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!] ]

Religion, philosophy, life - all the small stuff. [Nov. 29th, 2009|01:08 am]
[Tags|, , , , ]

I've been in flux regarding religion for some time.

I like a lot about the tradition I joined, I respect its practices as effective and serious, but suspect it's not the right path for me. I can do it, I get a lot from it, but it's not answering all my questions. I stepped back from it last year and am taking time to find out exactly what else I need in the mix.

This doesn't feel like an optional journey. It's tied into my philosophy, my daily choices, all the things I consider far more important than 'which office I work in' or 'how much I should be earning by 35'. I really could have become a monk at a younger age (Eastern, of course).

So I was heartened to read this excellent post on [info]nonfluffypagans (an LJ community which doesn't apologise for having quality control). I don't know the writer's precise path, they mention 'pagan witchcraft' at one point, but the sentiments hold true for lots of neopaganism that I've encountered.


"Your true path is the one that calls you to walk naked in a hailstorm, and you can't figure out why anyone else has a problem with it. You get bruises and frostbite and you remember them fondly as "the fun parts."

"A substantial part of my job as a priestess is to actively drive away potential converts. To tell them this *isn't* fun, isn't pretty, is instead full of annoying work that nobody understands and even your spiritual kinfolk think you're crazy half the time. That the emotional support network is erratic, that the communities are crammed full of wannabes and fuckwits and pretentious jerks who haven't noticed the difference between "12 years experience" and "1 year experience, repeated 12 times." That the media thinks we're demons or perverts or bored housewives with eccentric hobbies, and that's going to be the case for a very long time."



That post is about being harshly honest to new people asking about pagan paths on the internet, because if one is right for you, comments from strangers will be nowhere near enough to put you off it. (It's worth reading the rest at the link, very good stuff.)

I've still got this search for a 'true path' pulling at me, relentless. I don't have a life direction, a career I care anything about or a 5-year plan, but for the first time in years I'm slowly finding where my boundaries are (before they change again).

"What do you WANT to do?" ask a droning army of career advisors - "Well gee, I'd never thought of asking myself that (every day since I was 15), I can see why you make the big bucks!". I have things I enjoy, none of which pay money (no, not even if I get creative with them). But I don't have a goal, a cause, a mission - and in place of that, all I can do is explore for more answers, *hard*. I have a horrible feeling I'm not going to be satisfied with anything that is remotely mundane. Everything seems irrelevant except the people I love and finding some peace in my soul.

What do I want to do? I want to love my lovers, celebrate with my friends, stick to my principles and live ferociously. I want to find enlightenment, be proud of my choices, inspire people to look within, drag the world out of its grabbing insanity and create greatness. I want passion, beauty and truth every day. Which job do I apply for on the internet to get that - chartered accountant? Something in marketing, perhaps? Oo - recruitment consultant. Apparently this is my 'chance to make £££s', or so I'm told.

Sophie Lancaster was a girl who, in August 2007, was killed by a gang of youths who attacked her and her boyfriend. As she shielded his head, the gang kicked and stamped on both of them. She fell into a coma and died shortly afterwards. Sophie's crime was looking funny - she wore black, had piercings, unusual hair. Turns out being a goth is enough to get you kicked to death in the street in the UK.

The Sophie Lancaster Foundation was set up to try and reduce intolerance to subcultures through education. (I'm currently a member of at least 5 subcultures I can think of immediately, so it's an aim I can appreciate). They have just released a short and heartfelt animated movie about her death (see the link). I'd like to do something for the charity, but the ideals I mentioned above are way beyond that - how are we meant to achieve anything noble when we need all this effort to drag people up to neutral?

"The other side of Virtue" was an interesting book. Brendan Myers talking about how the word has changed from its original use to the Christian version (Christian virtues are nearly all about being docile, as in 'ready to be taught'. Passive, receptive to laws, repressing instincts in favour of external authority.) I'm not bashing Christianity: their approach has its wisdom, and the religion looks wider than this word suggests. Jesus is attributed as saying the opposite enough times, for a start. Other historical traditions used the term in very different ways.

One alternate meaning saw being active as essential, since a virtue is a pure ideal to strive for rather than reach. This form didn't emphasise turning inward but rather outer engagement with people in society. The active, heroic-culture versions call for a person to be brilliantly honourable, courageous, to know yourself utterly, to live such a blazing, defiant, complete life, fully and honestly engaged with the world, that your virtue was obvious to anyone who looked at you.

Still trying to find which job lets me do that and also pay rent.

"Key account manager".
"Diffusion engineer".
"Mortgage consultant".
"Telemarketer"...
Link17 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

Getting the shouty poppy arguments started early [Oct. 21st, 2009|05:51 pm]
[Tags|, , , , ]

Crap. I'm going to give in and do something I said I never would: buy both a red and a white poppy for Remembrance Day.

Every year I take shit for being in favour of White poppies for peace. People complain that they take money away from ex-soldiers who need it, that they are a charity but we don't know precisely where the money will go, and the usual bollocks about not supporting the troops etc.

The aspect of red poppies which drives most people to find out about white as an alternative is the idea that they are used by the government to glorify and justify war. To lend it respect, and honour, and credibility. No-one can argue that those who fought in WWII were unjustified: we had an enemy that would have invaded us, wiped out our culture and replaced it with one which we find totally immoral and evil. Not only did the war have to be fought, but by freeing other countries from the Nazis our soldiers defended the helpless and safeguarded the future.

Since then...

Can we really say that the wars since then have been necessary? Economically and politically expedient maybe, but for suvival or genuine defense?

So I'll make the statement: "I don't support the troops".

Veterans from 50 years ago or more certainly, but not the current army. I know that it's the government which sends them to far-off lands based on lies in order to claim resources and not the troops themselves... but the soldiers sign up for it. They say "I will kill anyone you tell me to in future, without knowing who or why. I will be placed in mortal danger for this government."

They are not defending me. The UK has not been invaded. It is not honourable to unquestioningly kill whoever your leaders decide is an enemy this month. In 2002 I made statements about why the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could not be won, by definition. Every single part of that has come true - and I was no expert. Being part of the structure that enables conflicts with such massive civilian casualty rates is not moral or honourable. I do not care that the Army is often the only place that the poor or less educated can find work: a wage for a British soldier is not more important than the lives of multiple civilians. It does not matter which country those civilians are from.

Honour is not the same as duty, and duty is frequently not moral or justified. By following these orders, they are enabling the cynical oil grabs and weapons trades with tyrants to continue.

Edit: I'm not an absolute pacifist. I just don't believe that the UK army should be deployed outside UK borders for anything other than observation or to lend defense to weaker nations. And I'm not sure they're the right force to be doing the latter.

Despite this, and despite all that I have said above, "I do support the troops".

I want them to be returned alive and unharmed at the end of their tours. I want the risks they take to be fully justified, necessary and unavoidable. I want the government to have such a hard time selling a case for war that it will only happen when public sees a clear need for it. And I want the government to pay so highly for every army casualty that they do their utmost to prevent deaths. Soldiers need all our support, because they're not getting it from the government (example: a year ago an SAS chief quit over repeatedly not getting adequate equipment.)

There are good reasons to buy the Red poppies if you are anti-war. They only exist because those who have fought are not looked after adequately by the state, and extra charity was needed. They are essentially a slap in the face of the Government, a shout of "Why do we have to look after these people who gave everything for you?"

But we cannot escape the fact that red poppies are also propaganda for the current government. Tony Blair was allowed to lay a wreath at the Cenotaph, as opposed to being arrested or leapt upon by the crowd and punched repeatedly. The Cenotaph itself says "The Glorious Dead". They are not glorious, and neither is war. It is not glorious to die in battle. They are dead, and we should not forget the horrific events which made them so. Leaders use Remembrance Sunday to agree that violence is a terrible thing, but that it justifies never giving up in future. The gravitas and sorrow over past sacrifices mean we owe it to them not to stop now.

No, we owe it to them not to waste more lives.

How many of the wars since 1945 have met the criteria for a Just War? How many have even come close? How do we justify spending as much as we do on defence, when the huge amounts of money could be spent on social problems? France or Scandinavia are not going to invade the UK. We do not need a standing army. If it is judged that a situation (such as the genocide in Darfur) requires outside intervention on humanitarian grounds, then lets have an international force ready to do that. It could be argued that the UN in recent times hasn't had remotely enough power to take that role.

I want to buy a white poppy because the money goes to education initiatives to bring about Peace as a first intent, and we badly need that.

And I will grudgingly have to buy a red poppy, because there are still soldiers who need the money. But I will not wear it while Gordon Brown does, or Margaret Thatcher, or (if he dares show his face) Tony Blair. The statement I would be making has become too muddied, and the modern use of the army too misguided.

War is never the right answer. The white poppies contribute to spreading that message and it is the most important one for me. The red poppies should be seen to say it too, but the money from them does at least go to people who need it. Giving money to the Legion does not directly empower the government. So this year, I will buy both but only wear white.
Link45 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Sep. 25th, 2009|07:56 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

This is too weird and Awesome not to post. From [info]tyfach.

Link2 comments|Leave a comment

Rant and Randomness [Sep. 10th, 2009|11:31 am]
[Tags|, , , , , , ]


Why do you do this every day?
by adotjdotsmith



The new Michael Moore film quotes a Citibank report which says "The US is now a plutonomy, the top 1% of the population control 95% of the wealth."

I'm fairly sure the UK won't be far behind those figures.

I'm playing some roleplaying games recently where characters have to be passionate about various environments. They have to look at the City and realise what achievements the concrete and steel are, how magnificent it is that we managed to impose our will on nature in this way – locking out the forests and vines, controlling the creeping growth to make clean and stable structures. That is a great achievement... but it makes us blind.

1% of the people have 95% of the wealth. That means no matter how hard the millions in our offices work, no matter how much they sacrifice of their lives to provide for their families, it's never outside the 5%.

The whole thing is a con game. Just like cities are.

No city can survive without the countryside providing food for it. The tarmac and smoke don't grow their own food, by definition. They just sit like sterile concrete ant nests, teeming with frantic life and overwhelming death.

I don't mean death in any symbolic way, such as compared to the amount of plant life outside them. No, cities are the places of death. There are far more people, far more crime, and a history of denser populations over time than in the countryside. If you map out where most people die in your country, it's in the cities.

But I don't hate urban areas, or think they don't have their own strong amount of life. They clearly do. Londinium has been a thriving (or at least crowded) metropolis since at least the time of the Romans. If a city could be said to have a spirit, London's would be very much alive. It would have years of poverty and suffering built into its very brickwork, but also a more consistent and varied fight for survival than many places on the globe. It has incredible beauty, and history, and colour. It also hosts the biggest con game in Europe, drawing refugees from far afield and promising a better life. This isn't a lie – you can have a better life in the UK than many places on this planet. It will just be within the 5%, and probably towards the bottom of it.

So the cities are furious hubs of activity in a game where the outcome is already known for virtually everyone. Social mobility was pathetic in 1997, and is worse under this government. (No, it won't be better under the Conservatives). And that's the other half of the lie.

Here's a statement: the Conservative party WILL win the next UK election. We don't know when it will be held, we don't know what their policies are, but it's already a guaranteed fact.

I don't think this means we're not a democracy. If it's the will of the people, I don't mind knowing the inevitable this far in advance. My problem is that the Tories will get practically 100% of the power, and anyone not voting for them is unrepresented in any meaningful way. Since no party since WWII has had more than 50% of the total vote, this by definition means at least 50% of the country is locked out.

A friend works in a theatre which is dependent on Arts Council funding. Their risk assessment for next year includes the condition “If the Tories get in”. I believe one of the powerpoint slides may have literally included the words “We're f***ed.” Anyone wanting funding from the government is trembling right now, because we can all see the inevitable. (Disclaimer: this does not include arms manufacturers. They will continue to be subsidised by the next government and do very nicely, thank you.)

The Lib Dem voice points out that if you're under 40 and live in the UK, there's a 50% chance your MP has *always* been of the same party. In other words, if your town had a Conservative MP when you were born, there's a 50% chance that didn't change at any election since 1970. We have a thing called “Safe seats”, which translates as “No matter who you vote for in your local area, this person is the one who will get in.”

What can we do about this? Well yes, you could move to a safe-seat area of the party you like. Also, we could get a more representative system (but no-one remembers how to have one of those which lets any party achieve anything). And you run straight into the problem the US is having, which is that it's full of hateful morons Republican voters. In the liberal fantasy of making this country a better place, you run smack into the reality wall that many people genuinely want the Conservative party in power. They might be amnesiacs, or fall under the umbrella of Steve's Republican Question (“Rep voters: Are they actively evil, or just really ignorant and stupid?”) Either way, England is a deeply conservative country and that means liberals will not have enough power to achieve big things anytime soon, under any system.

(I'll leave out how big business completely runs our politics anyway. It's been kinda known for at least 20 years.)

So we're left with the cities: crime hotspots and polluted prisons for the majority of people who work just to survive. In them, though, and in London particularly, we see the greatest hope as well (and no, not “from the proles”.) Very big cities are *LIBERAL*. They allow diversity, they encourage anonymity and individuality, they set trends and inspire, foster rebellion and make room for everything alternative. I remarked a while ago that I never see blue hair in Hertfordshire. In London, if a pretty girl walked down the street with neon blue hair, it was practically invisible. No-one stared (although appreciative looks were common). I saw a girl coming over the bridge in town here and assumed she had the same, but it turned out to be a blue hat. Of course it was a hat. We're not in London anymore.



Francis and Louis
by adotjdotsmith



So I'm not going to give up on cities, with their weight of dark concrete and glass, their heat retention and eternal background noise of people living their lives and dying by the thousands. There are wild spirits in the woods, a clearer sense of life and death on the farms, but the city is a howling spirit of destruction which has the best and most glorious shouts for life contained within it. It is the only place where we can push the boundaries enough to get out of this ridiculous social cage.

In paganism, you learn to bring in the more fulfilling parts of nature to your life – the fertility in the land, the new growth in spring, the sun returning after winter. You also value that Winter, and the necessary rest, and the beauty of its harshness. You respect it, because it could kill you. The city, though... that features far less. Any attempts to incorporate it into the worldview are often based on finding mythic or rural aspects within it. A much more difficult approach is to embrace the city for exactly what it is, and try to feel and live it to the same extent that we love the peaceful streams and forests. You move from tree and root magic to rat and pigeon magic amongst tarmac, glass, mp3 players, widescreen HD tv. The spirit of the place becomes more about people, not other life. The moon shines down upon it, but only where she can peep between buildings - not lighting the entire cloudy sky. Neon and streetlights shout upwards to replace her.

It's a scary thing to take your tools and walk into the teeming den, unsure of how they will work against these new Gods.


Tesco Bokeh
by adotjdotsmith


The photos are all by adotjdotsmith, taken from flickr. In the top one someone has written "Why do you do this every single day?" on the concrete pillar.

I'm going to make this type of post again, taking 3 photos I find randomly on flickr and seeing where it goes.
Link26 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) [Aug. 25th, 2009|11:14 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

Via [info]invisible_al:

The Police wrote to the Climate Camp 2009 organisers, asking where they planned to hold their next event. This is the rather polite but firm reply. Excellent.

Link2 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Aug. 20th, 2009|11:07 pm]
[Tags|, , , ]

"Reality is so dull. Any mistake in one’s perception of it is inevitably more interesting than the real thing, and lucky are those who remain uninformed of their error."

- from 'Love Creeps' by Amanda Filipacchi.
Link2 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Aug. 17th, 2009|08:37 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , ]

I've been open about being in a poly relationship on here, but it's not something I intend to post about often. However, this is an interesting article on the 'lifestyle choice' - Newsweek seems to have noticed its existence.

GetReligion.Org writes:
"As a reborn opinion journal, Newsweek has to keep up with cultural trends. A few weeks ago, it announced to its readers that polyamory, the practice of multiple relationships in which each partner is aware of the other ones, is going, if not mainstream, than at least tributary."

Newsweek:
Researchers are just beginning to study the phenomenon, but the few who do estimate that openly polyamorous families in the United States number more than half a million, with thriving contingents in nearly every major city. Over the past year, books like Open, by journalist Jenny Block; Opening Up, by sex columnist Tristan Taormino; and an updated version of "The Ethical Slut" — widely considered the modern “poly” Bible — have helped publicize the concept. Today there are poly blogs and podcasts, local get-togethers, and an online polyamory magazine called Loving More with 15,000 regular readers. ...Greenan herself has become somewhat of an unofficial spokesperson, as the creator of a comic Web series about the practice —called “Family” — that’s loosely based on her life.

GetReligion.Org:
While the (Newsweek) article is easy to read, there were some big holes — gaps that seem to me to trivialize the issues around polyamory and those who worry about it.

First of all — what’s this about a “coming-out party?” Yes, a few new books on polys have appeared this year. But Alan over at Polyamory in the News has been tracking media coverage, including mucho mainstream media coverage, for at least four years. What may be more novel about this story is that writer Jessicca Bennett was able to find polys in Seattle willing to let her use their real names. ...There’s a strong “glamour” component to this story that disrespects the seriousness that polyamorous partners feel that they deserve — and the strong feelings that they can evoke among conservatives. Check out Practical Polyamory, Anita Wagner’s blog (she’s quoted in the article) if you want to see a down-to-earth perspective on polyamory.

While this particular triad is not, polys are also engaged in religious communities. Among them are Unitarian Universalists, pagans and those who represent other faiths. There’s no discussion of the religious connections here. [...] Bennett does address a few of the difficult issues in polyamorous relationships: jealousy, parenting, and those who see acceptance of gay marriage as opening the window for polyamory (and who knows what else) to fly in. There is also, as she notes, tension between some polys. [...] The writer doesn’t really explain why polys are convinced that “more love” is possible — or why some religious leaders and secular proponents of monogamous marriage are indeed watching with concern. How about a little gravitas, Newsweek?"

---------


Well done Newsweek, only several years late to the party. Jenny Block's book got US tv time and articles in the UK Guardian newspaper in mid 2008. While official numbers are always going to be difficult to record, poly is far more widespread in the US and UK than some emerging fad. The data on US families (half a million) is those *openly* living as poly, who randomly fell under the scope of a survey.

What is interesting is the mention of religion - not just the usual Mormon marriage shouting, but the compatibility of poly to paganism and institutions like the UU. I was hoping for a discussion of polytheism vs mono and the liberal / conservative mindsets, but apparently that's also too much to ask for.

Still, at least it's getting visibility. Right-wingers are starting to condemn it alongside gay marriage, but that's just a necessary step. People have always lived as poly and will always do it, as 'traditional marriage' rates continue to crash through the floor, society will evolve and accept it.

...Just as soon as enough people move past thinking gays are evil and sex-outside-marriage is a sin. Then they'll be ready to start preaching against poly. Sigh.
Link1 comment|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Aug. 3rd, 2009|09:19 am]
[Tags|, , ]

You have to keep looking for the good things.

The news will usually only report the depressing or sensational (and love it if something qualifies as both). So sometimes, when it seems like mankind just can't get along, I remember that there's a statue of Bruce Lee in Mostar.

The Serbs and Croats remain bitterly opposed since the conflict in the 90's, and the Bosnian town was looking for a symbol which would bring people together. So in 2005 they put up a statue of the tremendously Bosnian... Bruce Lee.

"Because everyone likes Bruce Lee".

Seriously.

There were some attempted overtones of 'overcoming ethnic barriers' or something, but talking to the locals at the time reporters discovered that local people saw it as a uniting force "because hey... Bruce Lee..."

So a happy Monday to you all.


Oh, and the spider in my shower this morning was too wide to fit under a wine glass. This bodes well.
Link2 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. 26th, 2009|11:55 pm]
[Tags|, , , ]

For a while now I’ve been in a setup where I have several ongoing serious romantic relationships at the same time. Everyone involved has known about it, and are okay with it.

This statement will make most of you assume a lot about those relationships (and probably about me) but much of that will be wrong. So I thought I’d write a bit about something which has become important to me.

Polyamory is not the same as polygamy (multiple marriages) or an ‘open relationship’ (which all too often just means screwing around). It is ‘more than one serious, long-term relationship’ going on at once. It’s referred to as “poly” most of the time, which is what I’ll call it here.

If there’s one thing the entirety of human history has taught us regarding romance, it’s that we can be attracted to and deeply care about multiple people at the same time. Monogamous, lifelong marriage is a very recent invention and certainly not what most societies around the world historically depended on - society does not ‘fall apart’ without it.

Already some of you will be disagreeing with me or assuming reasons for my saying this. Let’s start with the big stuff:
“It is quite possible to love two people at the same time.”

How can we prove it? Well, an often-quoted example is about families. If parents have a child, and a few years later have another one, they don’t suddenly love the first child only half as much as they did before. Love is not a finite pool.

And the same is true for romantic love. I’m not writing this post to try and convert anybody to multiple relationships (most people find being involved with one person quite enough trouble). But others are built with a head for poly. If you’re perfect for monogamy, do what’s right for you. This post is to dispel some myths about an alternative.

Myth 1: It’s all about sex.
If you want lots of carefree sex, for goodness sake don’t go anywhere near poly. Poly is about *relationships* and all the baggage that comes with them.

Myth 2: It’s somehow dishonest.
On the contrary, it’s extremely honest. Each partner admits the feelings for other people that already exist, instead of pretending they don’t. More than that, honesty is critical in all aspects of it or the whole thing will fall over very quickly indeed.

In fact, if I was to recommend the top actions you need to make poly work, they would be

a) Honesty
b) Communication
c) Compromise
d) Balance

Without all of them, it just doesn’t last. There WILL be boundaries that people have, and the only way to find a setup that works is to talk it out. The exact situation which works for all of you will be unique each time, and will *change over time*. If things change, talk about it immediately. If you find anything difficult, raise it.

But in my experience, the difficulties are much less than you’d think. Most of the aspects you’d assume would suffer or be reduced actually aren’t at all. There’s no less intimacy. You don’t change your behaviour to your partner. The feelings and emotional commitment are exactly the same. There’s no long-term jealousy that causes insurmountable problems (if you’re doing it right, and are built for it in the first place.)

Jealousy comes from two things: wanting the attention or items someone else is getting, and/or feeling that someone else is a threat. It will happen, and (as people point out in the comments below) you mustn't feel like you're bad at poly when it does. The critical part is to talk about it, and sort it.

If you’re doing poly right, everyone will be reassured that a new person is not a threat. (If anything, this is the main area that poly makes much easier.) Any activity with someone else doesn’t actually impact the two of you – what you have is what YOU have, it doesn’t diminish because something else happens as well.

Love is not a finite pool.

But how does it work in the real world? More info for anyone interested. )

So, hit me with whatever you’ve got. Yell if you like. Write me off as greedy or a commitment-phobe. (Note to commitment-phobes: don’t go anywhere near poly. All the stuff you hate gets doubled.) Or just ask questions, I’m happy to answer anything.

I know there are a fair few of you on here who are in “alternative” relationships (how I hate that phrase), and who will find the info in this post either very commonplace or even disagree with it. The exact setup is usually different each time, but I know of several long-term poly relationships including marriages of various sorts and they do not break down any faster than traditional couples.

As to the general stuff, poly is becoming more mainstream.
There’s an FAQ
http://www.polyamory.org.uk/alt_polyamory.html
And bestselling books
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/jul/06/women.features3


I wrote this because I’m starting to get asked about my relationships and I don’t intend to lie, but at the same time just saying “I’m polyamorous” generates a whole list of negative and untrue assumptions, and I wanted to head some of them off from the beginning. So fire away.

Edit: Excellent article on jealousy in poly over here.
Link77 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Jul. 17th, 2009|06:08 pm]
[Tags|, , , ]

"...Make no mistake: the pain of discrimination is still felt in America.
By African-American women paid less for doing the same work as colleagues of a different color and gender.
By Latinos made to feel unwelcome in their own country.
By Muslim Americans viewed with suspicion for simply kneeling down to pray.
By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights.

On the 45th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, discrimination must not stand. Not on account of color or gender; how you worship or who you love. Prejudice has no place in the United States of America."

"To parents, we can’t tell our kids to do well in school and fail to support them when they get home. For our kids to excel, we must accept our own responsibilities. That means putting away the Xbox and putting our kids to bed at a reasonable hour..."


Barack Obama addresses 2009 NAACP convention on the centenary of its founding. For 38 minutes. Without notes.
...I'm still getting used to the President owning a brain that isn't inside Karl Rove's head.

Transcript here. Lots of good statements.

In other news, Tony Blair may become President of Europe, as opposed to, say, a convicted War Criminal. Sigh.
Link2 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Jul. 14th, 2009|10:57 pm]
[Tags|, , , ]

Joss Whedon, accepting an "Outstanding Lifetime Achievement Award in Cultural Humanism" at Harvard University. Says a lot of correct things.

"The enemy of humanism is not faith. ... Faith is something we have to embrace. 'Faith in God' means believing absolutely in something with no proof whatsoever. Faith in *Humanity* means believing absolutely in something with a huge amount of proof to the contrary. We are the true believers."




He's good at speeches - catch the (now famous) Equality Now speech from 2.00mins onwards:

Link2 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. 7th, 2009|10:39 pm]
[Tags|, , , ]

Today is the anniversary of the 7/7 London Bombings, and as Jennie points out, the fact most of you hadn't even realised that is the best outcome of all.

Good. It's a shame our own politicians had to milk it (and everything else whether it technically existed or not) in order to reduce our civil liberties, but obscurity is an excellent fate for "Britain's 9/11".

And yeah, I suppose I'm reminding people by writing this post, which would seem to be against the point, but it's worth celebrating the victories when we find them. The fact that almost no-one cares about "7/7" is a big victory against the morons and manipulators who seek to make us see the world as "us and them", and inventing phrases like the "Axis of Evil".

So let's keep Not Doing That. Good work, all.
Link7 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Jun. 30th, 2009|10:58 am]
[Tags|, , , , , ]

Great Cory Doctrow article on CCTV and why it
a) won't work, and
b) breaks the social contract,

now with added photos as part of the SoFoBoMo project.

"SoFoBoMo is short for Solo Photo Book Month - a group event where a bunch of photographers all make solo photo books start to finish, in 31 days, at more or less the same time. It's modeled loosely on NaNoWriMo, where participating writers all write novels in a month..."

More finished photo books at this link.

This is one particularly good: Vistagraphs being an attempt to create something nearer to what the human eye sees (a stream of images) than a single fixed-depth normal camera shot. And I'm a sucker for landscapes.

(I suspect [info]alasdair is going to like this post, but everyone should check out the SoFoBoMo site, it's fab.)
Link4 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Jun. 25th, 2009|11:24 am]
[Tags|, , , , ]



Some lovely people I know just did this in real life.

Total win, guys.
Link4 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Jun. 23rd, 2009|12:14 pm]
[Tags|, ]

I’ve managed to avoid seeing the footage of Neda Soltani’s murder. I think it’s a critically important event, not because she should symbolise the struggle in Iran (a life is about more than its last day) but because of how it came to be reported.

The man next to her phoned his friend in the Netherlands, and immediately sent him the footage of the shooting.

"He asked me, ‘is it possible to publish everything right now?’" Hamed said. "I published it on YouTube and Facebook and five minutes later it started to get many emails and messages and it published everywhere.”

There is no more plausible deniability in the world. When footage from a phone can be on the net in minutes, Governments can’t hide. They can ignore the outrage of foreigners, or stop pretending to be interested in human rights, but cover-ups become almost impossible. And that’s the positive thing I have to look for in this utterly tragic killing – not that she’ll become a martyr, or that the much more modern and liberal populace will fight against their religious government, but that there are global eyes and ears in every country and they cannot be silenced quickly enough by oppressors.

For the record, I’m not someone who thinks Mousavi is going to be some great liberator. I support the protesters because anything which loosens the grip of the Clerics on the people of Iran is in line with my thinking as a UK liberal. I have no illusions that the other guy winning would bring enormous change, or that my view of the best outcome is at all informed. It may not have been the government behind this shooting, it could have been a member of the public. It's reported that she was talking on a mobile phone, and that (bizarrely to westerners) these are viewed as 'tools of the opposition party'. What?

But I choose to hold onto the small truth which is demonstrated here. From now on, when any faction acts with violence the World will see it and know. This is the biggest threat to the Iranian regime in over 30 years, and they’re taking it seriously. They’ve forbidden a full funeral and any memorial services. They don’t want a martyr.

It’s a little difficult to prevent that when everyone can see the shooting.
Link9 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Jun. 11th, 2009|05:53 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , ]

I like Lou O'Bedlam's photos a lot. I like his use of daylight, his focus on faces, and the fact he gets to shoot Katie West and Laura Taylor for a start ahem.

But I especially like his attitude to models. He has a lot of respect, and loves making everyone look incredible (men or women). Today as I was browsing his shots of Katie West's wedding, I found his comment from the week that Prop 8 passed in California banning gay marriage:

"We live in a country based on freedom. Not absolute freedom, true, but the idea that folks should have more freedom, not less.

200 years ago I wouldn't have been able to marry a white woman in this country. 50 years ago I wouldn't have been able to sit at the same counter as a white person.
So when I hear that someone can't marry someone else, it chaps my hide.
"

Posted under a picture of Katie's best friends Shannon and Tuesday kissing (with the title 'This is Right') he then continued his argument in the *flickr tags* as he often does:

" * 9.27.08
* katie west
* wedding
* toronto
* one of the best weddings ever
* one of the best brides ever
* tuesday laporte
* shannon & tuesday. a great couple. and you're an asshole for hating them.
* two women kissing. in what kind of fucked up world would this be discouraged???
"


I've never understood the argument against gay marriage, possibly because I also don't get the unbelievable importance placed on hetero marriage. It's a relationship. It's there regardless of whether you have a ceremony to announce it to your friends. You're not any less likely to split if you have a bit of paper or a ring, and if you feel you want to leave even with it, then you should. A loveless marriage is a horrible prison. The relationship is *all*, unless there are others (like children) to consider or 'your Church stamping it okay' means a lot to you.

But society hasn't caught up with the fact that you may want legal rights, visiting rights in hospital, all the rest of the package for your romantic partner(s), and that the "one man, one woman" model isn't meeting everyone's needs anymore.

I'm with Lou, and not just because it leads to pretty women kissing. Whether it's women or men, I've gotta echo the sentiment of his last tag: how on earth is this a bad thing?

(This is also a good time to congratulate two peeps on my flist who just announced their engagement :) Happy to hear it, girls. I remember seeing you at a certain Wednesday pub talk years ago, just after you got together, and I was happy for you then!)
Link30 comments|Leave a comment

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