I had some heated responses to my blasting of Tony Blair on here and in Facebook. Here's a selection:
Great stuff! Funny as hell. At least as funny as Neville Chamberlain, when he said, "How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing!”
Or how about this one? “It has always seemed to me that in dealing with foreign countries we do not give ourselves a chance of success unless we try to understand their mentality, which is not always the same as our own, . . "
An ya gotta love this one: “We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a program would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators.”
Every war that was worth fighting and which should have been fought for humanity's sake will find the same headlines and news reports of liberals saying we shouldn't be doing this; we're going to lose; how many people will have to die for nothing; blah, blah, blah. And they are ALWAYS wrong. But they feel so good being weak and pruporting to care about everyone, when what they really care about is their power and idealogy.
Eliz again:
I think the quotes he wrote up there are entirely reasonable. I pointed out to him that England talked to Northern Ireland and resolved a terrible situation without having a full-scale war.
I also don't think you can fight your way out of problems -- they all require diplomacy.
I also note that the US is going to start talking to the Taleban -- a sign of the failure of war as a solution there.
Sunday, 31 January 2010
Hear the rumble of Christian hypocrisy
Richard Dawkins published an interesting opinion piece in the Times last Friday -- below. I think he is a great man -- imagine taking on organized religion like that and not getting beaten down by their ferocious counter-attacks.
"We know what caused the catastrophe in Haiti. It was the bumping and grinding of the Caribbean Plate rubbing up against the North American Plate: a force of nature, sin-free and indifferent to sin, unpremeditated, unmotivated, supremely unconcerned with human affairs or human misery.
The religious mind, however, hubristically appropriates the blind happenings of physics for petty moralistic purposes. As with the Indonesian tsunami, which was blamed on loose sexual morals in tourist nightclubs; as with Hurricane Katrina, which was attributed to divine revenge on the entire city of New Orleans for organising a gay rally; and as with other disasters going back to the famous Lisbon earthquake and beyond, so Haiti’s tragedy must be payback for human “sin”.
The Rev Pat Robertson, infamous American televangelist, sees the hand of God in the earthquake, wreaking terrible retribution for a 1791 pact that the Haitians made with the Devil, to help to rid them of their French masters. 1791? Ah, but don’t forget “I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me”.
Needless to say, milder-mannered faith-heads fell over themselves to disown Robertson, just as they disowned those other pastors, evangelists, missionaries and mullahs at the time of the earlier disasters.
What hypocrisy. Loathsome as Robertson’s views undoubtedly are, he is the Christian who stands squarely in the Christian tradition. The agonised theodiceans who see suffering as an intractable “mystery”, or who see God in the help, money and goodwill that is now flooding into Haiti, or (most nauseating of all) who claim to see God “suffering on the cross” in the ruins of Port-au-Prince, those faux-anguished hypocrites are denying the centrepiece of their own theology. It is the obnoxious Pat Robertson who is the true Christian here.
Where was God in Noah’s flood? He was systematically drowning the entire world, animal as well as human, as punishment for “sin”. Where was God when Sodom and Gomorrah were consumed with fire and brimstone? He was deliberately barbecuing the citizenry, lock, stock and barrel, as punishment for “sin”.
“Oh but that’s the Old Testament. No one believes those stories literally any more. The New Testament is all about love.” Dear modern, enlightened, theologically sophisticated, gentle Christian, you cannot be serious. Your entire religion is founded on an obsession with “sin”, with punishment and with atonement. Where do you find the effrontery to condemn Pat Robertson, you who have signed up to the odious doctrine that the central purpose of Jesus’s incarnation was to have himself tortured as a scapegoat for the “sins” of all mankind, past, present and future, beginning with the “sin” of Adam, who (as any modern theologian well knows) never even existed?
Yes, I know you hate the word “scapegoat” (with good reason, because it is a barbaric idea) but what other word would you use? The only respect in which “scapegoat” falls short as a perfect epitome of Christian theology is that the Christian atonement is even more unpleasant. The goat of Jewish tradition was merely driven into the wilderness with its cargo of symbolic sin. Jesus was supposedly tortured and executed to atone for sins that, any rational person might protest, he had it in his power simply to forgive, without the agony. Among all the ideas ever to occur to a nasty human mind (Paul’s of course), the Christian “atonement” would win a prize for pointless futility as well as moral depravity.
Even without the stark heartlessness of Pat Robertson, tragedies like Haiti are meat and drink to the theological mind. To quote the president of one theological seminary, writing in the On Faith blog of the Washington Post: “The earthquake in Haiti, like every other earthly disaster, reminds us that creation groans under the weight of sin and the judgment of God. This is true for every cell in our bodies, even as it is for the crust of the earth at every point on the globe.”
You nice, middle-of-the-road theologians and clergymen, be-frocked and bleating in your pulpits, you disclaim Pat Robertson's suggestion that the Haitians are paying for a pact with the Devil. But you worship a god-man who — as you tell your congregations, even if you don’t believe it yourself — “cast out devils”. You even believe (or you don’t disabuse your flock when they believe) that Jesus cured a madman by causing the “devils” in him to fly into a herd of pigs and stampede them over a cliff. Charming story, well calculated to uplift and inspire the Sunday School and the Infant Bible Class.
Robertson may spout evil nonsense, but he is a mere amateur at that game. Just read your own New Testament. Pat Robertson is true to it. But you?
Educated apologist, how dare you weep Christian tears, when your entire theology is one long celebration of suffering: suffering as payback for “sin” — or suffering as “atonement” for it? You may weep for Haiti where Pat Robertson does not, but at least, in his hick, sub-Palinesque ignorance, he holds up an honest mirror to the ugliness of Christian theology. You are nothing but a whited sepulchre."
"We know what caused the catastrophe in Haiti. It was the bumping and grinding of the Caribbean Plate rubbing up against the North American Plate: a force of nature, sin-free and indifferent to sin, unpremeditated, unmotivated, supremely unconcerned with human affairs or human misery.
The religious mind, however, hubristically appropriates the blind happenings of physics for petty moralistic purposes. As with the Indonesian tsunami, which was blamed on loose sexual morals in tourist nightclubs; as with Hurricane Katrina, which was attributed to divine revenge on the entire city of New Orleans for organising a gay rally; and as with other disasters going back to the famous Lisbon earthquake and beyond, so Haiti’s tragedy must be payback for human “sin”.
The Rev Pat Robertson, infamous American televangelist, sees the hand of God in the earthquake, wreaking terrible retribution for a 1791 pact that the Haitians made with the Devil, to help to rid them of their French masters. 1791? Ah, but don’t forget “I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me”.
Needless to say, milder-mannered faith-heads fell over themselves to disown Robertson, just as they disowned those other pastors, evangelists, missionaries and mullahs at the time of the earlier disasters.
What hypocrisy. Loathsome as Robertson’s views undoubtedly are, he is the Christian who stands squarely in the Christian tradition. The agonised theodiceans who see suffering as an intractable “mystery”, or who see God in the help, money and goodwill that is now flooding into Haiti, or (most nauseating of all) who claim to see God “suffering on the cross” in the ruins of Port-au-Prince, those faux-anguished hypocrites are denying the centrepiece of their own theology. It is the obnoxious Pat Robertson who is the true Christian here.
Where was God in Noah’s flood? He was systematically drowning the entire world, animal as well as human, as punishment for “sin”. Where was God when Sodom and Gomorrah were consumed with fire and brimstone? He was deliberately barbecuing the citizenry, lock, stock and barrel, as punishment for “sin”.
“Oh but that’s the Old Testament. No one believes those stories literally any more. The New Testament is all about love.” Dear modern, enlightened, theologically sophisticated, gentle Christian, you cannot be serious. Your entire religion is founded on an obsession with “sin”, with punishment and with atonement. Where do you find the effrontery to condemn Pat Robertson, you who have signed up to the odious doctrine that the central purpose of Jesus’s incarnation was to have himself tortured as a scapegoat for the “sins” of all mankind, past, present and future, beginning with the “sin” of Adam, who (as any modern theologian well knows) never even existed?
Yes, I know you hate the word “scapegoat” (with good reason, because it is a barbaric idea) but what other word would you use? The only respect in which “scapegoat” falls short as a perfect epitome of Christian theology is that the Christian atonement is even more unpleasant. The goat of Jewish tradition was merely driven into the wilderness with its cargo of symbolic sin. Jesus was supposedly tortured and executed to atone for sins that, any rational person might protest, he had it in his power simply to forgive, without the agony. Among all the ideas ever to occur to a nasty human mind (Paul’s of course), the Christian “atonement” would win a prize for pointless futility as well as moral depravity.
Even without the stark heartlessness of Pat Robertson, tragedies like Haiti are meat and drink to the theological mind. To quote the president of one theological seminary, writing in the On Faith blog of the Washington Post: “The earthquake in Haiti, like every other earthly disaster, reminds us that creation groans under the weight of sin and the judgment of God. This is true for every cell in our bodies, even as it is for the crust of the earth at every point on the globe.”
You nice, middle-of-the-road theologians and clergymen, be-frocked and bleating in your pulpits, you disclaim Pat Robertson's suggestion that the Haitians are paying for a pact with the Devil. But you worship a god-man who — as you tell your congregations, even if you don’t believe it yourself — “cast out devils”. You even believe (or you don’t disabuse your flock when they believe) that Jesus cured a madman by causing the “devils” in him to fly into a herd of pigs and stampede them over a cliff. Charming story, well calculated to uplift and inspire the Sunday School and the Infant Bible Class.
Robertson may spout evil nonsense, but he is a mere amateur at that game. Just read your own New Testament. Pat Robertson is true to it. But you?
Educated apologist, how dare you weep Christian tears, when your entire theology is one long celebration of suffering: suffering as payback for “sin” — or suffering as “atonement” for it? You may weep for Haiti where Pat Robertson does not, but at least, in his hick, sub-Palinesque ignorance, he holds up an honest mirror to the ugliness of Christian theology. You are nothing but a whited sepulchre."
Saturday, 30 January 2010
Relaxing at the spa then getting agitated again
Yesterday I spent the morning at the spa, chilling out. I ran into a friend from Nokia and we had a nice lunch. I had a massage, hung out in the steam room, drank cappucino by the pool -- well, you get the picture -- it was a very nice experience, and I felt relaxed and calm afterwards.
Then I got home and saw my messy house and clothes that needed to be washed, and I began to get stressed again. Then I turned on the TV and saw that Tony Blair had spent the day at an inquiry into the Iraq war saying that he'd done the right thing, he had no regrets and that he would invade Iraq again if he had the chance. Then he said we'd probably need to invade Iran too. It made me furious, and I got completely agitated -- the effects of a day at the spa totally erased.
Here's what some of my friends in Facebook had to say about Tony Blair's appearance:
Debra Hill Frewin
but he has to say that. Can you imagine saying "I think I made a huge mistake, I would never of done that if I had to do it all over again"
Elizabeth Scanlon Thomas
It would have been nice for him to speak to the victims' grieving families who were there to hear him answer questions. What a good Catholic. Why did the Pope let him in anyway?
Theresa Spencer Apps
Because he has money which the Church always wants...
Tim Trent http://www.arrestblair.org/
Shraddha Patre
These r thick skinned baa***ds!!
Martin Searle
Disgraceful. Makes me ashamed to be British.
Arrest Blair
Blog commenter Tim Trent sent me a fabulous website asking for someone to make a citizen's arrest of Tony Blair. Everyone donates some money to give as prize to whomever can get to Tony Blair to make the arrest. A woman tried it yesterday at the Iraq inquiry but she was overpowered by three policemen/women.
Here's the site:
Arrest Blair
This site offers a reward to people attempting a peaceful citizen’s arrest of the former British prime minister, Tony Blair, for crimes against peace. Anyone attempting an arrest which meets the rules laid down here will be entitled to one quarter of the money collected at the time of his or her application.
Money donated to this site will be used for no other purpose than to pay bounties for attempts to arrest Tony Blair. All administration and other costs, apart from any charges added to your donations by Paypal, will be paid by the site’s founder.
The intention is to encourage repeated attempts to arrest the former prime minister. We have four purposes:
- To remind people that justice has not yet been done.
- To show Mr Blair that, despite his requests for people to “move on” from Iraq, the mass murder he committed will not be forgotten.
- To put pressure on the authorities of the United Kingdom and the countries he travels through to prosecute him for a crime against peace, or to deliver him for prosecution to the International Criminal Court.
- To discourage other people from repeating his crime.
We have no interest in people’s motivation, as long as they follow the rules laid down by this site. If they try to arrest Mr Blair because they care about the people he has killed, so much the better. But if they do it only for the money, that is fine too, and we will have encouraged an attempt which would not otherwise have taken place.
Fed-up hosts slim down banquets
I thought this article in the Times was so interesting that I'm reproducing it for you, in case you missed it:
Who would be a head of state these days? There was a time when the job involved a whirl of banquets and enough gastronomic dishes and fine wines to cheer the most world-weary characters.
Now you are expected to rush through a meagre three-course meal in less than an hour before returning to work. Even in France — the land of haute cuisine — you will be lucky to have meat, a glass of wine and the chance to chat to Carla Bruni before President Sarkozy, her husband, signals the end of dinner. Fancy a digestive cognac? Forget it.
The decline in state banquets is highlighted in an exhibition organised by Maxim’s, the celebrated Parisian restaurant, which is displaying 140 French presidential menus.
The first dates from September 12, 1888, when President Carnot visited Le Havre. He was served 14 courses, including foie gras, sole, deer cutlets, beef filet, turkey stuffed with truffles, lobster and ice cream. The feast was washed down with sherry, four wines, champagne and liqueurs — and this was a relatively sober affair.
By 1913, when Raymond Poincaré was head of state, the 12-course menu featured six wines from the hallowed Bordeaux châteaux as well as three champagnes.
“They were expected to eat all the dishes and drink all the wines,” said Pierre-André Hélène, the curator of the exhibition A La Table des Présidents. “By the end of the meal, everyone was completely out of action.”
How different things were when President Christofias of Cyprus ate at the Elysée Palace in September last year. He was given lobster and melon salad, sole millefeuille with a vegetable flan and praline and pineapple teardrops with citronella.
There was so little alcohol that Mr Hélène has not bothered to display the wine list.“In the old days, the banquets lasted four hours,” Mr Hélène said. “Today, it’s all over in 40 minutes.”
Mr Sarkozy — who often lunches on cream cheese and raspberries — has reduced the presidential banquet to a minimum.
Mr Hélène said that Mr Sarkozy was in tune with the aspirations of a country turning its back on traditional eating habits. He said: “I don’t drink wine and I eat my foie gras with Coca-Cola. There are a lot of young French people like me. Who drinks digestives after their meals now, for instance?”
Who would be a head of state these days? There was a time when the job involved a whirl of banquets and enough gastronomic dishes and fine wines to cheer the most world-weary characters.
Now you are expected to rush through a meagre three-course meal in less than an hour before returning to work. Even in France — the land of haute cuisine — you will be lucky to have meat, a glass of wine and the chance to chat to Carla Bruni before President Sarkozy, her husband, signals the end of dinner. Fancy a digestive cognac? Forget it.
The decline in state banquets is highlighted in an exhibition organised by Maxim’s, the celebrated Parisian restaurant, which is displaying 140 French presidential menus.
The first dates from September 12, 1888, when President Carnot visited Le Havre. He was served 14 courses, including foie gras, sole, deer cutlets, beef filet, turkey stuffed with truffles, lobster and ice cream. The feast was washed down with sherry, four wines, champagne and liqueurs — and this was a relatively sober affair.
By 1913, when Raymond Poincaré was head of state, the 12-course menu featured six wines from the hallowed Bordeaux châteaux as well as three champagnes.
“They were expected to eat all the dishes and drink all the wines,” said Pierre-André Hélène, the curator of the exhibition A La Table des Présidents. “By the end of the meal, everyone was completely out of action.”
How different things were when President Christofias of Cyprus ate at the Elysée Palace in September last year. He was given lobster and melon salad, sole millefeuille with a vegetable flan and praline and pineapple teardrops with citronella.
There was so little alcohol that Mr Hélène has not bothered to display the wine list.“In the old days, the banquets lasted four hours,” Mr Hélène said. “Today, it’s all over in 40 minutes.”
Mr Sarkozy — who often lunches on cream cheese and raspberries — has reduced the presidential banquet to a minimum.
Mr Hélène said that Mr Sarkozy was in tune with the aspirations of a country turning its back on traditional eating habits. He said: “I don’t drink wine and I eat my foie gras with Coca-Cola. There are a lot of young French people like me. Who drinks digestives after their meals now, for instance?”
Friday, 29 January 2010
Obama is right to bash the bankers? Yes or no?
I got this in my Inbox today. Do you have an opinion?
President Obama has announced a major reform of the US banking system which will set a limit on a bank’s size, force deposit-taking banks to divest themselves of any hedge funds or private equity funds they may own, and ban them from any subsequent speculative activities. He also wants to impose a levy on large financial firms: the riskier the activities of the bank, the larger the levy.
But is it based on sound economic thinking, or is it a piece of populist flim flam, at best a waste of paper, at worst positively dangerous for America and the world economy?
President Obama has announced a major reform of the US banking system which will set a limit on a bank’s size, force deposit-taking banks to divest themselves of any hedge funds or private equity funds they may own, and ban them from any subsequent speculative activities. He also wants to impose a levy on large financial firms: the riskier the activities of the bank, the larger the levy.
But is it based on sound economic thinking, or is it a piece of populist flim flam, at best a waste of paper, at worst positively dangerous for America and the world economy?
US Aid in Haiti
A reader sent this in and thought you might be interested:
This is from an excellent article by Kurt Nimmo giving a bit of the history of US aid in Haiti:
“Haitian rice growers were crushed by government-subsidized U.S. farm exports,” writes Paul Street. “The nation’s predominantly female and captive labor force was funneled into slave-like conditions in mainly U.S.-owned export-oriented assembly plants and sweatshops. Millions of Haitians were consigned to permanent structural unemployment, the drug trade, scavenging, and other hallmark activities of the informal proletariat of the world system’s sprawling shantytown periphery.”
“The hyper-concentration of poor Haitians in seismically hyper-vulnerable subs-standard housing in and around Port au-Prince, it is worth noting, is a direct outcome of U.S. trade policies that undermined Haitian small farmers, sending rural residents into and around the capital city,” Street explains.
You can read the whole article here: http://www.infowars.com/u-s-troops-occupy-the-symbol-of-haitian-sovereignty/
This is from an excellent article by Kurt Nimmo giving a bit of the history of US aid in Haiti:
“Haitian rice growers were crushed by government-subsidized U.S. farm exports,” writes Paul Street. “The nation’s predominantly female and captive labor force was funneled into slave-like conditions in mainly U.S.-owned export-oriented assembly plants and sweatshops. Millions of Haitians were consigned to permanent structural unemployment, the drug trade, scavenging, and other hallmark activities of the informal proletariat of the world system’s sprawling shantytown periphery.”
“The hyper-concentration of poor Haitians in seismically hyper-vulnerable subs-standard housing in and around Port au-Prince, it is worth noting, is a direct outcome of U.S. trade policies that undermined Haitian small farmers, sending rural residents into and around the capital city,” Street explains.
You can read the whole article here: http://www.infowars.com/u-s-troops-occupy-the-symbol-of-haitian-sovereignty/
Watching TV Kills You
Hope my husband reads this news. He only reads my blog when I nag him to...
Scientists have proved your mom right again: A recent study shows you should probably turn off the TV and go outside, as researchers found that people with a four-hour-a-day television habit were 46 percent more likely to die of any disease, and 80 percent more likely to die of cardiovascular disease.
But the study's authors say the solution is not to go for a run or play basketball. "It's not the sweaty type of exercise we're losing, said study leader David Dunstan. "It's the incidental moving around, walking around, standing up and utilizing muscles." Even good aerobic exercise can be useless in the face of hours of sitting: "The implication of these findings is that the extraordinary amount of sitting can undo the good effects that we know are a benefit when we get regular exercise." So for God's sake, stand up, and do a lap around your desk.
Scientists have proved your mom right again: A recent study shows you should probably turn off the TV and go outside, as researchers found that people with a four-hour-a-day television habit were 46 percent more likely to die of any disease, and 80 percent more likely to die of cardiovascular disease.
But the study's authors say the solution is not to go for a run or play basketball. "It's not the sweaty type of exercise we're losing, said study leader David Dunstan. "It's the incidental moving around, walking around, standing up and utilizing muscles." Even good aerobic exercise can be useless in the face of hours of sitting: "The implication of these findings is that the extraordinary amount of sitting can undo the good effects that we know are a benefit when we get regular exercise." So for God's sake, stand up, and do a lap around your desk.
Thursday, 28 January 2010
Evangelical Christians granted political asylum in US
This is an amazing story -- a couple of German evangelicals felt persecuted because they couldn't home-school their kids so they applied for and received asylum in the US. They are going to live in Tennessee. (That environment should be perfect for them.)
Here's the story:
A family of evangelical Christians who said they were being persecuted for their religious beliefs in Germany have been granted political asylum in the US. The couple fled to Tennessee so they could home-school their five children, which is illegal in Germany.
Most asylum seekers in the US tend to flee wars or dictatorships, but one German family moved to the American South in 2008 because they believed they were being persecuted for their religious beliefs. On Tuesday an immigration judge in Tennessee agreed, and granted them political asylum.
Uwe and Hannelore Romeike, who are evangelical Christians, say they were forced to go the the US because they wanted to educate their five children at home, something that is illegal in Germany.
Judge Lawrence Burman issued the ruling on Tuesday in Memphis, according to the Home School Legal Defense Association, which is representing the Romeikes.
The family left Germany after several run-ins with authorities. The parents had ignored repeated orders to send their children to school.
Here's the story:
A family of evangelical Christians who said they were being persecuted for their religious beliefs in Germany have been granted political asylum in the US. The couple fled to Tennessee so they could home-school their five children, which is illegal in Germany.
Most asylum seekers in the US tend to flee wars or dictatorships, but one German family moved to the American South in 2008 because they believed they were being persecuted for their religious beliefs. On Tuesday an immigration judge in Tennessee agreed, and granted them political asylum.
Uwe and Hannelore Romeike, who are evangelical Christians, say they were forced to go the the US because they wanted to educate their five children at home, something that is illegal in Germany.
Judge Lawrence Burman issued the ruling on Tuesday in Memphis, according to the Home School Legal Defense Association, which is representing the Romeikes.
The family left Germany after several run-ins with authorities. The parents had ignored repeated orders to send their children to school.
How can words be so ugly and so beautiful?
I went up to London after work last night to start rehearsing for a performance of Mahler's 2nd symphony in February. The music is so beautiful. You can listen below.
Before I got there, I had to take a bus in Reading to the station to get on a London-bound train. This short bus trip is always a trial. Shouting kids and obnoxious people are usually the order of the day.
Last night, a woman was sitting in the front having a shouting conversation with a man a few seats back. She was eating a bag of cookies -- she demolished the entire bag while I was there but didn't refrain from talking the whole time with her mouth full of food. Her friend told her he goes to his grandmother's house most days.
"How ya get that money then?" she enquired.
"Savin's."
"What savin's? You don't got no money."
"I use my dole money." (this is a term for British welfare)
"Where's your sister been lately?"
"She's in prison."
"What for?"
"Shopliftin'."
"Who else has been banged up?" (Brit-speak for thrown into jail)
Then they went on to talk about many of their friends who have recently gone to jail -- they spoke as if people going to jail was just a normal occurrence in their social set. Their eyes were vacant, their chat was shallow -- it was depressing. And the woman had a baby carriage in front of her so she's already reproduced.
But later that evening I was cheered up by singing these words by Mahler (well, we are learning to do them in German but here's the translation):
O believe, my heart, O believe:
Nothing to you is lost!
Yours is, yes yours, is what you desired
Yours, what you have loved
What you have fought for!
O believe,
You were not born for nothing!
Have not for nothing, lived, suffered!
I like these words much better than the words I heard on the bus ride. I'm glad I held on for them last night.
Before I got there, I had to take a bus in Reading to the station to get on a London-bound train. This short bus trip is always a trial. Shouting kids and obnoxious people are usually the order of the day.
Last night, a woman was sitting in the front having a shouting conversation with a man a few seats back. She was eating a bag of cookies -- she demolished the entire bag while I was there but didn't refrain from talking the whole time with her mouth full of food. Her friend told her he goes to his grandmother's house most days.
"How ya get that money then?" she enquired.
"Savin's."
"What savin's? You don't got no money."
"I use my dole money." (this is a term for British welfare)
"Where's your sister been lately?"
"She's in prison."
"What for?"
"Shopliftin'."
"Who else has been banged up?" (Brit-speak for thrown into jail)
Then they went on to talk about many of their friends who have recently gone to jail -- they spoke as if people going to jail was just a normal occurrence in their social set. Their eyes were vacant, their chat was shallow -- it was depressing. And the woman had a baby carriage in front of her so she's already reproduced.
But later that evening I was cheered up by singing these words by Mahler (well, we are learning to do them in German but here's the translation):
O believe, my heart, O believe:
Nothing to you is lost!
Yours is, yes yours, is what you desired
Yours, what you have loved
What you have fought for!
O believe,
You were not born for nothing!
Have not for nothing, lived, suffered!
I like these words much better than the words I heard on the bus ride. I'm glad I held on for them last night.
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
neo-Nazis Adopt a Highway in Colorado
Thanks to Derry for sending this in to add to our Free Speech debate of the other day.
BRIGHTON, Colo. - A local Nazi group says it's helping tackle Colorado's highway trash problem by adopting a section of road to keep clean.
Along Highway 85, the Chapter of the National Socialist Movement, which calls itself America's Nazi Party, is participating in a state Adopt-A-Highway program - complete with a road sign.
The white supremacist group will be responsible for picking up trash on a one-mile stretch of the road.
The Colorado Department of Transportation says it allowed the highway adoption because the group's lawyers say it could violate free speech if they denied the request.
"Our initial inclination was to deny their application, then we got legal guidance," Stacey Stegman, a department spokeswoman, said. "We looked at what has gone on in other states. We talked with the Anti-Defamation League and found out that we really had no ground to deny them.
"We were considering denying them based on the fact that there could be a potential for violence, not that there was," Stegman continued. "And so right now, we are giving them the benefit of the doubt."
Cpl. Neal Land, a spokesman for the movement, says his group stands for "white rights" and "purity of race" and should be allowed to clean the highway.
"Definitely, I want people to know we're in the state, we're active in this state, and most of all, we're doing good things in this state," Land said. "We're not a group that's out there selling drugs, running guns. We don't support any illegal activity of any sort."
BRIGHTON, Colo. - A local Nazi group says it's helping tackle Colorado's highway trash problem by adopting a section of road to keep clean.
Along Highway 85, the Chapter of the National Socialist Movement, which calls itself America's Nazi Party, is participating in a state Adopt-A-Highway program - complete with a road sign.
The white supremacist group will be responsible for picking up trash on a one-mile stretch of the road.
The Colorado Department of Transportation says it allowed the highway adoption because the group's lawyers say it could violate free speech if they denied the request.
"Our initial inclination was to deny their application, then we got legal guidance," Stacey Stegman, a department spokeswoman, said. "We looked at what has gone on in other states. We talked with the Anti-Defamation League and found out that we really had no ground to deny them.
"We were considering denying them based on the fact that there could be a potential for violence, not that there was," Stegman continued. "And so right now, we are giving them the benefit of the doubt."
Cpl. Neal Land, a spokesman for the movement, says his group stands for "white rights" and "purity of race" and should be allowed to clean the highway.
"Definitely, I want people to know we're in the state, we're active in this state, and most of all, we're doing good things in this state," Land said. "We're not a group that's out there selling drugs, running guns. We don't support any illegal activity of any sort."
More on God and natural disasters
from the New York Times:
In the 18th century, the genre of “earthquake sermon” was good business. Two small shocks in London, in 1750, sent the preachers to their pulpits and pamphlets. The bishop of London blamed Londoners’ lewd behavior; the bishop of Oxford argued that God had woven into his grand design certain incidents to alarm us and shake us out of our sin. In Bloomsbury, the Rev. Dr. William Stukeley preached that earthquakes are favored by God as the ultimate sign of his wrathful intervention.
Five years later, when Lisbon was all but demolished by an enormous earthquake, the unholy refrain was heard again — one preacher even argued that the people of Lisbon had been relatively fortunate, for God had spared more people than he had killed. It was the Lisbon earthquake that prompted Voltaire to attack Leibniz’s metaphysical optimism, in which all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Theodicy, which is the justification of God’s good government of the world in the face of evil and pain, was suddenly harder to practice. But the preachers kept at it. “There is no divine visitation which is likely to have so general an influence upon sinners as an earthquake,” wrote the founder of Methodism, John Wesley, in 1777.
Have we made much of an advance on this appalling discourse? Our own earthquake-sermonizer, the evangelist Pat Robertson, delivered an instantly notorious defense of the calamity in Haiti. This was classic theodicy. First, good comes out of such suffering. This event, said Mr. Robertson, is “a blessing in disguise,” because it might generate a huge rebuilding program. Second, the Haitians deserve the suffering. According to Mr. Robertson, when the Haitians were throwing off the tyranny of the French, they “swore a pact to the devil. They said ‘we will serve you if you will get us free from the French’ ... so the Devil said ‘O.K., it’s a deal.’ and they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got themselves free but ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other.” The Dominican Republic, he said, had done quite well, and had lots of tourist resorts, and that kind of thing. But not Haiti.
In the 18th century, the genre of “earthquake sermon” was good business. Two small shocks in London, in 1750, sent the preachers to their pulpits and pamphlets. The bishop of London blamed Londoners’ lewd behavior; the bishop of Oxford argued that God had woven into his grand design certain incidents to alarm us and shake us out of our sin. In Bloomsbury, the Rev. Dr. William Stukeley preached that earthquakes are favored by God as the ultimate sign of his wrathful intervention.
Five years later, when Lisbon was all but demolished by an enormous earthquake, the unholy refrain was heard again — one preacher even argued that the people of Lisbon had been relatively fortunate, for God had spared more people than he had killed. It was the Lisbon earthquake that prompted Voltaire to attack Leibniz’s metaphysical optimism, in which all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Theodicy, which is the justification of God’s good government of the world in the face of evil and pain, was suddenly harder to practice. But the preachers kept at it. “There is no divine visitation which is likely to have so general an influence upon sinners as an earthquake,” wrote the founder of Methodism, John Wesley, in 1777.
Have we made much of an advance on this appalling discourse? Our own earthquake-sermonizer, the evangelist Pat Robertson, delivered an instantly notorious defense of the calamity in Haiti. This was classic theodicy. First, good comes out of such suffering. This event, said Mr. Robertson, is “a blessing in disguise,” because it might generate a huge rebuilding program. Second, the Haitians deserve the suffering. According to Mr. Robertson, when the Haitians were throwing off the tyranny of the French, they “swore a pact to the devil. They said ‘we will serve you if you will get us free from the French’ ... so the Devil said ‘O.K., it’s a deal.’ and they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got themselves free but ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other.” The Dominican Republic, he said, had done quite well, and had lots of tourist resorts, and that kind of thing. But not Haiti.
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
Security is more important than usability
We have a Dilbert problem at the office today. Someone entered the wrong password to a community machine and was locked out but no one can reset the password except for the Help Desk in India. An emergency call was logged early this morning but they still haven't reset the password -- it's eight hours later. How inefficient is that? It's for security reasons which prompted someone to mention this Dilbert cartoon:
Adam Cartwright dead
I had a crush on Adam Cartwright (Pernell Roberts) on Bonanza when I was little. And now he's dead. I was shocked to see he was 81 years old. If someone I loved when he was young was that old, that must mean I am getting on a bit too.
We watched Bonanza on Sunday nights when I was a girl. I always wanted to warn any woman who appeared on an episode, though, that she would be dead by the end of it, as no female was ever allowed to break in to that all-male ranch permamently. Didn't you ever wonder how it came to be that all three of Ben's wives died young and in tragic circumstances?
Pernell Roberts didn't like his character. “Doesn’t it seem a bit silly for three adult males to get Father’s permission for everything they do?” he once asked a reporter.
Christmas on the Ponderosa
One time I was in Target in Tennessee, and I saw a CD called Christmas on the Ponderosa that I just had to have. I bought multiple copies and sent to my friend Brenda and my brother Kevin. This album, made in the mid-60s, is such a treasure of kitsch and fun.
Here's one of the songs. It's not Christmas in my house without playing this CD many times.
We watched Bonanza on Sunday nights when I was a girl. I always wanted to warn any woman who appeared on an episode, though, that she would be dead by the end of it, as no female was ever allowed to break in to that all-male ranch permamently. Didn't you ever wonder how it came to be that all three of Ben's wives died young and in tragic circumstances?
Pernell Roberts didn't like his character. “Doesn’t it seem a bit silly for three adult males to get Father’s permission for everything they do?” he once asked a reporter.
Christmas on the Ponderosa
One time I was in Target in Tennessee, and I saw a CD called Christmas on the Ponderosa that I just had to have. I bought multiple copies and sent to my friend Brenda and my brother Kevin. This album, made in the mid-60s, is such a treasure of kitsch and fun.
Here's one of the songs. It's not Christmas in my house without playing this CD many times.
The Diary of an Englishman in a snow-filled winter
We've had such a winter for snow in England. When we had our first snowstorm, it was magical. We never get much snow so to get over a foot was incredible. We all played in it and had a marvellous time. But then it started snowing more, and getting icy and we couldn't drive in it. We worried about having enough food in the house, fuel for the fireplace and missing work. The longer the winter stayed, the more irritable we became until now, we all agree that we are sick of snow and don't want to see another flake.
This diary someone sent me reflects this:
DEC 20th
It's starting to snow. The first of the season and the first we've seen for years. The wife and I took out our hot toddies and sat on the porch watching the fluffy soft flakes drift gently down clinging to the trees and covering the ground. It's so beautiful and peaceful.
DEC 24th
We awoke to a lovely blanket of crystal white glistening snow covering as far as the eye could see.. What a fantastic sight, every tree and bush covered with a beautiful white mantle. I shovelled snow for the first time ever and loved it. I did both our driveway and the pavement. Later that day a snowplough came along and accidentally covered up our driveway with compacted snow from the street. The driver smiled and waved. I waved back and shovelled it away again. The children next door built a snowman with coal for eyes and a carrot for a nose, and had a snowball fight, a couple just missed me and hit the car so I threw a couple back and joined in their fun.
DEC 26th
It snowed an additional 5 inches last night and the temperature dropped to around minus 8 degrees. Several branches on our trees and bushes snapped due to the weight of the snow. I shovelled the driveway again. Shortly afterwards the snowplough came by and did his trick again. Much of the snow is now a brownish - grey.
JAN 1st
Warmed up enough during the day to create some slush which soon became ice when the temperature dropped again. Bought snow tyres for both our cars. Fell on my arse in the driveway. Went to a physio but nothing was broken.
JAN 5th
Still cold. Sold the wife's car and bought her a 4x4 to get her to work. She slid into a wall and did considerable damage to the right wing. Had another 8 inches of white shite last night. Both vehicles are covered in salt and iced up slush That bastard snowplough came by twice today. Where's that bloody shovel.
JAN 9th
More fucking snow. Not a tree or bush on our property that hasn't been damaged. Power was off most of the night. Tried to keep from freezing to death with candles and a paraffin heater which tipped over and nearly torched the house. I managed to put the flames out but suffered 2nd degree burns on my hands. Lost all my eyebrows and eyelashes. Car hit a fucking deer on the way to casualty and car was written off.
JAN 13th
Fucking bastard white shite just keeps on coming down. Have to put on every article of clothing just to go to the post box. The little c*nts next door ambushed me with snowballs on the way back - I'll shove that carrot so far up the little bastard's arse it'll take a good surgeon hours to find it. If I ever catch the c*nt that drives the snowplough I'll chew open his chest and rip out his heart with my teeth. I think the bastard hides around the corner and waits for me to finish shovelling and then he accelerates down the street like Michael Schufuckingmacher and buries the fucking driveway again.
This diary someone sent me reflects this:
DEC 20th
It's starting to snow. The first of the season and the first we've seen for years. The wife and I took out our hot toddies and sat on the porch watching the fluffy soft flakes drift gently down clinging to the trees and covering the ground. It's so beautiful and peaceful.
DEC 24th
We awoke to a lovely blanket of crystal white glistening snow covering as far as the eye could see.. What a fantastic sight, every tree and bush covered with a beautiful white mantle. I shovelled snow for the first time ever and loved it. I did both our driveway and the pavement. Later that day a snowplough came along and accidentally covered up our driveway with compacted snow from the street. The driver smiled and waved. I waved back and shovelled it away again. The children next door built a snowman with coal for eyes and a carrot for a nose, and had a snowball fight, a couple just missed me and hit the car so I threw a couple back and joined in their fun.
DEC 26th
It snowed an additional 5 inches last night and the temperature dropped to around minus 8 degrees. Several branches on our trees and bushes snapped due to the weight of the snow. I shovelled the driveway again. Shortly afterwards the snowplough came by and did his trick again. Much of the snow is now a brownish - grey.
JAN 1st
Warmed up enough during the day to create some slush which soon became ice when the temperature dropped again. Bought snow tyres for both our cars. Fell on my arse in the driveway. Went to a physio but nothing was broken.
JAN 5th
Still cold. Sold the wife's car and bought her a 4x4 to get her to work. She slid into a wall and did considerable damage to the right wing. Had another 8 inches of white shite last night. Both vehicles are covered in salt and iced up slush That bastard snowplough came by twice today. Where's that bloody shovel.
JAN 9th
More fucking snow. Not a tree or bush on our property that hasn't been damaged. Power was off most of the night. Tried to keep from freezing to death with candles and a paraffin heater which tipped over and nearly torched the house. I managed to put the flames out but suffered 2nd degree burns on my hands. Lost all my eyebrows and eyelashes. Car hit a fucking deer on the way to casualty and car was written off.
JAN 13th
Fucking bastard white shite just keeps on coming down. Have to put on every article of clothing just to go to the post box. The little c*nts next door ambushed me with snowballs on the way back - I'll shove that carrot so far up the little bastard's arse it'll take a good surgeon hours to find it. If I ever catch the c*nt that drives the snowplough I'll chew open his chest and rip out his heart with my teeth. I think the bastard hides around the corner and waits for me to finish shovelling and then he accelerates down the street like Michael Schufuckingmacher and buries the fucking driveway again.
Monday, 25 January 2010
Only old people go to church in England
The average age of churchgoers is 61, according to the latest statistics from the Church of England.
The report, compiled by the research and statistics department of the Archbishops’ Council, also found half of those in the pews are pensioners.
Some rural congregations were older than 65 on average, while the youngest Anglicans were found in London, with the ‘standard’ churchgoer aged 54.
It compares with the population as a whole where the average adult age is 48.
This is the first year in which the Church has analysed the ages of its congregations in detail, so no long-term trends can be determined.
However, weekly church attendance continues to fall according to separate figures published on Friday. Around 1.14m people went to a church service at least once a week in 2008, the latest figures show, but average Sunday attendance was down to 960,000 from 978,000 the previous year.
There were also slightly fewer infant baptisms, confirmations, marriages and funerals.
PS
My son just came home from taking an exam in Religious Studies. It seems like a waste of time to make kids all over the country study religion as hard as they study languages, chemistry, biology and English. Every student has to take a huge exam on religion when they are 16.
The report, compiled by the research and statistics department of the Archbishops’ Council, also found half of those in the pews are pensioners.
Some rural congregations were older than 65 on average, while the youngest Anglicans were found in London, with the ‘standard’ churchgoer aged 54.
It compares with the population as a whole where the average adult age is 48.
This is the first year in which the Church has analysed the ages of its congregations in detail, so no long-term trends can be determined.
However, weekly church attendance continues to fall according to separate figures published on Friday. Around 1.14m people went to a church service at least once a week in 2008, the latest figures show, but average Sunday attendance was down to 960,000 from 978,000 the previous year.
There were also slightly fewer infant baptisms, confirmations, marriages and funerals.
PS
My son just came home from taking an exam in Religious Studies. It seems like a waste of time to make kids all over the country study religion as hard as they study languages, chemistry, biology and English. Every student has to take a huge exam on religion when they are 16.
New Airport check-in attire
This eliminates getting to the airport 4 hours early, but you still have to take off your shoes.
Church blessing for your iPod and laptop
Is it just me or does this seem strange?
A London clergyman has brought a medieval ceremony of the Church of England into the 21st century by blessing his flock's smartphones, laptops, and iPods.
The Revd Canon David Parrott of The City's 17th-century St Lawrence Jewry church told The Times that he wanted to update the ancient tradition of Plough Monday, when farmers would bring their plows to church to be blessed on the first Monday after after Twelfth Night.
"When I arrived a few months ago I looked at this service and thought, 'Why do we have a Plough Monday?'," Canon Parrott reasonably asked, noting that it was the rare St Lawrence Jewry parishoner, indeed, who made his or her living behind a plough.
Today's laborers, Canon Parrott reasoned, were more likely to toil over laptops and to share their workaday woes with fellow cyber-cottiers by means of BlackBerries, iPhones, and the occasional Android phone.
And so Canon Parrott arrayed the altar of St Lawrence Jewry with, according to The Times, four smart phones and two laptops. In the inclusive tradition of the Anglican canon, one laptop ran Mac OS X and the other Windows.
Asking his congregation to hold their smartphones above their heads, Canon Parrott intoned to the Ultimate Sysadmin: "By your blessing, may these phones and computers, symbols of all the technology and communication in our daily lives, be a reminder to us that you are a God who communicates with us and who speaks by your Word."
And in a tone of reverent supplication, he supplicated: "May our tongues be gentle, our e-mails be simple, and our websites be accessible."
Amen to that.
from The Register
A London clergyman has brought a medieval ceremony of the Church of England into the 21st century by blessing his flock's smartphones, laptops, and iPods.
The Revd Canon David Parrott of The City's 17th-century St Lawrence Jewry church told The Times that he wanted to update the ancient tradition of Plough Monday, when farmers would bring their plows to church to be blessed on the first Monday after after Twelfth Night.
"When I arrived a few months ago I looked at this service and thought, 'Why do we have a Plough Monday?'," Canon Parrott reasonably asked, noting that it was the rare St Lawrence Jewry parishoner, indeed, who made his or her living behind a plough.
Today's laborers, Canon Parrott reasoned, were more likely to toil over laptops and to share their workaday woes with fellow cyber-cottiers by means of BlackBerries, iPhones, and the occasional Android phone.
And so Canon Parrott arrayed the altar of St Lawrence Jewry with, according to The Times, four smart phones and two laptops. In the inclusive tradition of the Anglican canon, one laptop ran Mac OS X and the other Windows.
Asking his congregation to hold their smartphones above their heads, Canon Parrott intoned to the Ultimate Sysadmin: "By your blessing, may these phones and computers, symbols of all the technology and communication in our daily lives, be a reminder to us that you are a God who communicates with us and who speaks by your Word."
And in a tone of reverent supplication, he supplicated: "May our tongues be gentle, our e-mails be simple, and our websites be accessible."
Amen to that.
from The Register
Sunday, 24 January 2010
Evensong question
I went to the church around the corner to sing at their Evensong service. The congregation was asked to pray for Haiti -- terrible things are happening there, people are suffering beyond imagination -- but God cares for each and every one of those people personally.
Now how can it be that he cares so much about each person in Haiti but he's allowed about 200,000 of them to suffer horrible deaths?
I know this is a typical question of a non-believer -- I've asked before and heard that God didn't create the disaster and he feels terrible about it, or something to that effect.
What do you think?
Got to go now as the New Orleans Saints are about to play a big game that decides whether they'll go to the Superbowl or not. The Saints are having a great year -- I remember when they were a national joke -- the worst football team in the US. When my husband and I went to one of their games in 1985, fans made paper airplanes and flew them around the stadium to combat the tedium of seeing their team lose by a wide margin.
Now how can it be that he cares so much about each person in Haiti but he's allowed about 200,000 of them to suffer horrible deaths?
I know this is a typical question of a non-believer -- I've asked before and heard that God didn't create the disaster and he feels terrible about it, or something to that effect.
What do you think?
Got to go now as the New Orleans Saints are about to play a big game that decides whether they'll go to the Superbowl or not. The Saints are having a great year -- I remember when they were a national joke -- the worst football team in the US. When my husband and I went to one of their games in 1985, fans made paper airplanes and flew them around the stadium to combat the tedium of seeing their team lose by a wide margin.
McDonald's can't speak English
This is funny -- US advertising people made an ad for the McDonald's Pound Saver menu that gets English slang wrong. Imagine - they put this ad into production, and no one even thought to call up an English person to see if it's correct usage.
Here's the story:
The advert, which promotes the Pound Saver Menu, begins "the pound, also known as a bob", a statement which, strictly speaking, is not true.
Technically, a bob is a term for a shilling, or five pence, and of far less value than a pound.
The American fast food giant's blunder has stirred up some incensed online debate about English currency slang, blaming executives in the US for not properly researching the UK market before broadcasting the advert.
One consumer posted: "I suspect the nearest it got to the UK before transmission was when it was dreamed up in an English themed pub in Hollywood."
Plain English Campaign spokeswoman Marie Clair sympathised with irate members of the public.
"It just doesn't work for me, a bob certainly isn't anything like a pound," she told Sky News Online.
"This terminology is all very confusing, it would be great if we could have someone who could just give us clarity for lunch."
Some customers asked McDonald's to either correct or withdraw the advert, or allow them to purchase items on the Saver Menu for a true bob, or five pence.
McDonald's has responded to complaints with an appeal to the ever-changing English language.
Their spokesperson has posted: "Although a 'bob' was formerly used as a slang term for the shilling until the introduction of decimalisation in 1971, research has shown it is now more commonly used as slang for a pound or money in general.
"As with many words in the English language, the technical meaning of words can change over time and although the word remains in use, what it signifies may develop into something else."
Here's the story:
The advert, which promotes the Pound Saver Menu, begins "the pound, also known as a bob", a statement which, strictly speaking, is not true.
Technically, a bob is a term for a shilling, or five pence, and of far less value than a pound.
The American fast food giant's blunder has stirred up some incensed online debate about English currency slang, blaming executives in the US for not properly researching the UK market before broadcasting the advert.
One consumer posted: "I suspect the nearest it got to the UK before transmission was when it was dreamed up in an English themed pub in Hollywood."
Plain English Campaign spokeswoman Marie Clair sympathised with irate members of the public.
"It just doesn't work for me, a bob certainly isn't anything like a pound," she told Sky News Online.
"This terminology is all very confusing, it would be great if we could have someone who could just give us clarity for lunch."
Some customers asked McDonald's to either correct or withdraw the advert, or allow them to purchase items on the Saver Menu for a true bob, or five pence.
McDonald's has responded to complaints with an appeal to the ever-changing English language.
Their spokesperson has posted: "Although a 'bob' was formerly used as a slang term for the shilling until the introduction of decimalisation in 1971, research has shown it is now more commonly used as slang for a pound or money in general.
"As with many words in the English language, the technical meaning of words can change over time and although the word remains in use, what it signifies may develop into something else."
Planning a party in Cambridge
We had a great day in Cambridge yesterday. My husband was a student there, and I met him there 25 years ago when I came over for a junior-year abroad.
It's a glorious place, and everyone seems so educated and articulate there. I knew I wasn't in Reading anymore when I saw a young man talking to a clerk in a record store about the merits of different Stravinsky recordings. Then when we went to a cafe for coffee, the people sitting next to us were talking about how to save rainforests.
We went to meet with some people about our 25th anniversary party in December. I found a wonderful venue. Here's a photo of the inside:
Best of all, my son fell in love with Cambridge too and has decided to study harder than ever at school so he can get in there himself. (It's harder for a camel to get through the eye of needle than be accepted at Cambridge, so we'll see...)
It's a glorious place, and everyone seems so educated and articulate there. I knew I wasn't in Reading anymore when I saw a young man talking to a clerk in a record store about the merits of different Stravinsky recordings. Then when we went to a cafe for coffee, the people sitting next to us were talking about how to save rainforests.
We went to meet with some people about our 25th anniversary party in December. I found a wonderful venue. Here's a photo of the inside:
Best of all, my son fell in love with Cambridge too and has decided to study harder than ever at school so he can get in there himself. (It's harder for a camel to get through the eye of needle than be accepted at Cambridge, so we'll see...)
Saturday, 23 January 2010
Being an Atheist in Mississippi
I enjoyed reading this post on the Mississippi Atheists website. I see myself in his writing -- I'd always rather not rock the boat than be honest. The other week a Mississippi friend in Facebook asked me not to tell his mother that I didn't believe in God as 'she loves me so much.' So I guess she would no longer love me if she knew I didn't feel the same way she does about religion. That conversation made me feel strange afterwards.
Anyway, here's what V Jack says:
"I want to start by acknowledging that living in Mississippi is no picnic for an atheist. This is about as oppressively religious environment as one is likely to find in the U.S., and we face situations on a regular basis that are virtually unheard of in more secular regions of the country. It is commonplace for complete strangers to approach us and ask where we go to church and whether we would like to visit their church. Church/state violations abound, and our complaints are often met with, "We're in the South; what do you expect?" Most of us have lost friends simply for describing ourselves as non-religious, and many of us have been threatened with hell.
In such an environment, it is only natural that we would learn to keep our views on religion concealed. We dread the point in the conversation when the topic comes up. There is tremendous social pressure to lie, even if only by omission. We don't want to use the a-word because we fear many negative outcomes.
What makes all of this even worse is that most of us know, at least on some level, that this is no way to live. We deserve better than a life ruled by fear, and we know damn well that it is our silence that perpetuates these circumstances. By refusing to express ourselves honestly, we give power to those who oppress us. We know this rationally, but it provides little comfort to the individual contemplating such a disclosure."
Anyway, here's what V Jack says:
"I want to start by acknowledging that living in Mississippi is no picnic for an atheist. This is about as oppressively religious environment as one is likely to find in the U.S., and we face situations on a regular basis that are virtually unheard of in more secular regions of the country. It is commonplace for complete strangers to approach us and ask where we go to church and whether we would like to visit their church. Church/state violations abound, and our complaints are often met with, "We're in the South; what do you expect?" Most of us have lost friends simply for describing ourselves as non-religious, and many of us have been threatened with hell.
In such an environment, it is only natural that we would learn to keep our views on religion concealed. We dread the point in the conversation when the topic comes up. There is tremendous social pressure to lie, even if only by omission. We don't want to use the a-word because we fear many negative outcomes.
What makes all of this even worse is that most of us know, at least on some level, that this is no way to live. We deserve better than a life ruled by fear, and we know damn well that it is our silence that perpetuates these circumstances. By refusing to express ourselves honestly, we give power to those who oppress us. We know this rationally, but it provides little comfort to the individual contemplating such a disclosure."
Miss this guy yet?
Another rightwing message in my Inbox today. This one is called "Miss This Guy Yet?"
Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it. -Ronald Reagan
Here's my strategy on the Cold War:
We win, they lose. - Ronald Reagan
Eliz again: Yay! Just we need now -- completely simplistic thinking by a national leader.
Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it. -Ronald Reagan
Here's my strategy on the Cold War:
We win, they lose. - Ronald Reagan
Eliz again: Yay! Just we need now -- completely simplistic thinking by a national leader.
Friday, 22 January 2010
A Victorian anniversary party
My 25th wedding anniversary is in December, and I'm already planning a party. It's going to be Victorian themed, and guests have to come dressed like Victorians.
I found this dress on Ebay yesterday and ordered a hoop skirt from China to go under it.
I just wanted to show you as I think it's so pretty. Thanks for indulging me.
I found this dress on Ebay yesterday and ordered a hoop skirt from China to go under it.
I just wanted to show you as I think it's so pretty. Thanks for indulging me.
Beating the winter blues
A reader sent in these tips in response to my earlier post about Blue Monday. My opinion is in italics.
Author and Beliefnet’s Popular “Beyond Blue” Blogger, Therese Borchard, Explains Why and Gives Tips for Beating the Winter “Blahs”
Watch the sugar
I think our body gets the cue just before Thanksgiving that it will be hibernating for a few months, so it needs to ingest everything edible in sight. And I’m convinced the snow somehow communicates to the human brain the need to consume every kind of chocolate available in the house.
Depressives and addicts need to be especially careful with sweets because the addiction to sugar and white-flour products is very real and physiological, affecting the same biochemical systems in your body as other drugs like heroin. According to Kathleen DesMaisons, author of “Potatoes Not Prozac”: Your relationship to sweet things is operating on a cellular level. It is more powerful than you have realized….What you eat can have a huge effect on how you feel.”
This seems reasonable. But I'd rather take Prozac than eat potatoes all the time.
Use a light lamp
Bright-light therapy–involving sitting in front of a fluorescent light box that delivers an intensity of 10,000 lux–can be as effect as antidepressant medication for mild and moderate depression and can yield substantial relief for Seasonal Affective Disorder. I usually turn on my mammoth HappyLite in November, just after my least favorite day of the year: when Daylight Saving Time ends and we “fall back” an hour, which means that I have about an hour of sunlight to enjoy after I pick up the kids from school.
I've tried light therapy. Didn't work. But my doctor told me that recent research says to do it first thing in the morning and it's more effective that way. My SAD light is in the attic if anyone wants it.
Wear bright colors
I have no research supporting this theory, but I’m quite convinced there is a link between feeling optimistic and sporting bright colors. It’s in line with “faking it ’til you make it,” desperate attempts to trick your brain into thinking that it’s sunny and beautiful outside–time to celebrate Spring!–even though it’s a blizzard with sleet causing some major traffic jams.
Personally, I tend to wear black everyday in the winter. It’s supposed to make you look thinner. But the result is that I appear as if and feel like I’m going to a funeral every afternoon between the months of November and March. This isn’t good. Not for a person hardwired to stress and worry and get depressed when it’s cold. So I make a conscious effort to wear bright green, purple, blue, and pink, and sometimes–if I’m in a rush–all of them together!
Everyone in England wears black all the time. My husband says it's because people didn't have access to washers and dryers and black doesn't show stains as much. Wearing bright colors is very American and looks out of place in Europe.
Force yourself outside
I realize that the last thing you want to do when it’s 20 degrees outside and the roads are slushy is to head outside for a leisurely stroll around the neighborhood. It’s much more fun to cuddle up with a good novel or make chocolate chip cookies and enjoy them with a hot cup of joe.
On many winter days–especially in late January and early February when my brain is done with the darkness–I have to literally force myself outside, however brief. Because even on cloudy and overcast days, your mood can benefit from exposure to sunlight. Midday light, especially, provides Vitamin D to help boost your limbic system, the emotional center of the brain. And there is something so healing about connecting with nature, even if it’s covered in snow.
I totally agree with this. I have to go outside or else I feel like a caged animal.
Hang out with friends
This seems like an obvious depression buster. Of course you get together with your buddies when your mood starts to go south. But that’s exactly when many of us tend to isolate. I believe that it takes a village to keep a person sane and happy. That’s why we need so many support groups today. People need to be validated and encouraged and inspired by persons on the same journey. And with all the technology today, folks don’t even have to throw on their slippers to get to a support group. Online communities provide a village of friendship right at your computer.
I agree with this too. My blog gives me a sense of community, even if commenters here regularly get angry with me or call me names. Marty called me an idiot the other month but it didn't even bother me.
Author and Beliefnet’s Popular “Beyond Blue” Blogger, Therese Borchard, Explains Why and Gives Tips for Beating the Winter “Blahs”
Watch the sugar
I think our body gets the cue just before Thanksgiving that it will be hibernating for a few months, so it needs to ingest everything edible in sight. And I’m convinced the snow somehow communicates to the human brain the need to consume every kind of chocolate available in the house.
Depressives and addicts need to be especially careful with sweets because the addiction to sugar and white-flour products is very real and physiological, affecting the same biochemical systems in your body as other drugs like heroin. According to Kathleen DesMaisons, author of “Potatoes Not Prozac”: Your relationship to sweet things is operating on a cellular level. It is more powerful than you have realized….What you eat can have a huge effect on how you feel.”
This seems reasonable. But I'd rather take Prozac than eat potatoes all the time.
Use a light lamp
Bright-light therapy–involving sitting in front of a fluorescent light box that delivers an intensity of 10,000 lux–can be as effect as antidepressant medication for mild and moderate depression and can yield substantial relief for Seasonal Affective Disorder. I usually turn on my mammoth HappyLite in November, just after my least favorite day of the year: when Daylight Saving Time ends and we “fall back” an hour, which means that I have about an hour of sunlight to enjoy after I pick up the kids from school.
I've tried light therapy. Didn't work. But my doctor told me that recent research says to do it first thing in the morning and it's more effective that way. My SAD light is in the attic if anyone wants it.
Wear bright colors
I have no research supporting this theory, but I’m quite convinced there is a link between feeling optimistic and sporting bright colors. It’s in line with “faking it ’til you make it,” desperate attempts to trick your brain into thinking that it’s sunny and beautiful outside–time to celebrate Spring!–even though it’s a blizzard with sleet causing some major traffic jams.
Personally, I tend to wear black everyday in the winter. It’s supposed to make you look thinner. But the result is that I appear as if and feel like I’m going to a funeral every afternoon between the months of November and March. This isn’t good. Not for a person hardwired to stress and worry and get depressed when it’s cold. So I make a conscious effort to wear bright green, purple, blue, and pink, and sometimes–if I’m in a rush–all of them together!
Everyone in England wears black all the time. My husband says it's because people didn't have access to washers and dryers and black doesn't show stains as much. Wearing bright colors is very American and looks out of place in Europe.
Force yourself outside
I realize that the last thing you want to do when it’s 20 degrees outside and the roads are slushy is to head outside for a leisurely stroll around the neighborhood. It’s much more fun to cuddle up with a good novel or make chocolate chip cookies and enjoy them with a hot cup of joe.
On many winter days–especially in late January and early February when my brain is done with the darkness–I have to literally force myself outside, however brief. Because even on cloudy and overcast days, your mood can benefit from exposure to sunlight. Midday light, especially, provides Vitamin D to help boost your limbic system, the emotional center of the brain. And there is something so healing about connecting with nature, even if it’s covered in snow.
I totally agree with this. I have to go outside or else I feel like a caged animal.
Hang out with friends
This seems like an obvious depression buster. Of course you get together with your buddies when your mood starts to go south. But that’s exactly when many of us tend to isolate. I believe that it takes a village to keep a person sane and happy. That’s why we need so many support groups today. People need to be validated and encouraged and inspired by persons on the same journey. And with all the technology today, folks don’t even have to throw on their slippers to get to a support group. Online communities provide a village of friendship right at your computer.
I agree with this too. My blog gives me a sense of community, even if commenters here regularly get angry with me or call me names. Marty called me an idiot the other month but it didn't even bother me.
Having a big butt can be good
Loved reading this article. Yay -- I'm all set now:
Having a well-covered behind, big hips and solid thighs "is good for you", experts said on Tuesday in a new finding likely to delight women the world over.
Carrying fat on the hips, thighs and bum, rather than around the waist, has a range of health benefits and actively protects against diabetes and heart disease, researchers at Oxford University said.
"Fat around the hips and thighs is good for you but around the tummy is bad," said Dr Konstantinos Manolopoulos, one of three scientists behind the research which has been published in the International Journal of Obesity.
A big bottom is much better than carrying fat around the waist, which tends to release more harmful fatty acids into the body, the research shows.
Belly fat also releases molecules called cytokines which trigger inflammation - raising the risk of diabetes and heart disease.
Having a well-covered behind, big hips and solid thighs "is good for you", experts said on Tuesday in a new finding likely to delight women the world over.
Carrying fat on the hips, thighs and bum, rather than around the waist, has a range of health benefits and actively protects against diabetes and heart disease, researchers at Oxford University said.
"Fat around the hips and thighs is good for you but around the tummy is bad," said Dr Konstantinos Manolopoulos, one of three scientists behind the research which has been published in the International Journal of Obesity.
A big bottom is much better than carrying fat around the waist, which tends to release more harmful fatty acids into the body, the research shows.
Belly fat also releases molecules called cytokines which trigger inflammation - raising the risk of diabetes and heart disease.
Thursday, 21 January 2010
My favorite paper gets it right
Ha! The National Enquirer was right. John Edwards admitted today that he did father a baby out of wedlock, all while running for president as a reformer and devoted husband to Elizabeth, a cancer sufferer.
Some are calling for the Enquirer to get a Pulitzer for reporting, even though Edwards called the story 'tabloid trash.' I've always loved the Enquirer even though a lot of the stuff it prints isn't true (any celebrity who has a hard time, for example, will invariably end up on the front page of the Enquirer to say they are on a Suicide Watch).
Hello mag and OK! aren't as fun to read because the celebrities approve all the crap they print. The Enquirer, however, will get a photo of you leaving a plastic-surgery clinic right after you've told some magazine that you would NEVER have a thing done to your face! That's the sort of reporting I enjoy.
Here's what Gawker has to say:
on the morning that John Edwards completely vindicates their reporting, and makes the outlets too squeamish to follow it up look silly, we'd like to re-state the case.
The New York Times won the breaking news category last year for revealing Eliot Spitzer's infidelity. While that was doubtless fantastic reporting, the Enquirer had a much tougher task, and a much bigger fish to land. Their investigation was prompted by just a brief phone tip. Through nothing more than shoe leather and persistence their team exposed a major Presidential candidate as a cheat and a liar.
Emily Miller, at Politics Daily, explained why they beat every outlet to the story — they first reported it in October of 2007. And why the second part of their investigation, into inappropriate use of campaign funds, prompted a grand jury investigation (as robust a vindication of reporting standards as can be imagined):
The TV networks and many print outlets have dismantled or cut back their investigative teams, while the Enquirer continues to incur the expense of putting reporters on months-long stakeouts and paying them to literally knock on doors in search of sources.
Their reporting standards have been praised before too. If the Washington Post, or the New Orleans Times-Picayune or any paper really, had broken a story of this magnitude their Pulitzer nod would barely be in doubt. Edwards called the Enquirer, while trying to disparage its claims he was cheating and had fathered a child "tabloid trash." That stigma is the only reason its investigative reporters will not be considered.
Some are calling for the Enquirer to get a Pulitzer for reporting, even though Edwards called the story 'tabloid trash.' I've always loved the Enquirer even though a lot of the stuff it prints isn't true (any celebrity who has a hard time, for example, will invariably end up on the front page of the Enquirer to say they are on a Suicide Watch).
Hello mag and OK! aren't as fun to read because the celebrities approve all the crap they print. The Enquirer, however, will get a photo of you leaving a plastic-surgery clinic right after you've told some magazine that you would NEVER have a thing done to your face! That's the sort of reporting I enjoy.
Here's what Gawker has to say:
on the morning that John Edwards completely vindicates their reporting, and makes the outlets too squeamish to follow it up look silly, we'd like to re-state the case.
The New York Times won the breaking news category last year for revealing Eliot Spitzer's infidelity. While that was doubtless fantastic reporting, the Enquirer had a much tougher task, and a much bigger fish to land. Their investigation was prompted by just a brief phone tip. Through nothing more than shoe leather and persistence their team exposed a major Presidential candidate as a cheat and a liar.
Emily Miller, at Politics Daily, explained why they beat every outlet to the story — they first reported it in October of 2007. And why the second part of their investigation, into inappropriate use of campaign funds, prompted a grand jury investigation (as robust a vindication of reporting standards as can be imagined):
The TV networks and many print outlets have dismantled or cut back their investigative teams, while the Enquirer continues to incur the expense of putting reporters on months-long stakeouts and paying them to literally knock on doors in search of sources.
Their reporting standards have been praised before too. If the Washington Post, or the New Orleans Times-Picayune or any paper really, had broken a story of this magnitude their Pulitzer nod would barely be in doubt. Edwards called the Enquirer, while trying to disparage its claims he was cheating and had fathered a child "tabloid trash." That stigma is the only reason its investigative reporters will not be considered.
The concept of Enough
Saw this quote on a calendar:
What if there were an award for people who come to understand the concept of enough? Good enough. Successful enough. Thin enough. Rich enough. Socially responsible enough. When you have self-respect, you have enough.
Gail Sheehy
What if there were an award for people who come to understand the concept of enough? Good enough. Successful enough. Thin enough. Rich enough. Socially responsible enough. When you have self-respect, you have enough.
Gail Sheehy
Please God, change Trig's chromosones!
An amazing attempt to fix Sarah Palin's baby's Down's Syndrome:
Pray for Trig
Read on:
Please sign up below for the Prayer Team!
This will help us to know how many people plan to join together on Sunday, April 18, 2010 in prayer, asking our Lord to heal Trig Palin of Down Syndrome.
Through this miracle, His Majesty will be displayed to all nations!
This woman is ACTUALLY requesting that people pray to God to take away Trig Palin's extra chromosome, so that HE can be healed. Why Trig Palin you ask? Well she explains that, kind of.
Q: Why Trig Palin?
A: Trig Palin is well known in the media; people all over the world know just who he is, and they already care about him. It will be much easier for them to sincerely pray for someone they care for, instead of what to them is a random name.
Also, it is known publicly that Trig Palin indeed has Down Syndrome. Science has no way to undo this condition, which is the result of an extra chromosome; but God can. When Trig Palin is found to be miraculously healed, everyone but the most hardened atheist will have to acknowledge God’s Majesty!
Pray for Trig
Read on:
Please sign up below for the Prayer Team!
This will help us to know how many people plan to join together on Sunday, April 18, 2010 in prayer, asking our Lord to heal Trig Palin of Down Syndrome.
Through this miracle, His Majesty will be displayed to all nations!
This woman is ACTUALLY requesting that people pray to God to take away Trig Palin's extra chromosome, so that HE can be healed. Why Trig Palin you ask? Well she explains that, kind of.
Q: Why Trig Palin?
A: Trig Palin is well known in the media; people all over the world know just who he is, and they already care about him. It will be much easier for them to sincerely pray for someone they care for, instead of what to them is a random name.
Also, it is known publicly that Trig Palin indeed has Down Syndrome. Science has no way to undo this condition, which is the result of an extra chromosome; but God can. When Trig Palin is found to be miraculously healed, everyone but the most hardened atheist will have to acknowledge God’s Majesty!
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
Free speech versus hate speech (cont.)
In the midst of our continuing debate over how freely people should be able to speak in this blog, a domestic crisis intervened. Our foster cat Dizzy developed diarrhea so that meant much cleaning and washing of sheets, chairs and carpet. I'm still not finished with it, and Dizz has been confined to the kitchen until she feels better.
I received another response to yesterday's post -- here are the highlights:
Right, Wrong and Justified
I don't know why some people just seem to get their jollies on hate speech, I really don't - and add to the insult and injury caused to those who are targeted by these people, they seem to lack the courage of their convictions - or at the very least, courage - to post their hatred to Face book groups or newspaper websites under their real names. No, "Witwolf" or "Boerseun" sounds far more impressive. And a lot less likely to carry consequences.
Aside from that, it also tends to taint good, decent people with that horrible shade of bigotry reminiscent of the bad old days. Indeed, when I see posts like that, I have to wonder how far have we come in the last 15 years - and how far we still have to go before we live up to claims of "true" democracy.
Oddly enough - or maybe not, many people who are blatantly racist are also the same folks who indulge in homophobia and transphobia. Often their conversation or topic of their derogatory "jokes" will swing from one to the other. Next time you're in a group of people who are telling jokes to each other - or hacking away at the humanity of others, just listen.
It's funny what people will say if they don't know what you are who you are. I mean, they so often assume that I am Christian, because "everybody is" - or "should be" - and so it is perfectly okay to rant about non-Christians and rip their dignity and humanity to shreds in public because "everybody feels the same" about it. Whoa. Big surprise there, buddy.
I received another response to yesterday's post -- here are the highlights:
Right, Wrong and Justified
I don't know why some people just seem to get their jollies on hate speech, I really don't - and add to the insult and injury caused to those who are targeted by these people, they seem to lack the courage of their convictions - or at the very least, courage - to post their hatred to Face book groups or newspaper websites under their real names. No, "Witwolf" or "Boerseun" sounds far more impressive. And a lot less likely to carry consequences.
Aside from that, it also tends to taint good, decent people with that horrible shade of bigotry reminiscent of the bad old days. Indeed, when I see posts like that, I have to wonder how far have we come in the last 15 years - and how far we still have to go before we live up to claims of "true" democracy.
Oddly enough - or maybe not, many people who are blatantly racist are also the same folks who indulge in homophobia and transphobia. Often their conversation or topic of their derogatory "jokes" will swing from one to the other. Next time you're in a group of people who are telling jokes to each other - or hacking away at the humanity of others, just listen.
It's funny what people will say if they don't know what you are who you are. I mean, they so often assume that I am Christian, because "everybody is" - or "should be" - and so it is perfectly okay to rant about non-Christians and rip their dignity and humanity to shreds in public because "everybody feels the same" about it. Whoa. Big surprise there, buddy.
Cadbury: the death of a British brand
People in England are very upset that Cadbury's, a traditional British maker of chocolate, is going to be taken over by an American company, Kraft. (They aren't upset about a Republican getting elected to the senate from Massachusetts -- that's just for Americans like me to be upset about.)
Story below:
A GROUNDSWELL of public anger at the American takeover of Cadbury which could cost thousands of British jobs last night prompted calls for the iconic chocolate-maker to be saved.
Cadbury’s board is urging the firm’s shareholders to accept Kraft Food’s best and final offer for the brand but furious protesters yesterday placed a sign outside the flagship Bournville factory saying: “Save our jobs. United we stand. No surrender.”
Another sign outside Cadbury’s offices in Birmingham read: “Hey Kraft. Go to Hell”.
Felicity Loudon, great-great-granddaughter of the firm’s Quaker founder John Cadbury, described Kraft’s takeover as a “horror story”.
She said: “I am just not going to give up and I just so hope that other people will join me and just fight this. It is awful.
“My grandfather and great grandfather and great, great grandfather would all be turning in their graves. The idea that Cadbury could be anything but British would be just a horror story to them.”
Comments on this post from Facebook:
Lynn Earl Mundy
I didn't notice any English companies trying to buy it!
Steph Meslin-Weber
Cadbury's chocolate might be an english institution, but give my Green&Blacks any day...
Paul M Hounslow Cadbury's own Green&Blacks...
Also, other than Green&Blacks, they produce horrible chocolate.
Martin Searle
Priorities, Elizabeth, priorities. Also, the issues are more similar than might be immediately apparent. Cadbury's were one of the great institutions of benevolent Quaker capitalism, believing in model communities, decent housing for workers, day (well, half day) release education, a veritable icon of a lost world where it was possible for capitalism to be something other than untrammelled.
Selena Whitehead
Nooooo, Paul - I still enjoy a Cadbury's Wispa or a Dairy Milk and now that Christmas is over, it is of course, Creme Egg season. Perhaps I have poor taste but that's what I grew up with (plus living with the vending machines at work).
Theresa Spencer Apps
Lynn, that's exactly what I said to my husband as we were reading the paper this morning in bed!
Jenny Convery
I'm an American, and I'm pretty bummed about both. And Cadbury's isn't the best chocolate I've ever had, but it'll certainly do and it's better than most American chocolate. What's the worst chocolate you've ever had?
Elizabeth Scanlon Thomas
After living in the UK for so long and getting hooked on dark chocolate, I now find Hershey's disappointing.
Story below:
A GROUNDSWELL of public anger at the American takeover of Cadbury which could cost thousands of British jobs last night prompted calls for the iconic chocolate-maker to be saved.
Cadbury’s board is urging the firm’s shareholders to accept Kraft Food’s best and final offer for the brand but furious protesters yesterday placed a sign outside the flagship Bournville factory saying: “Save our jobs. United we stand. No surrender.”
Another sign outside Cadbury’s offices in Birmingham read: “Hey Kraft. Go to Hell”.
Felicity Loudon, great-great-granddaughter of the firm’s Quaker founder John Cadbury, described Kraft’s takeover as a “horror story”.
She said: “I am just not going to give up and I just so hope that other people will join me and just fight this. It is awful.
“My grandfather and great grandfather and great, great grandfather would all be turning in their graves. The idea that Cadbury could be anything but British would be just a horror story to them.”
Comments on this post from Facebook:
Lynn Earl Mundy
I didn't notice any English companies trying to buy it!
Steph Meslin-Weber
Cadbury's chocolate might be an english institution, but give my Green&Blacks any day...
Paul M Hounslow Cadbury's own Green&Blacks...
Also, other than Green&Blacks, they produce horrible chocolate.
Martin Searle
Priorities, Elizabeth, priorities. Also, the issues are more similar than might be immediately apparent. Cadbury's were one of the great institutions of benevolent Quaker capitalism, believing in model communities, decent housing for workers, day (well, half day) release education, a veritable icon of a lost world where it was possible for capitalism to be something other than untrammelled.
Selena Whitehead
Nooooo, Paul - I still enjoy a Cadbury's Wispa or a Dairy Milk and now that Christmas is over, it is of course, Creme Egg season. Perhaps I have poor taste but that's what I grew up with (plus living with the vending machines at work).
Theresa Spencer Apps
Lynn, that's exactly what I said to my husband as we were reading the paper this morning in bed!
Jenny Convery
I'm an American, and I'm pretty bummed about both. And Cadbury's isn't the best chocolate I've ever had, but it'll certainly do and it's better than most American chocolate. What's the worst chocolate you've ever had?
Elizabeth Scanlon Thomas
After living in the UK for so long and getting hooked on dark chocolate, I now find Hershey's disappointing.
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
Why does god allow natural disasters?
An interesting article on the BBC website today trying to figure out why God allows natural disasters to happen:
Evil has always been a thorn in the side of those - of whatever faith - who believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God.
As the philosopher David Hume (echoing Epicurus) put it in 1776: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"
St Augustine, author CS Lewis and others have argued God allows our bad actions since preventing them would undermine our freewill, the value of which outweighs its ill effects.
But there's a counter-argument. Thoroughly good people aren't robots, so why couldn't God have created only people like them, people who quite freely live good lives?
Doesn't our world contain a surplus of suffering? People do truly awful things to each other. Isn't the suffering they create enough for soul-making? Did God really need to throw in earthquakes and tsunamis as well?
Suffering's distribution, not just its amount, can also cause problems. A central point of philosopher Immanuel Kant's was that we mustn't exploit people - we mustn't use them as mere means to our ends. But it can seem that on the soul-making view God does precisely this. He inflicts horrible deaths on innocent earthquake victims so that the rest of us can be morally benefitted.
That hardly seems fair.
Evil has always been a thorn in the side of those - of whatever faith - who believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God.
As the philosopher David Hume (echoing Epicurus) put it in 1776: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"
St Augustine, author CS Lewis and others have argued God allows our bad actions since preventing them would undermine our freewill, the value of which outweighs its ill effects.
But there's a counter-argument. Thoroughly good people aren't robots, so why couldn't God have created only people like them, people who quite freely live good lives?
Doesn't our world contain a surplus of suffering? People do truly awful things to each other. Isn't the suffering they create enough for soul-making? Did God really need to throw in earthquakes and tsunamis as well?
Suffering's distribution, not just its amount, can also cause problems. A central point of philosopher Immanuel Kant's was that we mustn't exploit people - we mustn't use them as mere means to our ends. But it can seem that on the soul-making view God does precisely this. He inflicts horrible deaths on innocent earthquake victims so that the rest of us can be morally benefitted.
That hardly seems fair.
Free speech versus hate speech
We had a war in the blog over the weekend! So stressful. One of our commenters enraged a few of the other commenters -- I was sort of caught in the middle because I don't moderate the blog. So I received emails asking I change this policy because I didn't understand the seriousness of what was happening.
Here's an example of what I received:
Elizabeth, encouraging hate speech is simply wrong, and as I adhere to the standards and ethics of my profession, it is not in my best interests to continue to participate in a forum where such speech is allowed to continue unchecked.
Your refusal to moderate simply states your acceptance of his propaganda and I cannot morally abide by that. You are fortunate that you've never experienced hate up close and personal as I can tell you from my own life, I have, and it is rather painful and scary.
On the other hand, I also received this perspective:
My friend and I have discussions about this, and he is a firm believer in letting people say what they want so everyone knows who the hateful people/bigots are - he says it is less dangerous than making everyone be quiet and then not knowing the people who secretly hate you because you're gay or whatever. He was firmly in support of no one silencing Marty's comments about fertilising turds. :-)
What do you all think?
I tried to please everyone but ended up with a headache for 24 hours, and a lot to think about. I feel sort of manipulated when people write in demanding that I do this or that too. Oh well, at least I'm learning from the experience.
Finally, here's another opinion from a woman who wrote a book about this very subject:
Free speech is a fundamental human right, an intrinsic good, and a cornerstone of liberal democracies. As a human right it ‘trumps’ mere individual or collective interests; the fact that speech might harm someone or some group’s interests is not of itself sufficient to justify restrictions on it. And since it is an intrinsic good its worth is not fully accounted for in terms of other goods that might be dependent on it, for example, knowledge or quality of life. Further, freedom of speech, and (relatedly) freedom of the press, are necessary conditions for a functioning democracy.
On the other hand, complete freedom of speech to say anything one wants to anyone and under all circumstances is not a morally sustainable option; the right to freedom of speech is not an absolute moral right, and nor is its intrinsic value an absolute value. For example, and as John Stuart Mill famously pointed out, a person does not have a moral right to shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded hall, if that would lead to panic and thereby to serious injury or even loss of life.
Speaking Back: The Free Speech versus Hate Speech Debate by Katharine Gelber
Here's an example of what I received:
Elizabeth, encouraging hate speech is simply wrong, and as I adhere to the standards and ethics of my profession, it is not in my best interests to continue to participate in a forum where such speech is allowed to continue unchecked.
Your refusal to moderate simply states your acceptance of his propaganda and I cannot morally abide by that. You are fortunate that you've never experienced hate up close and personal as I can tell you from my own life, I have, and it is rather painful and scary.
On the other hand, I also received this perspective:
My friend and I have discussions about this, and he is a firm believer in letting people say what they want so everyone knows who the hateful people/bigots are - he says it is less dangerous than making everyone be quiet and then not knowing the people who secretly hate you because you're gay or whatever. He was firmly in support of no one silencing Marty's comments about fertilising turds. :-)
What do you all think?
I tried to please everyone but ended up with a headache for 24 hours, and a lot to think about. I feel sort of manipulated when people write in demanding that I do this or that too. Oh well, at least I'm learning from the experience.
Finally, here's another opinion from a woman who wrote a book about this very subject:
Free speech is a fundamental human right, an intrinsic good, and a cornerstone of liberal democracies. As a human right it ‘trumps’ mere individual or collective interests; the fact that speech might harm someone or some group’s interests is not of itself sufficient to justify restrictions on it. And since it is an intrinsic good its worth is not fully accounted for in terms of other goods that might be dependent on it, for example, knowledge or quality of life. Further, freedom of speech, and (relatedly) freedom of the press, are necessary conditions for a functioning democracy.
On the other hand, complete freedom of speech to say anything one wants to anyone and under all circumstances is not a morally sustainable option; the right to freedom of speech is not an absolute moral right, and nor is its intrinsic value an absolute value. For example, and as John Stuart Mill famously pointed out, a person does not have a moral right to shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded hall, if that would lead to panic and thereby to serious injury or even loss of life.
Speaking Back: The Free Speech versus Hate Speech Debate by Katharine Gelber
Man pulls bus with his hair
I don't know how I missed this important article but thanks to Derry from Arizona for sending it in.
A British man has broken the world record for pulling a double-decker bus with his hair.
Manjit Singh broke the Guinness World Record on Thursday by pulling the bus weighing 8.5 British tons for 21.2 meters (69.55 feet) across Battersea Park in London with ribbons attached to his hair.
The 59-year-old Singh previously had failed to break the record to pull a double decker bus with his ears.
A British man has broken the world record for pulling a double-decker bus with his hair.
Manjit Singh broke the Guinness World Record on Thursday by pulling the bus weighing 8.5 British tons for 21.2 meters (69.55 feet) across Battersea Park in London with ribbons attached to his hair.
The 59-year-old Singh previously had failed to break the record to pull a double decker bus with his ears.
Monday, 18 January 2010
Non-Believers Giving Aid
I gave money to the Haiti relief efforts through a new non-believer's fund. I could pay through PayPal, which is so easy, and none of my money goes to organizations that promote religion.
The Non-Believers Giving Aid site offers this explanation of the need for a charitable fund specifically for the non-believing community:
"Preachers and televangelists, mullahs and imams, often seem almost to gloat over natural disasters – presenting them as payback for human transgressions, or for ‘making a pact with the devil’. Earthquakes and tsunamis are caused not by ‘sin’ but by tectonic plate movements, and tectonic plates, like everything else in the physical world, are supremely indifferent to human affairs and sadly indifferent to human suffering. Those of us who understand this reality are sometimes accused of being indifferent to that suffering ourselves.
Of course the very opposite is the truth: we do not hide behind the notion that earthly suffering will be rewarded in a heavenly paradise, nor do we expect a heavenly reward for our generosity: the understanding that this is the only life any of us have makes the need to alleviate suffering even more urgent.
The myth that it is only the religious who truly care is sustained largely by the fact that they tend to donate not as individuals, but through their churches. Non-believers, by contrast, give as individuals: we have no church through which to give collectively, no church to rack up statistics of competitive generosity. Non-Believers Giving Aid is not a church (that’s putting it mildly) but it does provide an easy conduit for the non-religious to help those in desperate need, whilst simultaneously giving the lie to the canard that you need God to be good."
The Non-Believers Giving Aid site offers this explanation of the need for a charitable fund specifically for the non-believing community:
"Preachers and televangelists, mullahs and imams, often seem almost to gloat over natural disasters – presenting them as payback for human transgressions, or for ‘making a pact with the devil’. Earthquakes and tsunamis are caused not by ‘sin’ but by tectonic plate movements, and tectonic plates, like everything else in the physical world, are supremely indifferent to human affairs and sadly indifferent to human suffering. Those of us who understand this reality are sometimes accused of being indifferent to that suffering ourselves.
Of course the very opposite is the truth: we do not hide behind the notion that earthly suffering will be rewarded in a heavenly paradise, nor do we expect a heavenly reward for our generosity: the understanding that this is the only life any of us have makes the need to alleviate suffering even more urgent.
The myth that it is only the religious who truly care is sustained largely by the fact that they tend to donate not as individuals, but through their churches. Non-believers, by contrast, give as individuals: we have no church through which to give collectively, no church to rack up statistics of competitive generosity. Non-Believers Giving Aid is not a church (that’s putting it mildly) but it does provide an easy conduit for the non-religious to help those in desperate need, whilst simultaneously giving the lie to the canard that you need God to be good."
The most depressing day of the year
Are you feeling happy this morning? If not, don't worry, you're supposed to feel depressed:
Today is officially Blue Monday - the most miserable day of the year.
A combination of Arctic temperatures, Christmas debt and the next pay day feeling like it's months away leaves many of us depressed and unable to face work.
And to make matters worse, you probably can't afford to take time off sick thanks to the recession or because you've already had days off as a result of the snow.
The gloomy research was carried out by FirstCare, a company that helps firms tackle absenteeism.
Chief executive Aaron Ross said: 'Blue Monday has been described as the most depressive day of the year with absence rates expected to be higher.
'With absenteeism costing significant amounts of money, we advise employers to show their support to employees in January.
Sunday, 17 January 2010
Brody's view of war tolerance
By Brody Levesque (Washington DC) Jan 15 | As most of you who faithfully follow Elizabeth's blog here know, I often will whip out a comment that more or less ends up being an essay which in a previous instance led to a full blown column on its own. I fear that once again, I now take up my pen & paper [electronic versions actually ] and travel into that arena that even most prudent angels in heaven have learned to avoid...'the blogosphere.' Of course conversely, my friend Tim Trent is always gently nagging me into taking up more of a stance of "remark & opinionate" versus "observe & report." I'm learning folks, but 'switching over is so hard'.... hmm, Now that does sound like a great headline for an article on Gay reparative therapy eh Tim?
A prominent Labour Party politician and the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in the Brtish Defence Ministry, observed in a speech to the Institute of Public Policy Research in London that;
“We, sadly, face a series of threats, the nature of which will require the projection of power beyond our borders to protect our national security,” he said. “My great fear is that we as a nation will become so risk-averse, cynical and introverted that we will find ourselves in inglorious and impotent isolation by default.”
He also indicated that there is a growing public intolerance for military operations and that the media-led cynicism regarding British involvement in Afghanistan is creating major difficulties for the Brown government in regards to foreign policy and relations.
Now, to be honest, I am not a columnist, just a simple wire service correspondent. Yet, having traveled into the war zones both in Iraq as well as Afghanistan, interviewing British troops, Canadian troops, and obviously U. S. armed forces reporting on these conflicts, I felt compelled to respond to Minister Bill Rammell's speech.
Here are the issues as I observe them. The basis for armed conflict in the past 20 years has almost exclusively been based on the so-called War on Terror. The emergence of which is based on historical missteps by the major powers in the latter part of the 20th century. Blame can easily be assigned to parties around the globe and especially on flawed strategic defence policies that were championed by both the United States and its allies but the former Soviet Union and the countries bound to it by the Warsaw Pact.
A notable example of which includes the conduct of the Afghan war after the Soviet Invasion there nearly 30 years ago by not only the Soviets but the Americans as well. The direct legacy of which today are the Islamic fighters and the Taliban who now impede the American led effort there. Thus, in an historic irony, the Americans birthed their own headache.
The other side of this coin, outside of flawed foreign policies that merely echo the not so distant past, is the advent of technology, particularly the internet, that has greatly made this an instantaneous and simultaneous endeavor. There is now very much a direct connection by the world to any conflict. This also means that both sides have at their fingertips the ability to spread propaganda and ideology as well as conduct practical military operations via the world wide web. An excellent example of its impact and influence e being the most recent incident on Christmas Day when the young Islamic extremist attempted to bring down that airliner over Detroit. Now, in an aside, I have to say quite smugly, that in my humble opinion, I am glad he ended up scorching his testicles & penis as the human race certainly can benefit from his not further diluting the gene pool. In any event, the Internet has opened up an entirely new chapter in how to blow each other to bits.
How does one combat terrorism that has such global reach? It's very much akin to eradicating vermin & pests as one needs to travel to the source of the infestation. Here is why I agree in part with the minister. BUT, I am also of the strong opinion that there's got to be significant reason, based on solid information before any nation commits it most precious resource to armed conflict, its youth. The problem with the Minster's justification is that he has a weak case, very. In the scenario with Iraq, it was originally based on the premise that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and was intent on using them against Israel and possibly the Saudis. Now, granted there was precedence that supported those fears given Saddam's murderous activities against the Kurdish people and others in Iraq after the first Gulf War.
The truth eventually came out that the actions of the Bush government and the U. S. led coalition with the complicity of the Blair government were based on flawed intelligence and what could be construed as out right fabrications, in what appeared at least to some observers including myself, as a contrived and epic case of revenge by the U. S. as well as a final 'clean-up' resolution of the first Gulf War.
What is disconcerting to me in the case of Minister Rammell, is that if you review his parliamentary record, you will find that he; a.) Voted for the Iraq war, & b.) Voted against investigating the Iraq war. His actions are especially questionable in light of the fact that at no time was there ever a threat leveled against the British Isles or people by the government of Saddam Hussein.
Now, the second part of this is the war in Afghanistan and the war on terror. Rammell rails against the threats...yet I find that most of the British public seem to offer up this uniquely English way of living with the possibility of terrorist acts:
The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again - to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross."
The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies all but ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to a "Bloody Nuisance." The last time the English issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588 when threatened by the Spanish Armada.
The Scots raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards" They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.
The British public is rightly questioning the on-going need for troop deployments and especially on such a large scale.
Terrorism needs to be fought and also deserves eradication. But I am also of the opinion that deployment of troops should be supplemented by effective measures to discourage and contain the threats not just wholesale military operations. If you talk to the troops and the commanders in the field, you'll find that the majority agree with that philosophy. I have also found that the public shares this attitude as well. Risk adverse Minister? Well, I should say so as you are not terribly convincing eh?
I think that the Minister & his kind need to rethink exactly what would be the most effective and adequate solution to the war in Afghanistan before the body count gets out of control. Now, does this qualify me as a cynic? You betcha!
A prominent Labour Party politician and the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in the Brtish Defence Ministry, observed in a speech to the Institute of Public Policy Research in London that;
“We, sadly, face a series of threats, the nature of which will require the projection of power beyond our borders to protect our national security,” he said. “My great fear is that we as a nation will become so risk-averse, cynical and introverted that we will find ourselves in inglorious and impotent isolation by default.”
He also indicated that there is a growing public intolerance for military operations and that the media-led cynicism regarding British involvement in Afghanistan is creating major difficulties for the Brown government in regards to foreign policy and relations.
Now, to be honest, I am not a columnist, just a simple wire service correspondent. Yet, having traveled into the war zones both in Iraq as well as Afghanistan, interviewing British troops, Canadian troops, and obviously U. S. armed forces reporting on these conflicts, I felt compelled to respond to Minister Bill Rammell's speech.
Here are the issues as I observe them. The basis for armed conflict in the past 20 years has almost exclusively been based on the so-called War on Terror. The emergence of which is based on historical missteps by the major powers in the latter part of the 20th century. Blame can easily be assigned to parties around the globe and especially on flawed strategic defence policies that were championed by both the United States and its allies but the former Soviet Union and the countries bound to it by the Warsaw Pact.
A notable example of which includes the conduct of the Afghan war after the Soviet Invasion there nearly 30 years ago by not only the Soviets but the Americans as well. The direct legacy of which today are the Islamic fighters and the Taliban who now impede the American led effort there. Thus, in an historic irony, the Americans birthed their own headache.
The other side of this coin, outside of flawed foreign policies that merely echo the not so distant past, is the advent of technology, particularly the internet, that has greatly made this an instantaneous and simultaneous endeavor. There is now very much a direct connection by the world to any conflict. This also means that both sides have at their fingertips the ability to spread propaganda and ideology as well as conduct practical military operations via the world wide web. An excellent example of its impact and influence e being the most recent incident on Christmas Day when the young Islamic extremist attempted to bring down that airliner over Detroit. Now, in an aside, I have to say quite smugly, that in my humble opinion, I am glad he ended up scorching his testicles & penis as the human race certainly can benefit from his not further diluting the gene pool. In any event, the Internet has opened up an entirely new chapter in how to blow each other to bits.
How does one combat terrorism that has such global reach? It's very much akin to eradicating vermin & pests as one needs to travel to the source of the infestation. Here is why I agree in part with the minister. BUT, I am also of the strong opinion that there's got to be significant reason, based on solid information before any nation commits it most precious resource to armed conflict, its youth. The problem with the Minster's justification is that he has a weak case, very. In the scenario with Iraq, it was originally based on the premise that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and was intent on using them against Israel and possibly the Saudis. Now, granted there was precedence that supported those fears given Saddam's murderous activities against the Kurdish people and others in Iraq after the first Gulf War.
The truth eventually came out that the actions of the Bush government and the U. S. led coalition with the complicity of the Blair government were based on flawed intelligence and what could be construed as out right fabrications, in what appeared at least to some observers including myself, as a contrived and epic case of revenge by the U. S. as well as a final 'clean-up' resolution of the first Gulf War.
What is disconcerting to me in the case of Minister Rammell, is that if you review his parliamentary record, you will find that he; a.) Voted for the Iraq war, & b.) Voted against investigating the Iraq war. His actions are especially questionable in light of the fact that at no time was there ever a threat leveled against the British Isles or people by the government of Saddam Hussein.
Now, the second part of this is the war in Afghanistan and the war on terror. Rammell rails against the threats...yet I find that most of the British public seem to offer up this uniquely English way of living with the possibility of terrorist acts:
The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again - to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross."
The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies all but ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to a "Bloody Nuisance." The last time the English issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588 when threatened by the Spanish Armada.
The Scots raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards" They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.
The British public is rightly questioning the on-going need for troop deployments and especially on such a large scale.
Terrorism needs to be fought and also deserves eradication. But I am also of the opinion that deployment of troops should be supplemented by effective measures to discourage and contain the threats not just wholesale military operations. If you talk to the troops and the commanders in the field, you'll find that the majority agree with that philosophy. I have also found that the public shares this attitude as well. Risk adverse Minister? Well, I should say so as you are not terribly convincing eh?
I think that the Minister & his kind need to rethink exactly what would be the most effective and adequate solution to the war in Afghanistan before the body count gets out of control. Now, does this qualify me as a cynic? You betcha!
Turning on moderation and Evensong
I was going to tell you all how I walked my son to the church around the corner from our house -- he is going to start using their organ there to practice -- and I ended up singing in the choir for Evensong and have been drafted in for future services.
I just love to sing and am always looking for any excuse to break into song. I suppose it's hypocritical for me to sit in a church when I don't believe in God, but for me, the music is the thing.
Firestorm
From Heaven to Hell -- checking my Inbox I read several messages from angry readers of this blog who object to comments made by Marty today. I hope to learn from everyone who passes through this blog so I will take on board what they say, and turn on moderation for a bit and see how it goes.
I will also delete the entire post, comments and all. I hope that makes people feel more comfortable in here.
I just love to sing and am always looking for any excuse to break into song. I suppose it's hypocritical for me to sit in a church when I don't believe in God, but for me, the music is the thing.
Firestorm
From Heaven to Hell -- checking my Inbox I read several messages from angry readers of this blog who object to comments made by Marty today. I hope to learn from everyone who passes through this blog so I will take on board what they say, and turn on moderation for a bit and see how it goes.
I will also delete the entire post, comments and all. I hope that makes people feel more comfortable in here.
Little boys put on the watch list
I found this article in the New Yorks Times very interesting because the same thing happened to my son Mikey. His name is a common one and must match some suspected terrorist's because we were routinely stopped and searched and had to have private interviews for a few years before we could board planes in America. We almost missed a plane one time because of an interrogation.
I used to say to the TSA staff, "My son is 12 years old. How can he be a terrorist?" but you know they don't like that sort of back talk so it didn't make any difference.
I did a post earlier this week about how I hate the TSA. Here's a photo of them performing their vital security checks at an airport:
Do you see that the guy at the desk is playing solitaire on the computer? That inspires such confidence.
Here's the story:
“Meet Mikey Hicks,” said Najlah Feanny Hicks, introducing her 8-year-old son, a New Jersey Cub Scout and frequent traveler who has seldom boarded a plane without a hassle because he shares the name of a suspicious person. “It’s not a myth.”
Michael Winston Hicks’s mother initially sensed trouble when he was a baby and she could not get a seat for him on their flight to Florida at an airport kiosk; airline officials explained that his name “was on the list,” she recalled.
The first time he was patted down, at Newark Liberty International Airport, Mikey was 2. He cried.
After years of long delays and waits for supervisors at every airport ticket counter, this year’s vacation to the Bahamas badly shook up the family. Mikey was frisked on the way there, then more aggressively on the way home.
“Up your arms, down your arms, up your crotch — someone is patting your 8-year-old down like he’s a criminal,” Mrs. Hicks recounted. “A terrorist can blow his underwear up and they don’t catch him. But my 8-year-old can’t walk through security without being frisked.”
It is true that Mikey is not on the federal government’s “no-fly” list, which includes about 2,500 people, less than 10 percent of them from the United States. But his name appears to be among some 13,500 on the larger “selectee” list, which sets off a high level of security screening.
At some point, someone named Michael Hicks made the Department of Homeland Security suspicious, and little Mikey is still paying the price. (His father, also named Michael Hicks, was stopped for the first time on the Bahamas trip.)
Both lists are maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center, which includes the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They are given to the Transportation Security Administration, which in turn sends them to the airlines.
A spokesman for the T.S.A., James Fotenos, said that as a rule, “there are no children on the no-fly or selectee lists,” but would not comment on Mikey’s situation specifically.
For every person on the lists, hundreds of others may get caught up simply because they share the same name; a quick scan through a national phone directory unearthed 1,600 Michael Hickses. Over the past three years, 81,793 frustrated travelers have formally asked that they be struck from the watch list through the Department of Homeland Security; more than 25,000 of their cases are still pending. Others have taken more drastic measures.
I used to say to the TSA staff, "My son is 12 years old. How can he be a terrorist?" but you know they don't like that sort of back talk so it didn't make any difference.
I did a post earlier this week about how I hate the TSA. Here's a photo of them performing their vital security checks at an airport:
Do you see that the guy at the desk is playing solitaire on the computer? That inspires such confidence.
Here's the story:
“Meet Mikey Hicks,” said Najlah Feanny Hicks, introducing her 8-year-old son, a New Jersey Cub Scout and frequent traveler who has seldom boarded a plane without a hassle because he shares the name of a suspicious person. “It’s not a myth.”
Michael Winston Hicks’s mother initially sensed trouble when he was a baby and she could not get a seat for him on their flight to Florida at an airport kiosk; airline officials explained that his name “was on the list,” she recalled.
The first time he was patted down, at Newark Liberty International Airport, Mikey was 2. He cried.
After years of long delays and waits for supervisors at every airport ticket counter, this year’s vacation to the Bahamas badly shook up the family. Mikey was frisked on the way there, then more aggressively on the way home.
“Up your arms, down your arms, up your crotch — someone is patting your 8-year-old down like he’s a criminal,” Mrs. Hicks recounted. “A terrorist can blow his underwear up and they don’t catch him. But my 8-year-old can’t walk through security without being frisked.”
It is true that Mikey is not on the federal government’s “no-fly” list, which includes about 2,500 people, less than 10 percent of them from the United States. But his name appears to be among some 13,500 on the larger “selectee” list, which sets off a high level of security screening.
At some point, someone named Michael Hicks made the Department of Homeland Security suspicious, and little Mikey is still paying the price. (His father, also named Michael Hicks, was stopped for the first time on the Bahamas trip.)
Both lists are maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center, which includes the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They are given to the Transportation Security Administration, which in turn sends them to the airlines.
A spokesman for the T.S.A., James Fotenos, said that as a rule, “there are no children on the no-fly or selectee lists,” but would not comment on Mikey’s situation specifically.
For every person on the lists, hundreds of others may get caught up simply because they share the same name; a quick scan through a national phone directory unearthed 1,600 Michael Hickses. Over the past three years, 81,793 frustrated travelers have formally asked that they be struck from the watch list through the Department of Homeland Security; more than 25,000 of their cases are still pending. Others have taken more drastic measures.
Life lessons from a deceased snowman
We've had so much snow in England recently. We aren't really supposed to have any normally. My son and I had fun building snowmen near our house, but it's so sad when they leave because of warmer temperatures.
It made me think -- you never know when something might happen to you so we must enjoy our lives -- the good, the bad, the arguing on the blog -- it's all part of a well-lived existence.
Pictorial proof of the fragility of existence below.
Mr. Snowman in the prime of his life:
Then just a week later, cruelly cut down by a thaw:
It made me sad to see my snowman's little tree-branch arms lying on the garden table, no longer needed -- and his little red ribbon with no owner (sort of like Tiny Tim's crutch).
It made me think -- you never know when something might happen to you so we must enjoy our lives -- the good, the bad, the arguing on the blog -- it's all part of a well-lived existence.
Pictorial proof of the fragility of existence below.
Mr. Snowman in the prime of his life:
Then just a week later, cruelly cut down by a thaw:
It made me sad to see my snowman's little tree-branch arms lying on the garden table, no longer needed -- and his little red ribbon with no owner (sort of like Tiny Tim's crutch).
Saturday, 16 January 2010
More signs the Brits are a failing people
My friend Casey Ann sent me this post from a blogger in Jackson, Mississippi, and asked me if this was accurate. The title of his post is More signs the Brits are a failing people. Here's what the blogger says, and I'll let my British husband respond at the bottom.
The sad part is this is even a debate:
"The TV presenter and Marks & Spencer model Myleene Klass has been warned by police for waving a knife at teenagers who were peering into a window of her house late at night.
Klass was in the kitchen with her daughter upstairs when she spotted the youths in her garden just after midnight on Friday. She grabbed a knife and banged the windows before they ran away.
Hertfordshire police warned her she should not have used a knife to scare off the youths because carrying an "offensive weapon", even in her own home, was illegal..."
It gets even worse. Read this one:
"A businessman who fought off knife-wielding burglars who were threatening to kill his family was jailed for 30 months in a case that has reignited the debate on how far householders can go to protect themselves and their property.
Munir Hussain, 53, discovered three masked men in his house when his family returned from their local mosque during Ramadan in September last year.
The burglars tied up and threatened to kill Hussain and his family but a teenage son managed to escape and alert Hussain's brother, Tokeer.
The intruders fled when help arrived at the house in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, but the brothers chased and caught one, Walid Salem, a criminal with more than 50 previous convictions. He was then subjected to what Judge John Reddihough described as a "dreadful, violent attack" by the Hussain brothers..."
No wonder the Muslims are taking over England. Thug ties up a man and his family and threatens to kill them, he knows what to do while the damn WASP's want to throw him under the jail...
The question is does a people who can't even figure out their own lives are worth defending are worthy of survival.
Mel's Response
Casey Ann's correspondent has omitted some important details.
He makes it sound like Myleene Klass was given a warning by police, but as far as they're concerned the incident never took place:
"Hertfordshire Police have denied making any such warning and stated that the law allows householders the proportionate use of defence to protect themselves. It has subsequently been reported that it was Klass's agent or publicist who notified the police of the incident and who then passed on the story to the Sun Newspaper's reporter, Emma Cox." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2010/jan/15/myleene-klass-marina-hyde quoted in Wikipedia).
I'm more inclined to believe the Hertfordshire Police than an agent for a celebrity whose popularity has been slipping recently.
In the second incident, he neglects to say what the Hussein brothers (also Muslims) did to Walid Salem after they caught him - not while he was in their house, but after he'd run away and they'd caught him out on the street: "Salem was left with a permanent brain injury after he was struck with a cricket bat so hard that it broke into three pieces."(http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/14/jail-brothers-burglar-cricket-bat) Now, even if you think the burglar deserved what he got (and I do), this was still a revenge attack, not self-defence. If this is acceptable, what isn't? Would it be ok if, having caught the burglar, they'd tortured him for 48 hours in a secret location then buried him alive?
Finally, he says: "No wonder the Muslims are taking over England. Thug ties up a man and his family and threatens to kill them, he knows what to do while the damn WASP's want to throw him under the jail..." Difficult to decipher this, but both the burglar and the Hussein brothers are Muslims. No WASPs involved.
Has this writer ever been more than 100 miles from where he was born, I wonder? Most of those who think they know what's wrong with the world haven't. If he wants to know what it's really like in England, he should come and find out. He'd learn that we don't feel our way of life is under attack - not outside the lunatic fringes, anyway.
The sad part is this is even a debate:
"The TV presenter and Marks & Spencer model Myleene Klass has been warned by police for waving a knife at teenagers who were peering into a window of her house late at night.
Klass was in the kitchen with her daughter upstairs when she spotted the youths in her garden just after midnight on Friday. She grabbed a knife and banged the windows before they ran away.
Hertfordshire police warned her she should not have used a knife to scare off the youths because carrying an "offensive weapon", even in her own home, was illegal..."
It gets even worse. Read this one:
"A businessman who fought off knife-wielding burglars who were threatening to kill his family was jailed for 30 months in a case that has reignited the debate on how far householders can go to protect themselves and their property.
Munir Hussain, 53, discovered three masked men in his house when his family returned from their local mosque during Ramadan in September last year.
The burglars tied up and threatened to kill Hussain and his family but a teenage son managed to escape and alert Hussain's brother, Tokeer.
The intruders fled when help arrived at the house in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, but the brothers chased and caught one, Walid Salem, a criminal with more than 50 previous convictions. He was then subjected to what Judge John Reddihough described as a "dreadful, violent attack" by the Hussain brothers..."
No wonder the Muslims are taking over England. Thug ties up a man and his family and threatens to kill them, he knows what to do while the damn WASP's want to throw him under the jail...
The question is does a people who can't even figure out their own lives are worth defending are worthy of survival.
Mel's Response
Casey Ann's correspondent has omitted some important details.
He makes it sound like Myleene Klass was given a warning by police, but as far as they're concerned the incident never took place:
"Hertfordshire Police have denied making any such warning and stated that the law allows householders the proportionate use of defence to protect themselves. It has subsequently been reported that it was Klass's agent or publicist who notified the police of the incident and who then passed on the story to the Sun Newspaper's reporter, Emma Cox." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2010/jan/15/myleene-klass-marina-hyde quoted in Wikipedia).
I'm more inclined to believe the Hertfordshire Police than an agent for a celebrity whose popularity has been slipping recently.
In the second incident, he neglects to say what the Hussein brothers (also Muslims) did to Walid Salem after they caught him - not while he was in their house, but after he'd run away and they'd caught him out on the street: "Salem was left with a permanent brain injury after he was struck with a cricket bat so hard that it broke into three pieces."(http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/14/jail-brothers-burglar-cricket-bat) Now, even if you think the burglar deserved what he got (and I do), this was still a revenge attack, not self-defence. If this is acceptable, what isn't? Would it be ok if, having caught the burglar, they'd tortured him for 48 hours in a secret location then buried him alive?
Finally, he says: "No wonder the Muslims are taking over England. Thug ties up a man and his family and threatens to kill them, he knows what to do while the damn WASP's want to throw him under the jail..." Difficult to decipher this, but both the burglar and the Hussein brothers are Muslims. No WASPs involved.
Has this writer ever been more than 100 miles from where he was born, I wonder? Most of those who think they know what's wrong with the world haven't. If he wants to know what it's really like in England, he should come and find out. He'd learn that we don't feel our way of life is under attack - not outside the lunatic fringes, anyway.
More on women paid less than men
It's great to have a reporter in the blog (Brody) because he sends me cool stuff like this:
The following is from a treatise released by the INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN’S POLICY RESEARCH, 1707 L STREET, N.W., SUITE 750 WASHINGTON, DC 20036 (202) 785-5100
NEW REPORT: WOMEN PAID 68 CENTS
FOR EVERY DOLLAR WHITE MEN GETHISPANIC WOMEN PAID 53 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR,
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN PAID 63 CENTS
A new report paints a portrait of two American economies – one that pays white men $44,200 and another that pays all women dramatically less, from $23,200 for Hispanic women and $25,500 for Native American women, to $27,600 for African American women and $30,900 for white women. Even the highest paid group of women, Asian American women, earn only $33,100, a full 25 percent less than white men.
“For every $1 earned by the average Hispanic woman, the average white man takes $1.90. They’re living in the same country, but they’re in two different economies,” according to economist Heidi Hartmann.
Hartmann heads the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, which released the new report, Women’s Economic Status in the States: Wide Disparities by Race, Ethnicity and Region. It is one of a series of reports on the status of women in the states the think tank has issued since its first such report in 1996. By viewing racial differences in both genders, the new report reveals a much larger wage gap than earlier reports.
Despite changes over the last half century, Americans’ economic opportunities are still greatly impacted by accidents of birth, according to report author Amy Caiazza. “Being born Hispanic or African American, and being born female, make you less likely to earn a high salary than if you are born white and male.”
African American, Native American, and Hispanic women all have lower earnings and higher poverty rates than white women. But all groups of women have lower earnings and higher poverty rates than white men. Women are less likely to own a business and are less likely to work in high-paid occupations, such as jobs in science and technology or top levels of business.
“At the rate of progress achieved between 1989 and 2002, women would not achieve parity for more than 50 years,” according to the report.
“At this slow rate of change, girls graduating from college in June will not be paid equally to men during their entire working lives. In America, gender equality is still a distant dream,” according to Barbara Gault, director of research at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.
“Fairness demands that we stop punishing Americans for being born female or being born into minority groups,” Maloney says.
Among the report’s recommended policy actions are tougher enforcement of equal opportunity laws; recruitment of women into traditionally male jobs and cracking down on harassment and discrimination in predominantly male jobs; cost of living increases to minimum wage laws; improved job training opportunities, particularly for women in predominantly male occupations; affirmative action to improve educational opportunities for all women; and greater availability of health insurance and paid parental leave.
IWPR is a nonprofit public policy research organization dedicated to informing and stimulating debate on public policy issues of critical importance to women and their families.
IWPR focuses on issues that affect women’s daily lives, including employment, earnings and economic change; democracy and society; poverty, welfare and income security; work and family policies; and health and violence.
Thanks Brody!
The following is from a treatise released by the INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN’S POLICY RESEARCH, 1707 L STREET, N.W., SUITE 750 WASHINGTON, DC 20036 (202) 785-5100
NEW REPORT: WOMEN PAID 68 CENTS
FOR EVERY DOLLAR WHITE MEN GETHISPANIC WOMEN PAID 53 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR,
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN PAID 63 CENTS
A new report paints a portrait of two American economies – one that pays white men $44,200 and another that pays all women dramatically less, from $23,200 for Hispanic women and $25,500 for Native American women, to $27,600 for African American women and $30,900 for white women. Even the highest paid group of women, Asian American women, earn only $33,100, a full 25 percent less than white men.
“For every $1 earned by the average Hispanic woman, the average white man takes $1.90. They’re living in the same country, but they’re in two different economies,” according to economist Heidi Hartmann.
Hartmann heads the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, which released the new report, Women’s Economic Status in the States: Wide Disparities by Race, Ethnicity and Region. It is one of a series of reports on the status of women in the states the think tank has issued since its first such report in 1996. By viewing racial differences in both genders, the new report reveals a much larger wage gap than earlier reports.
Despite changes over the last half century, Americans’ economic opportunities are still greatly impacted by accidents of birth, according to report author Amy Caiazza. “Being born Hispanic or African American, and being born female, make you less likely to earn a high salary than if you are born white and male.”
African American, Native American, and Hispanic women all have lower earnings and higher poverty rates than white women. But all groups of women have lower earnings and higher poverty rates than white men. Women are less likely to own a business and are less likely to work in high-paid occupations, such as jobs in science and technology or top levels of business.
“At the rate of progress achieved between 1989 and 2002, women would not achieve parity for more than 50 years,” according to the report.
“At this slow rate of change, girls graduating from college in June will not be paid equally to men during their entire working lives. In America, gender equality is still a distant dream,” according to Barbara Gault, director of research at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.
“Fairness demands that we stop punishing Americans for being born female or being born into minority groups,” Maloney says.
Among the report’s recommended policy actions are tougher enforcement of equal opportunity laws; recruitment of women into traditionally male jobs and cracking down on harassment and discrimination in predominantly male jobs; cost of living increases to minimum wage laws; improved job training opportunities, particularly for women in predominantly male occupations; affirmative action to improve educational opportunities for all women; and greater availability of health insurance and paid parental leave.
IWPR is a nonprofit public policy research organization dedicated to informing and stimulating debate on public policy issues of critical importance to women and their families.
IWPR focuses on issues that affect women’s daily lives, including employment, earnings and economic change; democracy and society; poverty, welfare and income security; work and family policies; and health and violence.
Thanks Brody!
Pat Robertson 'A Public Relations Nightmare,' Says God
Thanks to Brody for sending this in:
Almighty Holds Rare Press Conference
NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) - In the wake of his comments about the earthquake in Haiti, televangelist Pat Robertson has become a "public relations nightmare" and a "gynormous embarrassment to me, personally," God said today.
In a rare press conference at the Grand Hyatt in New York City, the usually reclusive Almighty said that He was taking the unusual step of airing His feelings in public because "enough is enough."
"I pray that his TV show would just go away, but of course, when you're me there's no one to pray to," God said, to the laughter of the packed room of reporters.
While God held out no hope that Rev. Robertson's "700 Club" would be canceled any time soon, He did say, somewhat ruefully, "If Pat Robertson were on NBC he'd be replaced by Jay Leno by now."
Almighty Holds Rare Press Conference
NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) - In the wake of his comments about the earthquake in Haiti, televangelist Pat Robertson has become a "public relations nightmare" and a "gynormous embarrassment to me, personally," God said today.
In a rare press conference at the Grand Hyatt in New York City, the usually reclusive Almighty said that He was taking the unusual step of airing His feelings in public because "enough is enough."
"I pray that his TV show would just go away, but of course, when you're me there's no one to pray to," God said, to the laughter of the packed room of reporters.
While God held out no hope that Rev. Robertson's "700 Club" would be canceled any time soon, He did say, somewhat ruefully, "If Pat Robertson were on NBC he'd be replaced by Jay Leno by now."
Why white men get paid more
Despite advances in parity in recent decades, white men in America on average still get paid more than women and minorities for doing the same work, by some accounts about 20 to 25 percent more.
A new study finds one reason: In satisfaction surveys, store customers and medical patients say they prefer white men, and managers frequently hire and set pay based on customer preferences.
In the study, researchers at four business schools showed study subjects a video featuring either a black male, a white female, or a white male actor playing the role of an employee helping a customer. Those viewing the white male were 19 percent more satisfied with the employee's performance, and they were also more satisfied with the store's cleanliness and appearance.
But the actors demonstrated the same scripted behaviors, and the store background, camera angles and lighting were identical.
"Customers, from students buying textbooks to patients in an examining room, are consistently biased in favor of white men," said David Hekman, assistant business professor at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. "Because customer satisfaction is critical for organizational survival, business owners and managers will hire white men when possible and will pay lower salaries to the women and minorities they do hire."
from Live Science
A new study finds one reason: In satisfaction surveys, store customers and medical patients say they prefer white men, and managers frequently hire and set pay based on customer preferences.
In the study, researchers at four business schools showed study subjects a video featuring either a black male, a white female, or a white male actor playing the role of an employee helping a customer. Those viewing the white male were 19 percent more satisfied with the employee's performance, and they were also more satisfied with the store's cleanliness and appearance.
But the actors demonstrated the same scripted behaviors, and the store background, camera angles and lighting were identical.
"Customers, from students buying textbooks to patients in an examining room, are consistently biased in favor of white men," said David Hekman, assistant business professor at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. "Because customer satisfaction is critical for organizational survival, business owners and managers will hire white men when possible and will pay lower salaries to the women and minorities they do hire."
from Live Science
Friday, 15 January 2010
Question with boldness
Apparently Glenn Beck on Fox News said the phrase 'question with boldness' during his interview wtih Sarah Palin the other night. What he didn't do was finish the whole quote -- (Thomas Jefferson said it, by the way):
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Britain the 25th best place to live in the world?
Britain has dropped to 25th place on a list of the best places in the world to live - behind countries such as the Czech Republic, Lithuania and Uruguay.
While France tops the poll for the fifth year running, the UK's climate, crime rate, cost of living, congested roads and overcrowded cities have pushed it even further down from last year's ranking at 20.
The Quality of Life Index, published by International Living magazine for the 30th year, says the French live life to the full, while Britons are over-worked.
In all, 194 countries are surveyed on nine criteria, including the cost of living, culture and leisure, environment, safety, culture and weather.
Australia is placed second after France, followed by Switzerland, Germany and New Zealand.
Even former communist countries where unemployment is still rife are considered better places to settle down in than Britain, with Lithuania and the Czech Republic coming in at 22nd and 24th place respectively.
The magazine says the French enjoy everything from Riviera beaches and Alpine ski resorts to what it describes as 'the best health service in the world.'
While France tops the poll for the fifth year running, the UK's climate, crime rate, cost of living, congested roads and overcrowded cities have pushed it even further down from last year's ranking at 20.
The Quality of Life Index, published by International Living magazine for the 30th year, says the French live life to the full, while Britons are over-worked.
In all, 194 countries are surveyed on nine criteria, including the cost of living, culture and leisure, environment, safety, culture and weather.
Australia is placed second after France, followed by Switzerland, Germany and New Zealand.
Even former communist countries where unemployment is still rife are considered better places to settle down in than Britain, with Lithuania and the Czech Republic coming in at 22nd and 24th place respectively.
The magazine says the French enjoy everything from Riviera beaches and Alpine ski resorts to what it describes as 'the best health service in the world.'
Britain might grow tired of war? Say it ain't so!
Brits might grow tired of war? That sounds like a good thing to me, but not to the defense industry in London. Nobody objects to countries defending themselves, like Finland against Russia in World War II, but this thing where countries send troops to invade far-away countries and the campaigns drag on and on -- well, yes, we are tired of that. (Costa Rica, by the way, doesn't even have an army.)
Britain is growing so risk-averse that the public may no longer tolerate deployment of the military, the Armed Forces Minister said yesterday.
Bill Rammell warned that in an age of mounting public cynicism and rolling 24-hour news, British governments faced increasing resistance to any use of military power.
“We, sadly, face a series of threats, the nature of which will require the projection of power beyond our borders to protect our national security,” he said. “My great fear is that we as a nation will become so risk-averse, cynical and introverted that we will find ourselves in inglorious and impotent isolation by default.”
His speech to the Institute of Public Policy Research, in London, reflects a growing frustration within the Government and Armed Forces that public tolerance for military operations and media-led cynicism at the motives for British military action are undermining the current effort in Afghanistan.
Britain is growing so risk-averse that the public may no longer tolerate deployment of the military, the Armed Forces Minister said yesterday.
Bill Rammell warned that in an age of mounting public cynicism and rolling 24-hour news, British governments faced increasing resistance to any use of military power.
“We, sadly, face a series of threats, the nature of which will require the projection of power beyond our borders to protect our national security,” he said. “My great fear is that we as a nation will become so risk-averse, cynical and introverted that we will find ourselves in inglorious and impotent isolation by default.”
His speech to the Institute of Public Policy Research, in London, reflects a growing frustration within the Government and Armed Forces that public tolerance for military operations and media-led cynicism at the motives for British military action are undermining the current effort in Afghanistan.
Thursday, 14 January 2010
Haiti and their pact with the devil
Hey, did you read about Pat Robertson saying that what happened in Haiti was their own fault because they made a pact with the devil a few centuries ago? Here's what he said:
"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti ... they were under the heel of the French, uh, you know, Napoleon the third and whatever ... and they got together and swore a pact to the devil, they said, we will serve you, if you get us free from the Prince. True story."
I read this rebuttal on Salon, and thought you might be interested:
Is it a true story? We spoke with Andrew Apter, professor of history and anthropology at UCLA, about Haiti's voodoo traditions, the ignorance behind the evangelical community's distortions and the real cause of suffering in the third-world country.
Is there any truth to what Pat Robertson is saying?
Of course not! Haitians are Christians. Pat Robertson's language is the reductio ad absurdum of the Christian right. It's so absurd it's almost funny. This notion of a pact with the devil is basically an echo of an old colonial response to the successes of the 1790s Haitian revolution.
What is this pact he's talking about?
Part of the revolution mythology is that one of the revolution leaders sacrificed a pig in Bois Caïmin in a voodoo ceremony and made a contract with Petwo [Haitian voodoo spirits]. It may or may not be true, but to call that a pact with the devil is a gross misrepresentation of what voodoo is. It's about anything but the devil. He's imposing an evangelical religious order on a much more sophisticated practice, and he's turning it into a cheap invocation of Satanism.
"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti ... they were under the heel of the French, uh, you know, Napoleon the third and whatever ... and they got together and swore a pact to the devil, they said, we will serve you, if you get us free from the Prince. True story."
I read this rebuttal on Salon, and thought you might be interested:
Is it a true story? We spoke with Andrew Apter, professor of history and anthropology at UCLA, about Haiti's voodoo traditions, the ignorance behind the evangelical community's distortions and the real cause of suffering in the third-world country.
Is there any truth to what Pat Robertson is saying?
Of course not! Haitians are Christians. Pat Robertson's language is the reductio ad absurdum of the Christian right. It's so absurd it's almost funny. This notion of a pact with the devil is basically an echo of an old colonial response to the successes of the 1790s Haitian revolution.
What is this pact he's talking about?
Part of the revolution mythology is that one of the revolution leaders sacrificed a pig in Bois Caïmin in a voodoo ceremony and made a contract with Petwo [Haitian voodoo spirits]. It may or may not be true, but to call that a pact with the devil is a gross misrepresentation of what voodoo is. It's about anything but the devil. He's imposing an evangelical religious order on a much more sophisticated practice, and he's turning it into a cheap invocation of Satanism.
We only read news that agrees with our views
I do this -- I mostly read articles that agree with what I think already. I do watch Fox News because it's the only direct American feed we have on satellite, and I read some conservative websites sometimes but they make my blood boil so I stop. Here's the info:
News readers gorge on media messages that fit their pre-existing views, rather than graze on a wider range of perspectives. In other words, they consume what they agree with, researchers say.
The finding comes out of a recent study which tracked how college students spent their time reading media articles on hot-button issues such as abortion or gun ownership.
Unsurprisingly, students gravitated toward articles that supported their views.
"The idea has been around for a very long time, but it has just never been proven," said Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick, a communications researcher at Ohio State University. "It's just considered textbook knowledge or lay common sense."
That preference for similar views may also influence hardcore political junkies who prefer to read blogs with strong political views, according to separate research.
However, researchers still don't know how individual uncertainty about political views affects time spent reading one side or the other. And on the flipside, individuals most confident in their political stance may actually seek out opposing views to read.
News readers gorge on media messages that fit their pre-existing views, rather than graze on a wider range of perspectives. In other words, they consume what they agree with, researchers say.
The finding comes out of a recent study which tracked how college students spent their time reading media articles on hot-button issues such as abortion or gun ownership.
Unsurprisingly, students gravitated toward articles that supported their views.
"The idea has been around for a very long time, but it has just never been proven," said Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick, a communications researcher at Ohio State University. "It's just considered textbook knowledge or lay common sense."
That preference for similar views may also influence hardcore political junkies who prefer to read blogs with strong political views, according to separate research.
However, researchers still don't know how individual uncertainty about political views affects time spent reading one side or the other. And on the flipside, individuals most confident in their political stance may actually seek out opposing views to read.
Wednesday, 13 January 2010
Martha Stewart does Gay Marriage spread
Amusing article from the Freethinker website:
“REBEKAH” is a Virginian, and, we assume, a virgin to boot. Bless. On her Barefoot Bride blog she says she is a “stay-at-home daughter”, and recommends a visit to the Lady in Waiting magazine site (Motto: Encouraging stay-at-home daughters as they serve the King of kings).
Right now Rebekah is lying quite faint on the futon because another of her favoured magazines, Martha Stewart Weddings, had the gall to feature, in its latest issue, Jeremy Hooper and Andrew Shulman tying the knot in Connecticut.
Rebekah laments:
As part of the large portion of the population who strongly believes marriage should be between one man and one woman, I was rather taken aback to see a homosexual wedding featured in the Winter 2010 issue. I may not always agree with the lifestyles and life choices made by all the people featured in every publication I read, but I do not appreciate picking up my favorite magazine to see photographs of homosexual couples being affectionate. For someone who believes that same-sex marriage is wrong, such articles and/or photos are offensive – and something I certainly would never knowingly pay money for.
She adds the following note:
I just wanted to clarify that I don’t hate homosexuals. I actually know a couple gay and lesbian people and they’re great folks. This, however, does not mean that I agree with their lifestyle choices.
Since so many of the folks who are for same-sex marriages have been boldly proclaiming how happy they are about this featured wedding, I thought it only fair that those of us on the flip side of the coin be allowed to share our opinions as well.
“REBEKAH” is a Virginian, and, we assume, a virgin to boot. Bless. On her Barefoot Bride blog she says she is a “stay-at-home daughter”, and recommends a visit to the Lady in Waiting magazine site (Motto: Encouraging stay-at-home daughters as they serve the King of kings).
Right now Rebekah is lying quite faint on the futon because another of her favoured magazines, Martha Stewart Weddings, had the gall to feature, in its latest issue, Jeremy Hooper and Andrew Shulman tying the knot in Connecticut.
Rebekah laments:
As part of the large portion of the population who strongly believes marriage should be between one man and one woman, I was rather taken aback to see a homosexual wedding featured in the Winter 2010 issue. I may not always agree with the lifestyles and life choices made by all the people featured in every publication I read, but I do not appreciate picking up my favorite magazine to see photographs of homosexual couples being affectionate. For someone who believes that same-sex marriage is wrong, such articles and/or photos are offensive – and something I certainly would never knowingly pay money for.
She adds the following note:
I just wanted to clarify that I don’t hate homosexuals. I actually know a couple gay and lesbian people and they’re great folks. This, however, does not mean that I agree with their lifestyle choices.
Since so many of the folks who are for same-sex marriages have been boldly proclaiming how happy they are about this featured wedding, I thought it only fair that those of us on the flip side of the coin be allowed to share our opinions as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)