said they felt a bit better after two weeks of drinking the tea...")

And I do think certain herbs and plants have an effect. I believe this very strongly. I DO think Pine resin is genuinely antibacterial/antifungal, but then so is Grapefruit seed extract (quite ferociously so depending on concentration) and (to a much lesser extent) Tea tree oil, although he only went for one substance per theme on the show. That wasn't my problem with it.

My problem was that every second sentence out of his mouth was either outright wrong, or so qualified as to be meaningless. Fine, fine, don't put a disclaimer on saying "since these are natural ingredients and you're stewing them in alcohol for a month in the dark, the resulting tincture might vary in strength! This isn't precise!". I'm okay that he's (mostly) describing treatments which are so weak, any variation won't affect them much. And he needs to sell his book.

But what a goddamn waste. All the things he could have said, and instead he's on bath bombs and anti-perspirants. He had an episode on trees, and mentioned that most pharmaceuticals you take as pills come from plants, but didn't relate it usefully to the public by saying something like "Aspirin comes from boiling up willow bark". Some of the other processes he espouses are going to have just as many impurities and potent active agents at the end of them, I don't see why he had to pick rubbish ones.

Wong is an Ethno-biologist. He's keen to stress that he's a real scientist. Well, I studied chemistry (and nearly did herbal medicine). I took up learning about it as a hobby instead (look, we're tree-huggers. It's traditional.) Having done the Uni side, I know that lily of the Valley stimulates the heart by making more calcium 2+ ions available, because it's a cardenolide. If I thought I could hit the right strength (without going just that leeetle bit too far and making a fatal potion) I could gather and prepare foxglove as a more potent version (although it has a slightly different action). Get it wrong and it's a heart attack in a bottle, but then that was its more frequent use historically...

But even if I hadn't immediately jumped on all the exciting poisons in the garden, I'd still be able to do a better show on the stuff I'd trust the public with than this patronising, misleading, pointless glut of self-promotion. There's so much he could talk about that would actually help people, in quantities and preparations they wouldn't kill themselves with. I mean, okay, they will kill themselves. Because they're stupid and clueless, and are boiling plants in a pot. They're gonna die. But that hasn't stopped him producing a book about it (of course there's a book) albeit with disclaimers all over every section. "This might be dangerous. And, er, not work."

Ginkgo tea improves bloodflow? You amaze me, inspector! Mankind's only known that for... how many thousand years? The idea that it can help with memory is hugely contraversial, and despite clinical trials (funded by a Ginkgo producer) still inconclusive. Or amazing, depending on who you listen to. But mostly contraversial. Ben Goldacre is going to have a screaming fit.

This was a chance to get the good ones out there, the ones with proven biological effects and safe preparation. They exist! Okay, I was always more interested in the tropane alkaloids, but the premise of this show could have really delivered something to the public. Instead we get a smug bastard who manages to be more annoying than Jamie Oliver without even the implied altruism.

Been a very long while since I got the roots, leaves and pyrex lab glassware together to do this stuff, and I could still remember 20 things off the top of my head that this twit should have put in the show. What was left was a near-useless, still occasionally dangerous piece of rubbish (oh, you think people should do an allergy test before playing with Ginkgo? Would that be because it acts like poison ivy to some people? Sheesh.)

There are a lot of good books out there. Very few of them are aimed at absolute beginners preparing herbal medicine to have a biological effect on their own bodies, because... well, it's really goddamn dangerous. But there's a gap in the market for teas, tinctures and various kitchen preparations.

Come on flist! Some of you do this for a living. Get out and write the public-friendly book on how to gather mugwort for fun and profit. Or at least do an actually useful list of herbs better than this blithering idiot.
Link13 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Mar. 4th, 2009|11:36 am]
[Tags|, , ]

Video on how to save energy in the home, shown to us by our health-and-safety person at work today. (I think this is the right vid. It was an Ariel advert anyway.)

Annoyingly patronising presenter informs us how vital it is that we all cut down our CO2 generation, as if in some way everyone in the UK dropping theirs by 10% will have the slightest effect on global warming compared to industry in the US, China and India. No, we all know how vital it is to cut our personal emissions. Fine.

She tells us that we can use 30C on our washing machines instead of 40C, and get the same results for much less cost. Well, okay.

Indeed, “71% of women have changed their habits and now use 30C.

Seventy-one percent of WOMEN? What the hell?

Do you mean households? Or did your survey only bother to ask about behaviours if the person on the other end of the phone was female? I don’t care if the reality is that women do 99.9% of the washing in any given house, you still don’t phrase it like that on a public service ad which covers energy-saving in every room.

Do you mean 71% of women who you asked, or is that a projected guess for all women in the UK? How is choosing a washing-machine temperature a “habit”?

Oh, I’m a woman in the house so out of habit I put the washing machine on at 40C...

Anyway, I choked quietly in the meeting due to a mixture of outrage at the sexism and incredulity at the poor approach to statistics.

Worried I may be becoming oversensitive to these things.

Worried that “setting a 3 minute alarm” so that you don’t spend too long in the shower was actually suggested on an actual ad. Showers save water compared to baths, but only if you don’t spend an hour in there like I do.

Mmm, hot shower.
Link16 comments|Leave a comment

Instinct [Jan. 28th, 2009|08:49 am]
[Tags|, , ]

I’m walking along the train station platform at Ware when I realise I’m holding my left elbow an inch higher than normal. And I don’t know why I’m doing it.

Then I look around and see that a man is walking parallel with me, in close. Something’s off – he’s radiating, and too intense. If he pushed or struck out with his hand, I’d need my arm here to block it, and keep my weight away from the edge of the platform. I’d need to be able to put my hand back a bit more than usual, like I can now.

I’m going into London, but there’s no reason for me to be this alert. I’ve had more trouble in central London in the past five years than anywhere (and far more than my friends, if conversation is anything to go by) but I didn’t think I was paranoid about it.

I’ve had instinct come in handy a few times. I don’t know how much of it is habit from martial arts, or living-in-london common sense. There is a test for one of the Dan grades in Bujinkan Ninjutsu which involves you kneeling on the floor while your Sensei attempts to split your skull open from behind with a bokken. (A wooden sword. No, that’s not a soft option, they’re usually made out of solid oak). You have to sense it coming, and roll out of the way. If you fail, you get to do it again, depending on the urgency of need for immediate medical attention. It’s about sensing hostile intent.

But I never think about fighting, ever. I’m aware of people around me, but only because I’m bad in crowds – I can’t help but be aware, I have to put a fair amount of effort into just trying to ignore it. Where other people march through a crowd and force it to part, I’ll wait for gaps and go with the flow. I’m not someone who sees trouble everywhere. So why tonight?

Maybe living in Hertfordshire is too relaxing…


The man walking beside me goes from 0-100 instantly, shouting and spitting into his phone.

…Maybe not.


The Central line is full of relaxed and smiling people. Town is as easygoing as I’ve ever seen it. We shop for books on ancient Greek.
LinkLeave a comment

(no subject) [Jan. 26th, 2009|01:00 pm]
[Tags|, , , ]

Whiny, clueless self-important teenager oh god, she can't even blame it on being a teenager, writes a post for a national paper's blog about how sci-fi and fantasy are sexist. Basically taking it from Elizabeth Bear's much better post about writing The Other.

Teenager lists a whole load of sci-fi authors who immediately defeat her point, manages to not mention Ursula Le Guin once. Utter, utter fail.

Sure, historically sci-fi is a white man's genre. Historically. That stopped early on, even if you don't count Delany in '73. And it's been one of the greatest feminist genres ever created, able to take cultures past the sexist traps of the time and onto a blank canvas.

The list of examples to read to prove it is too long for LJ, see the authors mentioned in the post and go play. But especially Ursula Le Guin, just because she's so good in general.

(As something I'm reading recently, Karen Traviss' "City of Pearl" gets a mention for realistic female characters taking the lead.)
Link21 comments|Leave a comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]