I can't quite decide what I think about this.
On the one hand, I can't really be sympathetic to the pernickety policies in both workplace and school which make such a song-and-dance about jewellery, which the religious symbols usually are declared unacceptable within.
On the other hand, there are certainly situations where I think some religious symbols might be considered problematic. The full veil may not be suitable in all work environments where communication is needed. There is also a case for ensuring the religion remains in the private sphere but until Christian religionists accept this, they cannot impose it upon minority religions
But when it comes to a bangle - really, does it cause that much of a problem? It is well known that it is a symbol for Sikhs and it doesn't really cause all that many problems.
I am quite sure if there was a Christian equivalent - something which was considered to be an integral part of following the religion, then there wouldn't be so much fuss made....
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Mary Honeyball - well said
It is such a relief when a politician doesn't spend all their time crawling and slobbering over evil organisations such as Vatican plc.
Mary Honeyball MEP has been doing a sterling job at exposing their hypocrisy and their underhand attempt to impose their religionism upon those of us who choose to have nothing at all to do with Catholicism.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/20/cardinalssins
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/25/catholicism.eu
http://maryhoneyballmep.blogspot.com/
Mary Honeyball MEP has been doing a sterling job at exposing their hypocrisy and their underhand attempt to impose their religionism upon those of us who choose to have nothing at all to do with Catholicism.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/20/cardinalssins
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/25/catholicism.eu
http://maryhoneyballmep.blogspot.com/
Friday, July 25, 2008
Glasgow East
The victory of the SNP came as no surprise to me. In one way it was quite refreshing, as their candidate was determinedly uncharismatic, rather like an animated garden gnome. But most of all, their platform was very much one of the promotion of social democratic policies, which Labour ought to be carrying out.
I was a Blairite once. Correction. I still think that there were aspects of the Blair government policies which I welcomed and think were very positive. However, their mistake was to be too entranced with their huge majority. The problem is that MP's never want to consider losing their seats. Governments do not need majorities of over 100 to govern, and in gaining such a majority, there were Labour MP's in some very unlikely places, who only voted Labour simply because the Tories were so inept and unelectable. The voters in some of those seats are and remain right-of-centre, and it meant that Labour MP's were constantly looking over their shoulders, fearful of doing anything which might possibly upset those fairweather voters. Of course, the vast majority of them fled after 1997, and simply didn't vote in 2001. By 2005 some had returned, and who knows, were it not for the presence of Dracula, a hung parliament may have been likely. Since then the Tories have become credible, international trends have led to economic downturn, and Labour have managed to upset and annoy almost everyone.
The core Labour vote see little in the way of genuine redistribution and a demonisation of the poor. The middle class guardianista vote ( which is obviously people like me) liked the cultural liberalism of NL but we don't like the foreign policy and are often in the position of seeing little real difference between what Labour in government is doing and what the Tories are promising. Or the LD's , for that matter. three identikit centre parties. No wonder it becomes so easy just to shift to a fresher, brighter model.
Not being of the far left, I would simply want the government to return to essential social democratic values. Forget Essex Man, and gaining large parliamentary majorities - not needed for government. Look towards those who are simply not going to bother to vote in the next election but are still essentially Labour. There is such a thing as the electoral cycle, and it is likely that the Tories will be elected next time no matter what the government do, simply because most governments get voted out after a long time in office ( and sometimes when they don't the outcome is disastrous - the Tories should not have won in 92 and reaped the consequences). But some basic social democracy would be a good idea. For a start, a ban on bonuses to company directors, particularly those in the city. A more protectionist policy in terms of trade ( about time Fortress Europe really did come into existence!). Restructure of the tax system which is far too flat and taxes the low paid at a far too early rate. Abandonment of PFI. Windfall taxes on profiteers. We need a party which has a properly sceptical view of the market - for it is the free market which has caused the current problems. It cannot be the solution.
I was a Blairite once. Correction. I still think that there were aspects of the Blair government policies which I welcomed and think were very positive. However, their mistake was to be too entranced with their huge majority. The problem is that MP's never want to consider losing their seats. Governments do not need majorities of over 100 to govern, and in gaining such a majority, there were Labour MP's in some very unlikely places, who only voted Labour simply because the Tories were so inept and unelectable. The voters in some of those seats are and remain right-of-centre, and it meant that Labour MP's were constantly looking over their shoulders, fearful of doing anything which might possibly upset those fairweather voters. Of course, the vast majority of them fled after 1997, and simply didn't vote in 2001. By 2005 some had returned, and who knows, were it not for the presence of Dracula, a hung parliament may have been likely. Since then the Tories have become credible, international trends have led to economic downturn, and Labour have managed to upset and annoy almost everyone.
The core Labour vote see little in the way of genuine redistribution and a demonisation of the poor. The middle class guardianista vote ( which is obviously people like me) liked the cultural liberalism of NL but we don't like the foreign policy and are often in the position of seeing little real difference between what Labour in government is doing and what the Tories are promising. Or the LD's , for that matter. three identikit centre parties. No wonder it becomes so easy just to shift to a fresher, brighter model.
Not being of the far left, I would simply want the government to return to essential social democratic values. Forget Essex Man, and gaining large parliamentary majorities - not needed for government. Look towards those who are simply not going to bother to vote in the next election but are still essentially Labour. There is such a thing as the electoral cycle, and it is likely that the Tories will be elected next time no matter what the government do, simply because most governments get voted out after a long time in office ( and sometimes when they don't the outcome is disastrous - the Tories should not have won in 92 and reaped the consequences). But some basic social democracy would be a good idea. For a start, a ban on bonuses to company directors, particularly those in the city. A more protectionist policy in terms of trade ( about time Fortress Europe really did come into existence!). Restructure of the tax system which is far too flat and taxes the low paid at a far too early rate. Abandonment of PFI. Windfall taxes on profiteers. We need a party which has a properly sceptical view of the market - for it is the free market which has caused the current problems. It cannot be the solution.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
More conservative religionist nonsense
This time emanating from that well-known centre of progress and democracy, Sudan - how much easier it would be to take anything African religious leaders seriously if their countries didn't do so very much to give succour to colonialist sympathisers! In this case we are talking about a country where the Christians are so right wing that their ideals are little better than Sharia law, and where the country has been plagued with religious and communal violence, encouraged by the Church. They are so concerned to appear even more conservative than fundamentalist Muslims that they expect Anglicans to go down the same path, worldwide.
They are trying to blackmail the American church by telling them to get rid of Bishop Gene Robinson.
This particular Bishop said that he knows no gay people and that in Sudan "we do not have them"
In other words, too scared to be anything other than hidden because of the Muslims and the Christians. Delightful. And he thinks it right that Christians essentially support Sharia law so they don't lose support to fundamentalist Muslims. He thinks that its OK to be homophobic so, according to his warped logic, less people will be murdered by fundamentalist Muslims.
What rot. The thing which gets people murdered is the war between two sets of premodern religious extremists. They are two sides of the same coin. Muslims in Sudan hate Christians no matter what they happen to teach. Using the presence of liberal Christians in the West is a shameful distortion of his own country's lack of civilised values. If he was any sort of leader, he would be rejecting those premodern values.
I have a better idea
How about all you pre-modern primitive thinkers fuck off and play fundamentalism with one another - and whilst you are at it, lets have you stop asking all these terrible liberal countries for money. Now, that's something African countries are very good at - other than internet corruption scams! No more aid from these dreadful Western countries with their horrible liberal ideas. After all, how can you condemn Western morality on the one hand and be happy to accept its assistance on the other?
In any case, aid should only be given as long as population control is part of the package, and no support should be given to governments who will simply waste the money and have no democratic foundation. Ludicrous amounts ogf money have been wasted in Africa, and I thiunk that sometimes, we have to stand back and ask some hard questions. And I think it is my colleagues on the Left who have the most to answer - particularly the third world can do no wrong brigade.
They are trying to blackmail the American church by telling them to get rid of Bishop Gene Robinson.
This particular Bishop said that he knows no gay people and that in Sudan "we do not have them"
In other words, too scared to be anything other than hidden because of the Muslims and the Christians. Delightful. And he thinks it right that Christians essentially support Sharia law so they don't lose support to fundamentalist Muslims. He thinks that its OK to be homophobic so, according to his warped logic, less people will be murdered by fundamentalist Muslims.
What rot. The thing which gets people murdered is the war between two sets of premodern religious extremists. They are two sides of the same coin. Muslims in Sudan hate Christians no matter what they happen to teach. Using the presence of liberal Christians in the West is a shameful distortion of his own country's lack of civilised values. If he was any sort of leader, he would be rejecting those premodern values.
I have a better idea
How about all you pre-modern primitive thinkers fuck off and play fundamentalism with one another - and whilst you are at it, lets have you stop asking all these terrible liberal countries for money. Now, that's something African countries are very good at - other than internet corruption scams! No more aid from these dreadful Western countries with their horrible liberal ideas. After all, how can you condemn Western morality on the one hand and be happy to accept its assistance on the other?
In any case, aid should only be given as long as population control is part of the package, and no support should be given to governments who will simply waste the money and have no democratic foundation. Ludicrous amounts ogf money have been wasted in Africa, and I thiunk that sometimes, we have to stand back and ask some hard questions. And I think it is my colleagues on the Left who have the most to answer - particularly the third world can do no wrong brigade.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Nick Clegg and taxation
I'm not keen on Nick Clegg. Given my current antipathy towards Labour, you would think that, recognising that there is really quite a large group of people who feel similarly, he would have the sense to look towards winning out votes. But not so.
The latest wheeze from this Cameron-lite insignificant nothingness is that he thinks taxation should be reduced. he makes the usual vacuous comments about how much scrapping ID cards would save - and , because he hasn't actually sat down and thought it through, then starts to go on about the savings which could be made through 'waste' reduction.
The Tories were always ranting on about this and they didn't appear to manage to do much about it for the 18 years they were in power. Its a smokescreen - and shows that, sadly, the LD's are really bereft of original and creative ideas. Yes - the taxation system is not progressive enough and, in particular is too high at its lowest end and too low at the higher end. But the idea that taxes overall could be cut without nit having a detrimental affect on services is moonshine. Clegg just isn't up top the job: he's a jumped up school prefect who seems to do little but try to sound like a weaker version of Cameron. Because that is actually what he is.
I won't vote for the sitting Labour MP in the constituency I will be voting in next time, so unless there's a Green or some sort of alternative candidate on the left to vote for this may be my first spoilt ballot paper.....
The latest wheeze from this Cameron-lite insignificant nothingness is that he thinks taxation should be reduced. he makes the usual vacuous comments about how much scrapping ID cards would save - and , because he hasn't actually sat down and thought it through, then starts to go on about the savings which could be made through 'waste' reduction.
The Tories were always ranting on about this and they didn't appear to manage to do much about it for the 18 years they were in power. Its a smokescreen - and shows that, sadly, the LD's are really bereft of original and creative ideas. Yes - the taxation system is not progressive enough and, in particular is too high at its lowest end and too low at the higher end. But the idea that taxes overall could be cut without nit having a detrimental affect on services is moonshine. Clegg just isn't up top the job: he's a jumped up school prefect who seems to do little but try to sound like a weaker version of Cameron. Because that is actually what he is.
I won't vote for the sitting Labour MP in the constituency I will be voting in next time, so unless there's a Green or some sort of alternative candidate on the left to vote for this may be my first spoilt ballot paper.....
The proposed welfare reforms
I haven't read these in depth yet, but have heard the Minister responsible talk about them.
There seems to me to be a basic problem. I am quite happy about having personalised responses to unemployment. Makes sense. Encouraging private sector American companies to provide that service is another matter. I'm also OK about helping people in a practical and hands on way.
However, there are three major problems with this plan.
1. There are not enough full time jobs for everyone who wants them at wages which make it realistic for people to take them. Of course you will have seasonal minimum-wage work available in the Lake District - not a lot of use if you happen to have dependants and live in St. Helen's. So, yes, young people from Eastern Europe will come over and do them for a year before returning, and that is a lot simpler than trying to relocate a family to an expensive area and expecting them to survive on low wages.
2. Making empty threats about removing benefits from people with drug problems who won;t accept help is grandstanding. The main reason people don;t accept help is because what there is on offer is largely crap and based around becoming addicted to methadone instead of heroin. Proper rehab costs. You can't get that on the NHS
3. And this, to me, is the main issue. If there are necessary community based jobs which need doing, then why aren't these being created as proper jobs and ringfenced for the long term unemployed?
There seems to me to be a basic problem. I am quite happy about having personalised responses to unemployment. Makes sense. Encouraging private sector American companies to provide that service is another matter. I'm also OK about helping people in a practical and hands on way.
However, there are three major problems with this plan.
1. There are not enough full time jobs for everyone who wants them at wages which make it realistic for people to take them. Of course you will have seasonal minimum-wage work available in the Lake District - not a lot of use if you happen to have dependants and live in St. Helen's. So, yes, young people from Eastern Europe will come over and do them for a year before returning, and that is a lot simpler than trying to relocate a family to an expensive area and expecting them to survive on low wages.
2. Making empty threats about removing benefits from people with drug problems who won;t accept help is grandstanding. The main reason people don;t accept help is because what there is on offer is largely crap and based around becoming addicted to methadone instead of heroin. Proper rehab costs. You can't get that on the NHS
3. And this, to me, is the main issue. If there are necessary community based jobs which need doing, then why aren't these being created as proper jobs and ringfenced for the long term unemployed?
Israel
I tend to be something of an agnostic on the whole Middle East issue. The complexities of the situation are immense, and the intransigence of the participants such that it makes Paisley and Adams look like Liberal Democrats. I sympathise with the plight of the Palestinians, I also think Hamas is a pretty vile organisation and if I thought I was constantly at risk of being bombed I may react irrationally too. I also think that Israeli expansionism has brought much of its problems upon itself.
That being said. Let us be practical. There are always going to be a lot more Arabs in the Middle East than Israelis. With attitudes being as they are, can there ever be peace? Can a two-state solution ever work? And what, ultimately, matters more - peace in the region or the Zionist right of Israel to have their state there?
Reluctantly, it has to be the former. So, I think the mistake being made is not to question the sense of expecting there to be peace whilst Israel still exists. If land was needed for a safe space for Jewish people, then those responsible for their oppression should have provided it (Germany and Russia)- not displacement of another set of people to assuage the guilt of the west. There was a case for a safe space, I think that a quasi-religious claim to land should have been rejected.
I don't think that the continuation of Israel is feasible. Whether it be a good thing or not, is not the point. The point is, or should be, that its existence remains and will always be, a threat to world peace. I rather wish that were not the case, for there is much to admire about Israel - like being the only liberal and reasonably gay-friendly nation in that region, for example. But I simply don't see how the ring of hostile nations around it and ever going to be anything but hostile, and the impact that has on the stability of the region is obvious.
That being said. Let us be practical. There are always going to be a lot more Arabs in the Middle East than Israelis. With attitudes being as they are, can there ever be peace? Can a two-state solution ever work? And what, ultimately, matters more - peace in the region or the Zionist right of Israel to have their state there?
Reluctantly, it has to be the former. So, I think the mistake being made is not to question the sense of expecting there to be peace whilst Israel still exists. If land was needed for a safe space for Jewish people, then those responsible for their oppression should have provided it (Germany and Russia)- not displacement of another set of people to assuage the guilt of the west. There was a case for a safe space, I think that a quasi-religious claim to land should have been rejected.
I don't think that the continuation of Israel is feasible. Whether it be a good thing or not, is not the point. The point is, or should be, that its existence remains and will always be, a threat to world peace. I rather wish that were not the case, for there is much to admire about Israel - like being the only liberal and reasonably gay-friendly nation in that region, for example. But I simply don't see how the ring of hostile nations around it and ever going to be anything but hostile, and the impact that has on the stability of the region is obvious.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
The anger of religionist conservatives
There are various ways that one can make a point. Sometimes, it takes a lot of work, making sure that you get everything right, that you dot the i's and cross the t's.
Other times, your opponents make it easy for you.
Take the arguments about gay equality. The reliance of opponents on essentially falling back on 'yuk-factor' arguments which were so blatantly homophobic those in the middle didn't want to be associated with them was a great boon to those working for equality.
We see much the same happening in the CofE. Basically, the conservatives are getting so ridiculously angry that they fail to see where they are falling into traps, or where their oft-heard cries that they really don't hate gays at all are belied by the sheer fury and nastiness of their pet blogs. The sheer loathing and personal nastiness they display to Bishop Gene Robinson is an example ( have a look at Stand Firm website for examples)
The problem they have is that they don't see how Gene comes over to those not involved. He is great on the media. Like ot loathe what he has to say, he has the common touch, and he comes over as warm and folksy as the good ol' Southern boy he is. And whilst he does this, his opponents get angrier and angrier. They just don't see how the average CofE parishioner isn't impressed with hecklers disturbing a church service - whether that be Peter Tatchell or some unnamed fundamentalist.
Then you have silliness such as trying to find out whether Gene Robinson is to celebrate the Eucharist whilst in the UK. Its obvious that no group is going to respond to an inquisitory email by a known opponent of gay equality who has set himself up as a professional anti-gay campaigner online (amusingly, one who started off ranting about how he preached without permission whereas he is not prevented from preaching - which has now been acknowledged). Yet this same person kept digging - and digging. And just doesn't see how he comes over and how the axe he has to grind is crowding out the issues and making him, and only him, look daft.
OK, we have our goons too - those who won't accept sensible compromises ( who really cares what CP's are called when they give you all the rights of civil marriage and when everyone calls it marriage anyway?), those who pursue agendas which don't have wider support (reduction of the general age of consent - I don't support that, I don't think any of the sensible groups do) - and those who manage to lose tribunals by their sheer ineptitude and failure to carry out basic procedures and treat everyone fairly.
But I think that sometimes, we end up winning arguments largely because of the inability of our opponents to argue cogently and because, quite simply, they are too furiously angry to appreciate their image to those who have no strong feelings.
Other times, your opponents make it easy for you.
Take the arguments about gay equality. The reliance of opponents on essentially falling back on 'yuk-factor' arguments which were so blatantly homophobic those in the middle didn't want to be associated with them was a great boon to those working for equality.
We see much the same happening in the CofE. Basically, the conservatives are getting so ridiculously angry that they fail to see where they are falling into traps, or where their oft-heard cries that they really don't hate gays at all are belied by the sheer fury and nastiness of their pet blogs. The sheer loathing and personal nastiness they display to Bishop Gene Robinson is an example ( have a look at Stand Firm website for examples)
The problem they have is that they don't see how Gene comes over to those not involved. He is great on the media. Like ot loathe what he has to say, he has the common touch, and he comes over as warm and folksy as the good ol' Southern boy he is. And whilst he does this, his opponents get angrier and angrier. They just don't see how the average CofE parishioner isn't impressed with hecklers disturbing a church service - whether that be Peter Tatchell or some unnamed fundamentalist.
Then you have silliness such as trying to find out whether Gene Robinson is to celebrate the Eucharist whilst in the UK. Its obvious that no group is going to respond to an inquisitory email by a known opponent of gay equality who has set himself up as a professional anti-gay campaigner online (amusingly, one who started off ranting about how he preached without permission whereas he is not prevented from preaching - which has now been acknowledged). Yet this same person kept digging - and digging. And just doesn't see how he comes over and how the axe he has to grind is crowding out the issues and making him, and only him, look daft.
OK, we have our goons too - those who won't accept sensible compromises ( who really cares what CP's are called when they give you all the rights of civil marriage and when everyone calls it marriage anyway?), those who pursue agendas which don't have wider support (reduction of the general age of consent - I don't support that, I don't think any of the sensible groups do) - and those who manage to lose tribunals by their sheer ineptitude and failure to carry out basic procedures and treat everyone fairly.
But I think that sometimes, we end up winning arguments largely because of the inability of our opponents to argue cogently and because, quite simply, they are too furiously angry to appreciate their image to those who have no strong feelings.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Question
I wonder why those who claim to have altered their sexual orientation feel that they need to spend so much time online trying to convince themselves? If its not posts about how great it is to be heterosexual, its pictures of marital beds, wives, or offspring.
The insecurity is all too apparent, and mildly amusing that they seem to think that anyone is fooled.
Poor dears. Wonder if it stops them thinking about those broad backs, footballer's thighs and fat sausages when they do the biz with Wifey?
The insecurity is all too apparent, and mildly amusing that they seem to think that anyone is fooled.
Poor dears. Wonder if it stops them thinking about those broad backs, footballer's thighs and fat sausages when they do the biz with Wifey?
Knife crime
I don't intend to write much about this. If I had any coherent answer then I would be doing more than just writing about it on here.
Two points, though. There seems to be a lack of logic in the 'prison is the answer to everything' brigade point of view. They appear to argue, on the one hand, that we are in the grip of a liberal left establishment who won't adopt tough sentencing. They then argue that the only reason the government do not make prison sentences for knife possession mandatory is because there aren't enough room in the prisons.
Now, if we were dominated by liberal penal policy, then the prisons would be empty , wouldn't they, because none of these lefty do-gooders would ever send anyone to prison. In reality, the prison population is higher than ever before and prisons are bursting at the seams. So who exactly is sentencing all these people? The reality is that far from pursuing a liberal regime, there has been a singular lack of imagination and a continuation of the 'prison works' philosophy.
Which it clearly doesn't, or so many people wouldn't keep going back.
The other issue is the flawed idea of hospital visits. Restorative justice is a good idea, and it has a pedigree which displays its effectiveness ( as does community punishment if done properly). But I can't see what use random visits to hospital wards would be. bring offenders face to face with what they have done and the consequences, yes - but to try and do this with general incidents is pointless. Not to mention inappropriate in that environment.
Two points, though. There seems to be a lack of logic in the 'prison is the answer to everything' brigade point of view. They appear to argue, on the one hand, that we are in the grip of a liberal left establishment who won't adopt tough sentencing. They then argue that the only reason the government do not make prison sentences for knife possession mandatory is because there aren't enough room in the prisons.
Now, if we were dominated by liberal penal policy, then the prisons would be empty , wouldn't they, because none of these lefty do-gooders would ever send anyone to prison. In reality, the prison population is higher than ever before and prisons are bursting at the seams. So who exactly is sentencing all these people? The reality is that far from pursuing a liberal regime, there has been a singular lack of imagination and a continuation of the 'prison works' philosophy.
Which it clearly doesn't, or so many people wouldn't keep going back.
The other issue is the flawed idea of hospital visits. Restorative justice is a good idea, and it has a pedigree which displays its effectiveness ( as does community punishment if done properly). But I can't see what use random visits to hospital wards would be. bring offenders face to face with what they have done and the consequences, yes - but to try and do this with general incidents is pointless. Not to mention inappropriate in that environment.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Barmy libertarians at it again.....
Libertarians are nuts. Bonkers. They exist in some sort of parallel universe which believes that everyone can somehow do exactly as they wish to do without it affecting anyone else. Amusingly, some of the more loopy specimens loathe the police whilst supporting self-styled militias and wider gun ownership, whilst also affecting a hardline stance on law and order, usually tied up with a bit of good old fashioned racism.
The latest wheeze are whingeing on about speed cameras. Now, I wouldn't imagine that anyone likes them all that much. But the real complaint of the libby loons is that - wait for it - they are ' a tax on the motorist'.
Now, this may have escaped the attention of our free marketeer friends, but there is a simple answer to this, and its something they love ranting on about. personal responsibility. you see, people only have to pay fines when they speed. And, believe it or not, the aim of speed cameras is to act as a deterrent to people speeding. So, no speeding, no fines.
One can only assume that their love for 'Laura Norder' only extends to things which don't affect them. When, quite sensibly, cameras are introduced to deal with the unacceptably high deaths on the roads, the only reason they make a penny for the local authority is because stupid drivers are unable to take responsibility for their own speeding.
Therefore, they are not a tax on 'the motorist' but on the criminally irresponsible, who don't appear to realise that a car is a lethal weapon when driven too fast
The latest wheeze are whingeing on about speed cameras. Now, I wouldn't imagine that anyone likes them all that much. But the real complaint of the libby loons is that - wait for it - they are ' a tax on the motorist'.
Now, this may have escaped the attention of our free marketeer friends, but there is a simple answer to this, and its something they love ranting on about. personal responsibility. you see, people only have to pay fines when they speed. And, believe it or not, the aim of speed cameras is to act as a deterrent to people speeding. So, no speeding, no fines.
One can only assume that their love for 'Laura Norder' only extends to things which don't affect them. When, quite sensibly, cameras are introduced to deal with the unacceptably high deaths on the roads, the only reason they make a penny for the local authority is because stupid drivers are unable to take responsibility for their own speeding.
Therefore, they are not a tax on 'the motorist' but on the criminally irresponsible, who don't appear to realise that a car is a lethal weapon when driven too fast
Hypocrisy and Thatcher
In the news this weekend was a proposal that the evil hag who set out to destroy this city in the 1980's is to be given a state funeral.
Well, I shall have the champagne on ice on the day she dies, and don't care who knows it.
Lower than vermin. That's what Bevan said, and he is right to this day - pity the Labour party have forgotten that fact.
Well, I shall have the champagne on ice on the day she dies, and don't care who knows it.
Lower than vermin. That's what Bevan said, and he is right to this day - pity the Labour party have forgotten that fact.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Bishop Gene Robinson
Since departing from the Church, I now look on as an outsider - but its good to see Gene standing up for equality and acceptance. I think he is brave, inspiring and, unlike the vast majority of other bishops, actually comes across well on the media!
And anyone who gets called a heretic by some loud-mouthed fundamentalist has to be doing something right!
And anyone who gets called a heretic by some loud-mouthed fundamentalist has to be doing something right!
Saturday, July 12, 2008
The United Nations - what is the point?
There is nothing wrong with international co-operation, indeed, it has to be seen as a Good thing. But the latest little wheeze, where those sterlking democracies of Russia and China used their veto to prevent economic action being taken against Zimbabwe, displays to me that this organisation is toothless and quire possibly entirely redundant.
Mock-democratic oligarchies such as Russia and the Chinese dictatorship - soon to be given ample publicity by way of the Olympics (in which all who compete should be thoroughly ashamed) making decisions on behalf of the international community - not worth the paper they are written on, all told.
Barclays Bank, Standard Chartered Bank and the mining corporations Anglo American and Rio Tinto have decided to stay in Zimbabwe. Given the past actions of Barclays, the Apartheid bank, and RTZ, who can be in the least surprised?
Mock-democratic oligarchies such as Russia and the Chinese dictatorship - soon to be given ample publicity by way of the Olympics (in which all who compete should be thoroughly ashamed) making decisions on behalf of the international community - not worth the paper they are written on, all told.
Barclays Bank, Standard Chartered Bank and the mining corporations Anglo American and Rio Tinto have decided to stay in Zimbabwe. Given the past actions of Barclays, the Apartheid bank, and RTZ, who can be in the least surprised?
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Life can be a bit trying....
Apologies for having ignored the blog in recent weeks - combination of a lot of short-term contract work and a family crisis.....
But...some comments on the big issues
Women bishops: has to be a Good Thing. The conservative Anglo-Catholics don't like it, but then that is to be expected. many of them are closet gays who can't form decent relationships and, frankly, are more screwed up about relationships and sexuality than those outside the institution. They also can't cope with women, hence the creation of an exclusive little fairy ring within a homophobic institution for them to hide in and self-flagellate via casual sex they shouldn't be having according to what they are supposed to believe.
Let's make it clear. No excuse for gay priests in the closet pretending to be something they are not. None at all, ever, under any circumstances. It is hypocrisy. Come out, fight for change, and win respect for doing so.
And I do think a church with women bishops will be more open to change in the area of sexual orientation, largely because there won't be quite as much of that visceral 'yuk factor' which is at the heart of so many homophobes' fears.
The NHS: the 60th anniversary was celebrated at a time when the scourge of PFI has literally eaten up all the additional money ploughed into the system, and where NHS dentistry is likely to become a thing of the past in the next few years. I have recently agreed to join the local LINK, which is the half-baked new labour replacement for the PPI Forums. They weren't perfect but at least we were able to make some changes and representations. these Links are barely talking shops which appear to me to have no teeth and no clout - and they are likely to be full of organisational placepersons afraid of speaking out of line for fear of losing their grants....
The Labour party: continues to sink in the polls and deservedly so. I think there needs to be a major change of direction, but perhaps that will have to happen in opposition. I think that the Tories will have huge expectations placed upon them and given that their policies are either the same or argue that government can't do anything anyway, expect their honeymoon to be very short indeed.
Everton FC: Where are the signings, Moyesy? Why do we always leave it to the last minute?
More to come....back to work....
But...some comments on the big issues
Women bishops: has to be a Good Thing. The conservative Anglo-Catholics don't like it, but then that is to be expected. many of them are closet gays who can't form decent relationships and, frankly, are more screwed up about relationships and sexuality than those outside the institution. They also can't cope with women, hence the creation of an exclusive little fairy ring within a homophobic institution for them to hide in and self-flagellate via casual sex they shouldn't be having according to what they are supposed to believe.
Let's make it clear. No excuse for gay priests in the closet pretending to be something they are not. None at all, ever, under any circumstances. It is hypocrisy. Come out, fight for change, and win respect for doing so.
And I do think a church with women bishops will be more open to change in the area of sexual orientation, largely because there won't be quite as much of that visceral 'yuk factor' which is at the heart of so many homophobes' fears.
The NHS: the 60th anniversary was celebrated at a time when the scourge of PFI has literally eaten up all the additional money ploughed into the system, and where NHS dentistry is likely to become a thing of the past in the next few years. I have recently agreed to join the local LINK, which is the half-baked new labour replacement for the PPI Forums. They weren't perfect but at least we were able to make some changes and representations. these Links are barely talking shops which appear to me to have no teeth and no clout - and they are likely to be full of organisational placepersons afraid of speaking out of line for fear of losing their grants....
The Labour party: continues to sink in the polls and deservedly so. I think there needs to be a major change of direction, but perhaps that will have to happen in opposition. I think that the Tories will have huge expectations placed upon them and given that their policies are either the same or argue that government can't do anything anyway, expect their honeymoon to be very short indeed.
Everton FC: Where are the signings, Moyesy? Why do we always leave it to the last minute?
More to come....back to work....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
