tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-61692961751892319302024-02-07T22:03:59.669-08:00Cranky PantsMy (often cranky) musings on life the universe and everything.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13884362330990669417noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6169296175189231930.post-84326323173190751192015-02-11T02:08:00.000-08:002015-02-11T04:29:34.549-08:00To Vax or not to Vax... It shouldn't even be a question.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifY9x62BoiRgutATNdRBXx4B8uSRRm4GqD9ydrWLudGDO9yF2EDLaUwLCtQvhL87XRDgsEgQk03DPgOCBEHw8eA-4lDA9ARCdzESQpTFfatpR_e0Ll3VfGyxRqVYDWYM4zH-KhtcIWMcC7/s1600/images.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifY9x62BoiRgutATNdRBXx4B8uSRRm4GqD9ydrWLudGDO9yF2EDLaUwLCtQvhL87XRDgsEgQk03DPgOCBEHw8eA-4lDA9ARCdzESQpTFfatpR_e0Ll3VfGyxRqVYDWYM4zH-KhtcIWMcC7/s1600/images.jpg" /></a></div>
In 1998 a report published in the Lancet found tentative links between the combined MMR vaccine and autism and colitis in children. This is research has since been entirely discredited. The author of the report, Andrew Wakefield has since been struck off the medical register and his his findings deemed to be fraudulent. So why then have we found ourselves in the midst of a public health crisis? In the US rates of measles are hitting highs that have not been seen since pre vaccine days and its largely thanks to vapid celebrity 'talking heads' with no medical or scientific backgrounds who have seized on vaccines as their 'platform' and those who sit in thus 'anti -vax' camp seem, sadly immune to cold, hard evidence. <br />
<br />
Despite there being little or no scientific evidence linking the MMR vaccine to anything other than, well not contracting Measles, Mumps or Rubella it seems plenty of people seem to be eschewing them in favour of making a concerted effort to bring back diseases which we have largely banished. This is being done under the guise that these diseases, being 'normal childhood diseases' and therefore natural (side effects -high temperature, listlessness, skin rash, possibly leading to measles encephalitis, coma and death) are better than vaccinating against these diseases (side effects - might feel a bit out sorts, slight fever, in rare cases bit of diarrhea, will be grand in a couple of days) because they are 'unnatural' and filled with bad science and black magic (or at least that's how they tell it!)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpHxaIzmHZrRSy8lQAFUJrVKrrNiyRMOkKtjpo6-YSYTASnQS8f9b9QLAKh7UdS8V2TINTT8Y75jutqlr6gxXLdHg1eB-rjqu8of_exudxs65_cSOid1Gd0584YLCNRBCxrxyc0p1oU9fC/s1600/mmm.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpHxaIzmHZrRSy8lQAFUJrVKrrNiyRMOkKtjpo6-YSYTASnQS8f9b9QLAKh7UdS8V2TINTT8Y75jutqlr6gxXLdHg1eB-rjqu8of_exudxs65_cSOid1Gd0584YLCNRBCxrxyc0p1oU9fC/s1600/mmm.jpg" height="320" width="248" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"> I assume I am not the only one utterly baffled/terrified by this?</span><br />
Whilst many of us would no doubt agree that there are many, many wonderful things to be said for nature and that in some arenas, for example diet, a push to minimise chemicals and synthetic material from our diets might actually be highly beneficial (and before you ask, yes I know there is a far more nuanced debate to have on this and we'll have it another time, I am not anti GMO), in terms of conventional scientifically proven medicine, natural does not necessarily equal better. There is a reason we talk about scientific advancement. There is a reason we celebrate the near eradication of formerly debilitating and life threatening diseases (Well hello there polio, don't see much of you these days. Thanks medical science!). It is because they are inherently good things. Vaccinations protect our children, they protect us. Most importantly being vaccinated protects those who can't be. Those babies who are too young, those children (and adults) with conditions which either mean they cannot be fully vaccinated or whose vaccinations are not effective due to extreme immuno-supression. Its one thing to make a claim that it is your choice, but the decision to not vaccinate does not end with you. It has repercussions for that baby in the supermarket. For that elderly person you shared a lift with. For the kid with leukemia. Your decision to not vaccinate your child based on discredited findings and anti-science chinese whispers might well cost lives. Not just of your own children but of countless children who fall pray to what is at best your gullibility and worst your rampant selfishness and hubris. Think on that and consider what your decision to put lives at risk is really based on. What do you trust more? Some celeb or tried and tested science?<br />
<br />
I am unapologetically and unequivocally pro vaccine. I support the right of schools and other institutions to exclude those who are willfully unvaccinated to protect those who can't be. Its a shame for the children of these woefully ignorant whack jobs but ultimately it is, as the recent outbreak in the US, in which ground zero was <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/14/measles-outbreak-spreads-unvaccinated-woman-disneyland" target="_blank">Disneyland </a>demonstrates, a public health issue. It is bigger than any single one of us. There are so many things in the world we can't protect our children from the mind boggles as to why we would deny our children protection from the things we can. (oh yeah, and those parents holding their 'measles parties', you're awful, awful people.)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUv0gmrEJqpwer6k6TjiDx4Bva0skqKcFKVQuXLSYp6htkpyPw633-o76vgVSj6KNiY1XmZjO7EbRunCz1HqYZpuB6sCPcl14N9FnTOmAnDVe9AfnSDWHU0TTOCK-8hKaWCZEFWJdteD4v/s1600/10978500_10152527215841152_5244817498040208448_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUv0gmrEJqpwer6k6TjiDx4Bva0skqKcFKVQuXLSYp6htkpyPw633-o76vgVSj6KNiY1XmZjO7EbRunCz1HqYZpuB6sCPcl14N9FnTOmAnDVe9AfnSDWHU0TTOCK-8hKaWCZEFWJdteD4v/s1600/10978500_10152527215841152_5244817498040208448_n.jpg" height="320" width="180" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"> If this is on the level I am totally on board.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
I normally try and see both sides when it comes to other peoples parenting decisions but the whole vaccination issue is one on which there are no shades of grey. If you're not vaccinating your kids, you're not part of the problem. You <i>are</i> the problem.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWbimMQ0WUUc64R2H-pb_8Mz-iikxk5cRhlZCJTcQtfnDt5NFPhBVBDdFIVnfaBATsjMmagF2TKM_w04eEL7DX4saquAJIBgDqtw7iQoTnTPDGGikyzqeRRRTU7Y_6drGUeY3Jjx6oN-In/s1600/index.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWbimMQ0WUUc64R2H-pb_8Mz-iikxk5cRhlZCJTcQtfnDt5NFPhBVBDdFIVnfaBATsjMmagF2TKM_w04eEL7DX4saquAJIBgDqtw7iQoTnTPDGGikyzqeRRRTU7Y_6drGUeY3Jjx6oN-In/s1600/index.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13884362330990669417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6169296175189231930.post-55988283923744812852014-08-01T01:18:00.002-07:002014-08-01T01:20:33.971-07:00When there is nowhere to run.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Right now the world is a sad and dark place. In all corners of the world children are dragged, unbidden into the darkest and most horrible of conflicts. 200 school girls kidnapped in Nigeria for no greater crime than hoping to get an education, children returning from their holidays shot down, innocent pawns in a conflict which has nothing to do with them, millions of children displaced and in danger in Syria and children bombed whilst they sleep in the only sanctuary they had in Gaza. Victims of Israel's brutal and disproportionate response to the firing of rockets into Israel by Hamas.<br />
<br />
I will get one thing clear from the start. I am not an anti semite. We live in a world where any criticism of the Israeli state is met with the standard accusation of antisemitism. And this is part of the problem. No one in their right mind questions or attempts to belittle the terrible crimes committed against the Jewish people by the Nazis. It was a dark and terrible period in our history and one that should be remembered. As both a student and teacher of History, the Holocaust is something I teach and place great importance on. Even when I worked in schools in the Middle East where the teaching of the Holocaust had to be handled with great care, in large part due to the conflicts within the region, I insisted it should be taught, that an understanding of these events were essential to the study of our world and to a more contextual understanding of the world we live in currently, something I stand by to this day. The fact that this needs clarification in the first place is a massive part of the reason that Israel is allowed to act as it does towards Palestine and faces very minimal international condemnation for its actions.<br />
<br />
However, the time has come. Whilst no one will ever wipe away the pain the Jewish people suffered in the Holocaust, the attempted annihilation of another people will not do it either. Hamas is a problem, they operate outside the bounds of diplomacy and politics and endanger life through their rocket attacks, but wholesale slaughter of Palestinian innocents will not prevent that. The International community and that includes Israel's erstwhile allies such as the United States and the UK must no longer be complicit in what amounts to war crimes against largely civilian populations.<br />
<br />
Lets look at Gaza.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkv4ci5kbB-Yprf-DoFCzNwrtHGiqTyZaAGT_6BrFugZ-97rEWo3R9r49fvAMNBblel0tc1AaQABBDebCIxttiVpVOwkLE20i9geSpviBerdDILs6OaN7vS7nBAAmybw6uOd8QchxXLfdP/s1600/gaza_strip_may_2005.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkv4ci5kbB-Yprf-DoFCzNwrtHGiqTyZaAGT_6BrFugZ-97rEWo3R9r49fvAMNBblel0tc1AaQABBDebCIxttiVpVOwkLE20i9geSpviBerdDILs6OaN7vS7nBAAmybw6uOd8QchxXLfdP/s1600/gaza_strip_may_2005.jpg" height="320" width="299" /></a></div>
The Gaza Strip is currently the focus of the current conflict between Israel and Hamas and the map gives as good an indication as any of the issues faced by civilians living in Gaza. Both the Israeli and Egyptian borders are closed to them. They have no escape from the unrelenting horror of shelling. Nowhere to run from the ground incursions. Unlike Israel, who has some fairly solid self defence in its Iron Dome technology (more about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome) which has significant success in rapidly significantly reducing civilian casualties, the people of Gaza have no such succour. Whilst the Israelis make claim that residents are warned prior to rocket attacks, the number of casualties on the Palestinian side make it difficult to argue any real case for 'self defence' or proportionality of response. Quite simply, the Palestian people, particularly those in Gaza right now, have no where to go and no where to hide. In 2012, Noam Chomsky described Gaza as 'the world's biggest open air prison'. No hope of escape, little hope of a better future. And think on this. The average age in Gaza is only 17 years old. 250,000 Gazans are under the age of 10. These are children. Children who have no safe place to go. Children who were shown without a shadow of a doubt that there was no sanctuary to be had, by the bombing of a UN shelter by Israeli forces.<br />
<br />
The news is full of such atrocities. Even amongst the massive media bias towards Israel shown by many boradcasters, you cannot escape the horror. You cannot fail to see what the people of Gaza are being subject to. We, the world, are watching the murder of civilians. Of Children, whose only crime was to be born in the wrong place. As a parent, as decent human being, I am at a loss as to how our governments are able to stand by and do so little, to be so tepid in their responses. I am at a loss as to how any person with even a modicum of empathy, of compassion can even begin to justify Israel's atrocities or call them self defence. How anyone can standby and see the frightened faces of children, the injuries they have suffered and not want to it stop.<br />
<br />
Putting my own children to bed last night I was overcome with the notion of just how lucky I am. I was able to put my children to bed last night in the knowledge that they were unlikely to come to harm. That they would sleep peacefully and easy. That they would wake care free and live another happy day. I was shaken by the understanding of just what a luxury that really is. That so many parents cannot, for reasons outside of their control want nothing more than to keep their children safe and yet live with the knowledge that their children live under a blanket of fear, danger, of pain. I cannot begin to truly comprehend how that must feel. But the pain in my heart even contemplating it is such that I know it must be a burden almost too heavy to bear.<br />
<br />
<br />
If you want to help the people of Gaza there are a few things you can do:<br />
<br />
Donate to charity.<br />
<br />
There are a massive number of appeals to can contribute to but here are just a few;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/about-us/emergencies/israel-gaza-conflict?sourcecode=GZ1003054&utm_campaign=gaza&utm_medium=ppc&utm_source=gazappcfund" target="_blank">Save the Children, Gaza Appeal</a><br />
<a href="http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what-we-do/emergency-response/gaza-crisis?pscid=ps_ggl_Emergencies_Gaza&gclid=CP_WxvbP8b8CFSEcwwodGH0Arg" target="_blank">Oxfam </a><br />
<a href="http://www.redcross.org.uk/gazaisrael/?gclid=CKrs8YjQ8b8CFSTMtAodD0wAZQ" target="_blank">The Red Cross</a><br />
<br />
Write to your MP, the Foreign Secetary or Prime Minister or join in demonstrations such as the one outside the Israeli Embassy in London TODAY (1st August).<br />
<br />
Keep raising awareness, share stories, put pressure on news outlets to be more balanced in their coverage. <br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13884362330990669417noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6169296175189231930.post-30947814998497141272014-05-28T22:00:00.000-07:002014-05-29T02:37:42.877-07:00Yes, All Women.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I'm writing this post in the light of the horrific events that unfurled in Santa Barbara over the weekend, where a damaged and ill, but also entitled, privileged and misogynistic young man, fueled by anger and humiliation at what he saw as his rejection by women killed seven people and injured several more before taking his own life. In the hours and days immediately after the tragedy You Tube videos and a chilling and angry manifesto came to light outlining his attitudes to women, people of colour and his plans for his 'Day of Retribution'<br />
<br />
This particular tragedy is almost the perfect storm of issues. Guns (all of Elliot Rodger's guns were legally obtained despite the fact he had a history or mental health issues and he lives in California which has some of the strictest gun laws in the US), the mental health issues (Rodger's had a number of ongoing mental health issues and had apparently been in therapy for many years, his family and parents were aware of the issue to the point where they had called the police on at least one occasion believing Rodger's to be a danger to others) and vicious and deep seated misogyny. And it is this which I want to talk about right now.<br />
<br />
When the story first broke and news of his videos and manifesto came to light women across the world were, understandably, shocked, horrified, saddened and angry. Men, whilst many felt the same way were quick to point out that 'Its not all men', women were keen to point out that, yes, we know that, but when it comes to misogyny, whether it be casual occasions of everyday sexism or sexual violence or aggression, it is <b>all</b> women.<br />
<br />
This spawned much debate online, particularly on Twitter, where the #yesallwomen hashtag began trending. The purpose of the hashtag was to allow women to share their experiences, to open a conversation and make our male feminist allies understand that whilst of course its not all men, almost every woman will on a reasonably regular basis be the victims of male aggression and privilege. For some women this takes the form of serious abuse (whether it be sexual, physical or emotional) or sexual violence for others it is domestic abuse, discrimination in the workplace, being prey to the unwanted and overly enthusiastic man in a club, a wolf whistle in the street, and audible comment about body, attributes, age, weight, looks, intimidation by a man or group of men. The list could go on and the problem is with many of these is that with the exception of the most serious, they are seen as entirely acceptable. Male privilege and our culture of casual sexism is such that aggressively pursuing a woman who has made her lack of interest quite clear is ok. Shouting at a woman whilst she walks her dog or takes a run or runs her errands is fine. Casual touching of a woman without her explicit consent is fine. But its not fine, its not ok and its not acceptable. We have become so trained that we should see these behaviours as harmless that often even other women will indulge in the culture of 'victim blaming' we seem to have created. That a woman should be flattered by a stranger yelling from his car that she has a 'nice arse/tits/is doable' that she should not be offended when a stranger yells at her that she is fat/ugly/a bitch. Women who stand up for themselves in these circumstances are further often further abused. The fact that we have a sliding scale of sexual aggression and misogyny is part of the problem. The fact that we have to be relieved that we have 'only' been victims of the lesser kind of these acts is a problem because they shouldn't exist.<br />
<br />
In addition to gender, race also plays its part and cannot be ignored in the discussion less, #yesallwomen becomes #yesall WHITEwomen (and there is a very interesting debate currently going on on twitter under that very hashtag which I do recommend you read as it gives some very interesting perspectives and statistic with regards to the experience of women of colour) in the US amongst women of colour rates of reported coercive sexual behaviour are most high, with almost 40% of black women being victim of this kind of behaviour. Whilst it is true to say that ALL women experience this, we cannot ignore the experiences of women of colour who are statistically more likely to be the victims of more serious sexual aggression and more likely to be ignored as victims. Issues of white privilege and intersectionality are part of the debate and I do believe if we are to move feminism forward and truly become 'all women' you cannot discount the part race plays and the differing experiences of women of colour.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately our media also perpetuates the cycle of misogyny. Look around your house, pick up the first magazine you see. Even those aimed directly at women often seem to exist only as objects. Magazines tell us how we should look, what we should be doing to 'please our men', they shame us for being fat, for having agency and using it.<br />
<br />
Lets look at some examples from the media. Now the women I talk about here might not be my favourite people in the world, they may not live the kind of life I would chose, but do they deserve to be talked about in the kind of language that people do? The answer must surely be no.<br />
<br />
Female celebrities are objectified to the nth degree. Kim Kardashian (think what you will of her) lives her entire life being too fat, too thin, judged for relationships (cos like 'Oh My God, she's been married three times'), you can argue that she has made the choice to live in the public and eye and its true that she did but does that really mean we should be allowed to pass judgement on her every act? That we should fat shame her throughout her pregnancy for daring to do what many pregnant women do (myself included) which is gain a lot of weight? And then of course she was judged all over again when she lost the weight, but would have been just as harshly judged if she hadn't. <br />
<br />
Kate Middleton has recently had her bum in several papers and on the internet because her skirt blew up when she got out of a helicopter. Everyone has an opinion on whether she should weight her hems, wear a slip, wear bigger pants (she appears to be wearing either a thong or none, I would be inclined to suspect the former) but how about we just don't take pictures of women's bums when the wind catches their skirt and blows it up. How about we look at what it says about how we view women that a picture of a woman's arse, taken without consent is deemed public interest (this was hold even if Kate's full time job was wearing a bikini, consent is all and just because you've seen someone's bum once doesn't mean you always get to see it).<br />
<br />
Kim Novac attended the 2014 Academy Awards. At 81 years old she looks pretty good and she's definitely had some work, but if that's her choice I'm fine with that. Plenty however, had a LOT to say. Headlines appeared on her 'shocking' new look and mocked her attempts at maintaining her youth whilst ignoring the fact that society has made it so unacceptable for women, particularly those who work in the public eye to get old that its incredibly common for women to undergo surgery to attempt to fight it.<br />
<br />
It is in this context, this culture of victim blaming, slut shaming, fat watching, ageist, god for bid you go out looking a bit rough or should stand up for yourself or exhibit any kind of agency or not think it totally HILARIOUS when a man grabs your boob in a club 'for a laugh' that we live.A place where, factoring in unreported rapes, its estimated that only 5% of rapists in the UK ever spend a single day behind bars, or where women's reputations, lifestyles associations, dress and sex life are dragged through the courts and laid open for all to even get that 5% to face the consequences of their crime. It is in this world that ALL women live. In the developing world sex is used as a weapon of war, in the developed world a culture of casual sexism is all pervading, and whilst I certainly prefer my reality that of women in the developing world again it lays out questions as to why either group should have to tolerate what they do.<br />
<br />
So yes, we know, we understand that its not all men, but it is all women and until ALL men understand that we need to keep having this conversation.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13884362330990669417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6169296175189231930.post-13637658187382537652014-05-25T23:32:00.001-07:002014-05-25T23:33:27.894-07:00Its a Sin to Kill a Mockingbird<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjod6QAtqP9J0ep7rYRl1I1389uMbv5MmvTs1GVzWC1A92dNrmou__3kaC4Lw9T67-RG6KagHBxY3OIlqEIh-czDbx0_qviBULmbi_HA3Q1aa5IKd9WLupQmPTf07IptVTCZghIgWDny242/s1600/index.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjod6QAtqP9J0ep7rYRl1I1389uMbv5MmvTs1GVzWC1A92dNrmou__3kaC4Lw9T67-RG6KagHBxY3OIlqEIh-czDbx0_qviBULmbi_HA3Q1aa5IKd9WLupQmPTf07IptVTCZghIgWDny242/s1600/index.jpg" height="320" width="198" /></a></div>
Most of you in the UK (and many outside) can't have helped but hear about Michael Gove's latest ill thought out, poorly conceived piece of idiotic policy making. Mr Gove has made changes to both the GCSE and the A-Level English Literature specification which basically removes many stalwarts of both courses, such as Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird" and John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men" and hopes to replace them with twentieth century literature by authors from the British Isles. Once again (in concurrence with his ignorant ideas about the History curriculum) it shows Mr Gove pushing our education system towards a mono-cultural abyss. More and more it seems that Mr Gove sees Education, not as his job and his responsibility with the weight of millions of emerging character and intellects at stake, but as his own personal fiefdom in which to experiment and make changes purely based on his own view of the world and of education. At this point I will make the point that Mr Gove is, unlike many (though not all) Education Secretaries, not an Educator, he has no background in Education. His degree is in Journalism and it was this profession he pursed until he became an MP in 2005. Yet this lack of expertise has not stopped him from enacting a whole series of changes, most as foolhardy as the next leading teachers and educators everywhere to despair. All three of the major teachers' unions have passed votes of no confidence in him and he has been roundly criticised by the Association of Headteachers in addition to this. Mr Gove makes it clear at all turns that he despises teachers and that the advice and expertise of experienced educational practitioners and academics has no bearing on his ideas nor his policies.<br />
<br />
The most recent, the proposed change to the English curriculum has incensed both the teaching profession and public alike. Both Lee and Steinbeck have long been popular mainstays of the GCSE curriculum and I myself studied them. Gove's mistake seems to have been tied up in his massive disconnect between himself and the people he (and his government and party ) are supposed to represent. Scroll through Twitter discussions and Facebook posts and the amount of love for both these books is immense. So many point to them as books that made them love reading, or that taught them valuable lessons on race and class. Atticus Finch is oft cited as a role model of integrity that those of us who studied the books at school and are now parents our self aspire to be for our children and as the kind of man we would like to teach our sons to be. The importance of these books to our children and their education has nothing to with where they were written and everything to do with the stories they tell and the lessons they impart. That Gove can't see that makes him singularly unfit for the position he now occupies. <br />
<br />
Please sign the position requesting that Mr Gove reverse his position <a href="http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/michael-gove-reconsider-the-changes-to-english-literature-gcse#" target="_blank">here </a></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13884362330990669417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6169296175189231930.post-50365602737094613722014-05-19T03:16:00.000-07:002014-05-19T03:16:07.981-07:00UKIP are not your friends.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
UKIP have been in the news a lot lately. For one, there are European elections coming up and due to unfortunate voter apathy even from the more pro European amongst the electorate, UKIP are expected to do very well. And its a shame. Because UKIP should not be representing us in Europe, for them Europe is an anathema, the thing which is holding back Britain from regaining its former glory, whilst drowning us in immigrants who have come over here to steal our jobs or scrounge for benefits depending on what day of the week it is. In addition this is the kind of thing they get up to when allowed out in public http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bypLwI5AQvY . Its pretty pathetic isn't it? <br />
<br />
However, there are those who find appeal in Farage and friends belligerence, who are willing to look past the fact that their economic policies work they would need to be powered by the rainbow coloured poop of a thousand unicorns, who hone in only on their anti European stance or try and dress their support up in the language of challenging the system, of fighting the status quo of opening up the parliamentary system etc etc. And in themselves all this arguments are fine, they have some credence. However, what does not and should not stand is the party they choose to espouse to make these points. Let us say for a moment that UKIP was a party chock full of terrific ideas, a foolproof budget and a neat and amicable exit from Europe ( I am pro Europe by the way). Even if all these factors existed there would be one very big problems with UKIP and that should be the one reason that you choose to deny them. They are a party of division. Whether or not the party is 'racist' or not can be argued using questions of nuance, but what cannot be denied is that they do espouse policies which attract those with racist, bigoted and divisional beliefs. They are the only party to ban former BNP members they exclaim with pride, yet this is because they are the only party which attracts that mind set with any great number and offers them access to the upper levels of the party. They are always quick to act when one of their number is caught putting their unfeasibly large feet into their seemingly even bigger mouths, but it doesn't change the fact that it is their own policy of creating scapegoats which attracts and fosters those with more extreme view points.<br />
<br />
I'm not anti UKIP because of the newspapers that I read, I have not 'been blindfolded into your opinion by the cognitive dissonance of the left wing press' it is not my 'inability to understand the federalist agenda of the EU and its fanatics'. In fact even if I was vehemently anti the European Union I would not and could not bring my self to support a party such as UKIP. Even if the rest of the parties were slowly collapsing like my hair in the heat, (which its entirely possible they are, they aren't in good shape that's for sure), if UKIP were the only choice I would spoil my ballot. I am anti UKIP because they offend my every sensibility as a citizen and a human. Whilst their policies, such as they are just about manage to skirt the boundaries of out and out offensive, their membership is firmly beyond the pale. They are active members in extreme right wing pan European political groups such as the EFD who have compared Muslim women to Osama Bin Laden and frequently warn against the 'threat' of Islamisation. A vote for UKIP might 'sock it' it to the Tories, or Labour and quite likely the Lib Dems but it will do so at a cost too high. Its not 'protest', it is complicity. It is not that others don't understand or that they have been duped, it is being an apologist for something that is reprehensible. There are numerous other examples I could use to hammer home my point, but at this juncture they are probably redundant. My abhorrence of UKIP has nothing to do with their anti European stance generally and everything to do with their scapegoating of minorities, their offensive candidates and their general lack of the traits of that make up a decent human being. Alas, they will win their seats later this month and come next year will probably have enough people who are willing to subscribe to their anachronistic xenophobia and posturing or who vote for them out of a desire to protest the other parties that they will win some parliamentary seats. But it will be a shame and despite what their apologists and supporters claim it will not make us a better country. The cycle of division and intolerance will be perpetuated and Nigel Farage's braying voice and idiotic posturing will continue to get booked on Newsnight and Question Time, because clowns always make for entertaining television. Even dangerous ones like Farage.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13884362330990669417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6169296175189231930.post-58489323573565594342014-05-18T17:37:00.000-07:002014-05-18T20:13:15.181-07:00Puppy Love<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
They say that objects don't matter and and to some extent that's true but what about when something precious is lost? And by precious I don't mean monetarily expensive, I mean something imbued with precious memories, an object which embodies a time or a feeling. An object like a little blue stuffed dog.<br />
<br />
Puppy Cullen was gifted to my son on the day he was born by one of my truest and closest friends. Boy and dog have grown up together, from those days when Puppy Cullen and the Boy Child would hang out in the cot or pram, to those destructive early toddler days where the two of them would stagger round the house getting up to mischief like a little gang. There was a period of estrangement, like all relationships, where the two of them took the time to grow as people, where the Boy Child was hanging out with Pooh Bear, but fate soon brought them back together. Childhood best friends, inseparable. Hours were spent watching the washing machine turn waiting for the little blue dog to emerge clean and fluffy, they would watch TV together, take trike rides, play trains. As a mother I often would marvel at the comfort and real joy this little stuffed toy, this inanimate object could bring my child.<br />
<br />
And then it happened. Puppy Cullen didn't come home with us one day. Frantic searches, the leaving of telephones numbers, the upending of bags and suitcases ensued, but alas in vain. Our little blue friend, the Boy Child's greatest companion was gone. My little man, was as you might expect, distraught. But what I didn't expect was my own emotional reaction to the loss of the little blue dog. When the realisation that he was lost to us sank in, I cried. Big, fat hot tears. There may have been sobbing. Okay, there was sobbing. There was definitely Ugly Crying Face. I cried as if I had been the one that had lost something entirely beloved to me. And in a sense, I had.<br />
<br />
What I failed to understand was how much of my son's childhood was bound up in that well loved, slightly smelly and never quite clean despite tri weekly trips though the washing machine, piece of blue material. Such was my son's love and affection for this inanimate object that by extension I saw the toy as part of him. So much of my son's early childhood, those almost three years of boisterous, sticky, joyous childhood were tied up in his friendship with Puppy Cullen and when Puppy Cullen was lost, the transient nature of these early years was brought home to me, how much has already passed and can never be regained. I felt like I'd lost part of my little boy's childhood and I was grieving for, not a little blue dog (or at least not just a little blue dog, because I'll miss that smelly little fella) but for part of my son's childhood that is over and done with.<br />
<br />
As I watch my son grow with that pride that only a mother can feel for her children,I want so much for him. For him to be happy, for him to be safe, to never know real strife and hardship, for him to always know that he is loved. But it is bittersweet, I want our children to grow, to become increasingly independent and to know their own mind but I cannot help but to be wistful about what has already left us. The things that change so quickly that you sometimes need to stop yourself from wishing the time away in a flurry of 'please go to sleep/eat your dinner/ don't tease the cat/ stop licking your sister you know she doesn't like it'. Tomorrow I will no doubt be back to rescuing the Patchy Cat from the drawer in which the Boy Child has put her, wishing that for 5 minutes he would use someone else as a human railway track and despairing of the fact that his artistic medium seems to be felt tip pen on walls, but right now I'm going to savour his little boy impetuousness, his extremes of emotion, the mischievous look on his face as he sidles out of the kitchen with that banana I said no to because it's dinner time soon. I'm going to let both him and myself be sad for the fact that Puppy Cullen is gone and that part of his childhood is gone and can never come back. So long Puppy Cullen and I hope whoever found you loves you a fraction as much as your first best friend and you make your new friend as happy as you made the Boy Child.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13884362330990669417noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6169296175189231930.post-37716004596075825812014-03-21T01:31:00.001-07:002014-03-21T01:31:17.674-07:00#barefaceselfie<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
There has been a lot of discussion (not to mention a lot of photos) on social media about the #barefaceselfie (Bare face selfie for those who don't speak hash tagese!). The idea behind it is that women take photos of themselves without make up and post it to the social media page of their choice. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy. This in turn will hopefully raise awareness of cancer in general and breast cancer in particular. There has been a lot of criticism of this particular online movement with complaints that posting a selfie on FB doesn't really help cancer sufferers or translate into cash. Which is proving not to be the case. An increasing number of those involved are including links to cancer websites and numbers to make text message donations, many are following up their selfies with a donation themselves. A number of cancer charities have reported increased donations (the Irish Cancer Society for example, reporting 200K Euros in 24 hours, Cancer Research UK, 1million pounds sterling) so unlike the other 'viral awareness' campaigns such as the 'I went to France for Six Weeks' type where mostly they just caused annoyance, the #barefaceselfie, despite not actually being started by any particular cancer foundation (at this point no one actually seems to know how it came about) seems to actually doing what it hopes to.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghGnnf5Dfca6h4IIlPYB6ESHOGwU4SZ2gTGXLJU96CGCZunGPhtkXq-BGer2_B2-wyp4duKpC_UqiqwOsYUx6ihJ3iUNXKjVG1V4vymSAfvtZ5XP9Dh7k41lGtCUKMylj7gGuJ2F3-27mj/s1600/barefacedselfie.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghGnnf5Dfca6h4IIlPYB6ESHOGwU4SZ2gTGXLJU96CGCZunGPhtkXq-BGer2_B2-wyp4duKpC_UqiqwOsYUx6ihJ3iUNXKjVG1V4vymSAfvtZ5XP9Dh7k41lGtCUKMylj7gGuJ2F3-27mj/s1600/barefacedselfie.jpg" height="320" width="240" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Whilst obviously it is absolutely amazing the money that is being raised by this occurrence, we shouldn't be too quick to discount other benefits of this phenomena. The campaign was started to raise awareness. And there is a subtle but very distinct difference between raising awareness and raising money but both are equally important. Without awareness of cancer, particularly cancers like breast or testicular where self examination can often be the first indicator, there is little to no early detection. Awareness of the importance of checking one's breasts (be you male or female) and testicles cannot be overstated. Yet I would bet the bank its something many of us either never do ro don't do anywhere nearly as often as we should. The #barefaceselfie movement has raised awareness and I bet as a result a decent percentage of those of us who did the selfies also checked our boobs (and if you didn't go and do it, go and do it now. I will wait, go on.) And if even a few women, because of this increased awareness find themselves in doctors surgeries getting early and hopefully treatable diagnoses then the point of this campaign, even had it not raised a single pound, will have been achieved.<br />
<br />
Then there are other benefits, not related necessarily to the driving purpose of the campaign but none the less brought about by it. Women were empowered by it. Women in huge numbers posted these selfies. Women who I know and see all the time but have never seen bare faced because its not what they do, embraced this opportunity to show who they were underneath. Even many who wouldn't be daily make up wearers (which includes me on days I don't work, but wasn't always the case, there are people I've known years who would never have seen me without a full face on) would not necessarily choose to show themselves up close and bare faced without a distraction, with them as the sole focus of the shot. My timeline is full of these gorgeous pictures, of women united and slightly giddy in a cause. I wouldn't go so far as to call the movement brave, it isn't, but for some women being seen in such a real and exposed state is a big deal. We have such pressures to look a certain way and sometimes its refreshing not to have to. And due to the popularity of the campaign we feel safe to do so. Unfortunately, of course there are people (and by people I alas, mean men) who think its funny to make cracks about scaring children and what have you and I'm sure they think they are very funny. I'm sure some people think they are funny also and its a real shame that some men feel the need to take this 'everyday sexism' approach to women empowering themselves and others albeit in such a tiny way. I'm not normally one for this kind of campaign, as I mentioned early the ones that do the rounds by PM and then end up as cryptic, supposedly, but not very funny status updates make me want the throw things. But this one, this one has had real value. Its raised a hell of a lot of money, its raised awareness (if didn't do it earlier go and check those boobs and bits, if you're not sure what you're looking for I've included some links below) and its brought women together (and its certainly been more effective that the Sun's tawdry <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/breast-cancer-charities-criticise-the-suns-new-page-three-check-em-tuesday-for-trivialising-the-disease-9168517.html" target="_blank">excuse for a breast cancer</a> campaign which took the message of checking your breasts and turned into titillation for its page three readership.) All in all I'd call it a #success.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.royalmarsden.nhs.uk/cancer-information/prevention-surveillance/pages/testicle-awareness.aspx" target="_blank">Check your balls</a><br />
<a href="http://www.breakthrough.org.uk/about-breast-cancer/touch-look-check" target="_blank">Check your boobs</a><br />
<br />
Donate<br />
<a href="http://www.justgiving.com/cancerresearchuk" target="_blank">Cancer Research UK</a><br />
<a href="http://www.breastcanceruk.org.uk/" target="_blank">Breast Cancer UK</a><br />
<a href="http://www.cancer.ie/get-involved/fundraise/how-to-donate" target="_blank">Irish Cancer Society</a><br />
<a href="http://acrf.com.au/donate-now/" target="_blank">Australian Cancer Research Foundation</a><br />
<br />
This is a very small sample, each country has its own cancer charities and often particular cancer hospitals or support groups also need donations. Find out what is in your area and give a couple of quid.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13884362330990669417noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6169296175189231930.post-24764916195553388372014-02-17T18:29:00.001-08:002014-02-18T01:53:43.500-08:00The Princess Paradox<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjR-44fqGLZSJQsfhh13GwNv2Qco0tBRP0aSutU3m5FKLxnVeeKtClj_Shb4F43Va_DnkW2ivtZ85v42fG2Lw6_hNBY6_wI3H7R6GM1v0UEVFd_usBY_gkLed29S30HeJkyECrC6cS1GJaK/s1600/thisishowwedoit.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjR-44fqGLZSJQsfhh13GwNv2Qco0tBRP0aSutU3m5FKLxnVeeKtClj_Shb4F43Va_DnkW2ivtZ85v42fG2Lw6_hNBY6_wI3H7R6GM1v0UEVFd_usBY_gkLed29S30HeJkyECrC6cS1GJaK/s1600/thisishowwedoit.jpg" /></a></div>
With the recent release of Disney's latest princess offering 'Frozen' the debate has once again been thrown open on the influence of these fairy tale women and their actions (or lack thereof) on our daughters. Elsa, one of the two heroines of Frozen is most noted for the fact that at no point in the movie does she have any kind of love interest, that Anna, her sister, has a somewhat realistic brush with first love gone sour and that the high point of the movie is not the romantic climax, but rather the sacrifice of one sister for another and the idea of familial true love being a primary motivating factor. And it's exciting. It's a sure sign that Disney is moving away from its old school mentality of to be of worth a princess needs a prince (Cinderella, The Little Mermaid) or that women are fundamentally helpless (Snow White, Sleeping Beauty). There has been signs that Disney has been starting to wake up slowly to the idea that a woman, even a fairly tale princess should have at least something of her own agency, Belle in Beauty and the Beast was highly intelligent and well read, Mulan is brave and honourable, Tiana, the protagonist in 'The Princess and the Frog' had an admirable worth ethic, ambition and common sense, Rapunzel in Tangled is feisty and single minded in her pursuit of her goal. Even more recently we had Merida, the strong and able princess in 'Brave' who's primary motivation is the desire to not be married off. Now, don't get me wrong, none of these princess are paragons of feminist virtue and there are many points in all these movies which do not bear any real feminist analysis, but the intent is there. In these movies, the female characters are not mere foils for the heroic action of their male counterparts, nor driven solely by their desire to bag themselves a prince or be rescued from their circumstances. They show a willing to have a say in the making of their own destinies.<br />
<br />
However, despite these shifts in perceptions, subtle as they are in some cases (let's face it for all her intellect we're all pretty certain that Belle had Stockholm's Syndrome), the 'princess debate' rages on. As a woman and particularly as the mother of a daughter, I find myself constantly in the position where the desires of my little girl, who is four and therefore fully in the grip of the Disney marketing machine despite my best intentions, and my own as a mother wanting to empower her daughter, meet. And here in lies the princess paradox. For a while I did my best to avoid our posse of fairy tale princesses, passionately disavowed Barbie and her buddies and threw some serious shade at the new and not all improved My Little Pony range (just so you know, Hasbro, you have totally destroyed my childhood, especially with those hideous high school ones, thanks for that). I kept our colour scheme primary. And then I thought about it. I don't admire these 'women', and yes as an adult woman their lack of agency makes me sad, particularly when you bear in mind they are marketed directly at girls. But I grew up with the cadre of 'old school' princess. Ariel was probably the last princess film I saw until I had children of my own. And let's face it Ariel is the worst of the bunch, she is willing to sacrifice her talent for a man she had seen only once, was happy to be silent and admired only for what was on the outside, and the least said about Eric the better, willing to move a woman in with him that he couldn't speak to and then threw her over for someone else. They are the worst, the worst. So obviously, Ariel is one of my daughter's favourites, at least she was until Elsa came along. Despite growing up in the shadow of Cinderella, who got very lucky, or Aurora and Snow White who slept through major parts of their own stories (but are useful for pointing out the consequences of taking food from strangers and touching things you shouldn't if we really reach) and the aforementioned Ariel (the worst, just the worst), I did not grow up to be without agency, I did not grow up to be an example of feminine passivity, I have a very nice husband, but I did not wait around for my prince to come, I am not defined by the man in my life. I have interests, I am stubborn, I have opinions and principles which I will defend vehemently. I make choices for myself. And so do pretty much every other woman I know. We are not a generation that has grown up with unrealistic expectations and most of the women I know are out there making their lives happen, and where unrealistic expectations come, its certainly not the Disney ladies that are to blame. Ultimately, these women did me no harm, other than to possibly influencing my choice of of wedding dress more that I like to admit. Which all in all, isn't so bad really.<br />
<br />
So I let my daughter embrace the princesses. I particularly encourage her to watch the newer ones (I personally am Tiana girl, it's a whole working for what you want thing), they are just more relatable than the anachronistic Old school. We talk about their personalities, the things that they do and why they do them. I point out the things that maybe aren't a great idea and we applaud their strengths. I get passive aggressive remarks from other mums sometimes, usually with a nice subtext of parental superiority that their daughter don't watch or dress as princesses and I'm ok with that. Ultimately, these princesses, their evolution from Cinderella's passivity to Elsa's embrace of the things that make her different have encouraged conversations with my daughter about what it means to be a woman that we might not have had otherwise. And whilst I'd rather live I a world where I didn't need to have these conversations at all, we don't. My children, my daughter in particular will encounter far more pernicious influences both in her real life dealings and in pop culture and the media than these massively frocked misses. If nothing else these early forays into gender politics will hopefully prepare her to be a strong, assertive and empowered woman who is happy to tread her own path.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZ5OV-2pL4XDMCloEI4P9iQw0g4rbeANMbzyc3KCHR0gVlQv68vyFQa8GhcIjJdC78OyCMKEItKIHCcsaaTkILwALg_2cQF7_hdtoZuvdBd3Kixzz2qY3pEqm2JU-GZCQsa3SXQjEw9alp/s1600/601420_10151488098941152_830277095_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZ5OV-2pL4XDMCloEI4P9iQw0g4rbeANMbzyc3KCHR0gVlQv68vyFQa8GhcIjJdC78OyCMKEItKIHCcsaaTkILwALg_2cQF7_hdtoZuvdBd3Kixzz2qY3pEqm2JU-GZCQsa3SXQjEw9alp/s1600/601420_10151488098941152_830277095_n.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13884362330990669417noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6169296175189231930.post-15075411910924880962013-06-25T21:24:00.001-07:002013-06-25T22:46:45.776-07:00Check your privilege. <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
'Check your privilege' a sentence oft heard around the internet and until now not one I was sure I subscribed to, not because we shouldn't be checking our privilege but more because it is often abused and used to censure and silence rather than encourage healthy debate. However, today the idea of checking ones privilege was never more appropriate. In Texas the primarily old, primarily white and primarily male state government are attempting to pass legislation (the controversial SB5 amendment) that would close down all but five of Texas' abortion providers and decrease current 20 week limit. When questioned on abortion in the case of rape the (sadly female) Texas lawmaker Jodie Laubenburg was on record as saying "In Emergency Rooms we have something called rape kits, where a woman can get cleaned out" Not only does this show a stunning arrogance and ignorance of both the purpose of a rape kit and the reality of how babies are actually made, but also a frightening attitude of some towards women's reproductive rights. One that seems to echoed throughout the GOP, which whilst having some well known anti abortion women members is proportionally speaking largely white and male. The people who hold these views will often describe themselves as 'Pro-life', but nothing could be further from the truth. Even ignoring the fact that in the case of Texas they still have and make use of the death penalty, anti -abortion campaigners are showing themselves to have little or no respect for the life of others. It is the same people who will campaign against universal health care, food stamps, social security. These are the very same people who demand that their 'rights' and 'freedoms' to own dangerous weapons and ammunition despite the fact that children die every day in America as a result of lose gun legislation, but want greater regulation over what a private individual does with their body. They argue that life begins at the moment of conception but willfully ignore that it also doesn't end at the moment of birth.<br />
<br />
This evening Texas democratic Senator Wendy Davis attempted a 13 hour filibuster in order to shut down or at least stall the bill. She was shut down by the house GOP on point of order, a technicality. These mainly old white men, who will never be affected by the issues which they are so arrogantly legislating on essentially made that lady shut up. Unlike so many times in the past the filibuster attempt was streamed live and was watched by millions around the world. The world knows what happened. We all saw. We all know those rich, white men who will never find themselves pregnant as a result of rape, will never find themselves facing the hideous choice of whether or not to bring a life into the world that they are not equipped, either financially, emotionally or mentally to raise. Like those of are against marriage equality, they are railing against an issue that will never make one iota of difference to their lives but can make a huge difference to someone elses. They do this not because they think it is for the best, but because they feel that it is their right to impose their will and beliefs on others. That rights and freedoms only extend to the rights and freedoms they feel are important but not those that are important to others. They make efforts to legislate on private individuals and their private lives in order to exert their own power and privilege.<br />
<br />
People who support the right to abortion are not 'pro-abortion' they are 'pro-choice'. There are very few (if any) who would make the decision to terminate a pregnancy lightly regardless of the circumstances. There are few if any who believe that abortion should not be carefully regulated, but in a way that ensures the safety of those who undertake it. There few if any who think that abortion is an alternative to contraception. Pro-choice means allowing people the rights to make their own choice. By lowering the amount of time a woman has to make a decision the anti-abortion faction believe that they will lower abortion rates by essentially forcing those who are over 15 weeks to have their children regardless of the circumstances. I would argue that possibly the opposite might be true. Given less time to consider their options (particularly women who find out about their pregnancies later or who after screening might be considering their options due to the impact on their family) women might well be more likely to choose an abortion as they do not have enough time to fully consider their options, to look at the support available to them should they opt to keep their babies. Also the banning or limiting of abortions does not stop them happening. As in the case of Ireland, where abortion is banned, the problem is still there, its just been exported to the UK. The same will happen in the US, as people are forced (where possible) to travel to other states for the procedures or more worryingly have illegal procedures.<br />
<br />
As Bill Clinton stated, abortions should be 'safe, legal and rare' and this should be the case. Everyone has a right to their own opinion and should a person be anti-abortion (or pro-life) then they have the right to exercise that belief, to choose to never consider it as an option regardless of the circumstances. But by the same token a woman should also have the right and choice to terminate a pregnancy if that is what is best for her. This is not an issue like guns, where there is a legitimate public safety concern, this should be an individual choice and freedom, one that a woman takes on her own counsel and that of those she chooses to talk to about it with. Not some group of law makers, made of of old men and women who don't even seem to be fully aware of the facts of the very issue they seek to legislate upon. So before you tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body, check your privilege.<br />
<br />
Addendum: In the time since I wrote this post there were numerous protests in the public gallery over the bill, and what can only be described as an awesome act of public filibuster. However, the very same people who had Senator Davies shut down over a rule, it appears to have been quite happy to break the rules themselves holding the vote after the midnight deadline. There seems to be some dispute as whether or the vote actually happened, but at the moment it does seem that it did. And that those people who protested (you know, the people who vote and these people claim they speak for) were being removed and in some cases arrested. So yeah, check your privilege. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13884362330990669417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6169296175189231930.post-49756073996512932242013-05-23T01:29:00.002-07:002013-06-25T21:30:55.349-07:00Meeting hate with hate<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Those of you who live in or are from the UK (and many of those of you who are not given the nature of 24 hour world news) cannot have failed to have heard about the terrible, stomach churning crime which took place in Woolwich, London yesterday.<br />
<br />
In broad daylight in the middle of what appears to be a busy street two men attacked a third and killed him. Details of what happened during the attack remain patchy with some reports stating he was run over by a car driven by the assailants who then proceeded to 'hack' at the victim with meat cleaver style weapons, others simply that he was attacked with weapons. The two then, covered in the blood of their victim (who reports have said is likely to have been a serving soldier, the attackers clearly believed this to be the case) requested passers by take photographs and pretty much gave an interview citing their own messed up version of Islamic Jihad and the need for revenge for the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan as the motive for the crime.<br />
<br />
As a crime of this utter brutality and cold bloodiness should illicit, there has been outrage and disbelief. It is an indefensible act of murder. But there has also been those quick to point the finger. Those who have been quick to use this act of barbarism as an excuse to vent their own prejudices and intolerance. Those who would hijack another family's pain and grief and horror to push their own agenda. There has been much talk of how they should 'go back to where they came from', despite the fact there is nothing at this moment in time (evidence is still thin on the ground at the time of writing nothing beyond the videos is known about the two assailants - their comments about 'our country' are more likely to be them talking about a wider Islamic community than an actual country, particularly when quite clearly neither of them were Afghan nor Iraqi), including the accent of one of the attackers in the widely circulated video, to suggest that these assailants are not in fact British. There are those who are quick to blame it all on the 'Muslims' despite the fact that the vast majority of Muslims, not just in Britain but across the world, are horrified at the fact that a tiny minority of those that claim to follow the religion of Islam would commit such brutal and heinous acts in its name. <br />
<br />
Groups such as the EDL and BNP will use this tragedy to add an element of perceived self righteousness to their ignorant and bigoted words and deeds. Already Mosques have been attacked in retaliation and even benign (ish) Facebook groups are using words like 'vengeance' when they should be looking for justice. But what I do not understand is what this actually solves, who it helps.<br />
<br />
Violence and hate is not the antidote for violence and hate. It just breeds more of it. Making a scapegoat of an entire group, whether it be religious or ethnic based on the actions of a few is not helpful. It solves nothing, it helps no one. It just perpetuates the cycle. <br />
<br />
<br />
One of the attacker said he was taking 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' and there are many who think that in this case it should work both ways, but to paraphrase the great wisdom of Ghandi, that just leaves everyone blind.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13884362330990669417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6169296175189231930.post-52940625306375671792013-04-05T02:00:00.002-07:002013-04-05T02:00:47.577-07:00Blog Lovin<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
You can now follow this blog at Blog Lovin<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.bloglovin.com/blog/6781193/?claim=7q2uzxuspee">Follow my blog with Bloglovin</a></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13884362330990669417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6169296175189231930.post-90365504360105134712013-04-04T22:38:00.000-07:002013-04-04T22:44:23.014-07:00Playing the Blame Game<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Its been quite some time since I addressed UK politics in my blog, but its safe to say that I am sufficiently incensed that a good old Cranky Pants style rant is in order.<br />
<br />
The Brits amongst you, whether residing in the Motherland or overseas will, I am no doubt sure be aware of the changes to the benefit systems and also the decrease in the top tax rate from 50% to 45% (as failure to close tax loopholes meant that people were able to get away with not paying it either by backdating their money or holding it over until the new tax rate came into play). Now even with this very cursory and none too detailed description you can probably already work out that these changed were very much skewed in favour of the haves at the expense of the have nots.<br />
<br />
In terms of the benefits, several measures have come in such as the much derided "Bedroom Tax' whereby those in social housing who find themselves with a spare bedroom (because maybe one of their children was lucky enough to be able to actually afford to move out) will see their benefits cut by around 16%. The idea behind this ridiculous attempt at hurting the poor is that those living in larger houses can move into smaller ones thus freeing up larger houses for families. Okay, works in theory. Except that in actuality it doesn't work at all. There are absolutely no where near the number of single dwelling homes needed to shift people out the homes they currently live in so even if people wanted to leave their homes they couldn't and the reduction in benefits further punishes them for no greater crime than being poor already.<br />
<br />
In addition to this many of those on sickness and disability benefits are losing their benefits and pushed into training schemes and before you rush to say that many of them are fakers anyways (as undoubtedly some are, but probably nowhere like the percentage the like of Osborne and the Daily Fail would like to have you believe), its worth bearing in mind that 1700 disabled people died last year within weeks of being found 'fit to work'.<br />
<br />
Alas for the already poor and downtrodden of Britain the case of Mick Philpott and his wife Mairead was tried this week and both were convicted of killing six of their children in a house fire intended to frame Philpott's estranged girlfriend. Rather than focusing on the reality of this case, six innocent children who lost their lives in the perfect storm of poverty and domestic violence, the case has been politicized and Philpott, as practically the poster boy for 'benefit scroungers' (multiple children to multiple partners, criminal convictions and an appearance on the Jeremy Kyle show to boot), has been used by Osborne and the Tory lap dogs at the Mail to highlight everything they see as being wrong with 'poor people'. They have claimed that rather than the culture of domestic violence and extreme control that pervaded the lives of the Philpotts and eventually led to the tragedy that unfolded, that the fact this family largely lived on benefits was reason for this atrocity. And to me this link between being poor and criminal is not only grossly unfair to the majority of those on benefits (and its worth bearing in mind that not everyone receiving benefits are long term unemployed, or even unemployed at all, and of those who are long term unemployed only a small percentage of those are so through choice), unfair to the victims of domestic violence (be they adult or children) as there is the insinuation that it is a crime of the poor when quite clearly evidence presents to the contrary.<br />
<br />
Shamefully, the Philpott children and lives and deaths have now become a footnote in this new Tory era of blaming the less well off for societies woes. Given a further excuse to make the lives of the most vulnerable even worse. When I worked in inner city Manchester I came across families in dire need, families where children came to school hungry, I know more than one colleague who actually used to buy toiletries and school uniforms for their pupils and I don't know a teacher in the whole school I worked in who hadn't fed a student at least once. And it is these children and families that are at risk. Most of these families are not in that position because of Mick Philpott esque parental figures, but because there just wasn't enough money to go round. Younger brothers and sisters got first priority when it came to being fed and a lack of jobs coupled with low levels of education coupled with lack jobs created a vicious circle of poverty that few of those children could escape from.<br />
<br />
But if Osborne has his way, this hardship, this national shame that is going on all around us already and which will be significantly compounded by this latest round of cuts and people will be encouraged to look away because like, Philpott who hopefully will spend the rest of his days behind bars, he would have us believe they deserve all they get.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIdK_EN8zrWNqrMUTNIXO2Hp7x6nvimizkB83zv1WnsjH5NZZ5gk2OGIoFYHJnYsrL4IycBYBMxPQcdOZnnx6CJnYR80W-qdH2o4QlU-C7ffM_KSpomXUZsaOFFjLUYaoyaYY8Y8bmEo_u/s1600/Derby-Philpott-Fam_2525199c.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="199" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIdK_EN8zrWNqrMUTNIXO2Hp7x6nvimizkB83zv1WnsjH5NZZ5gk2OGIoFYHJnYsrL4IycBYBMxPQcdOZnnx6CJnYR80W-qdH2o4QlU-C7ffM_KSpomXUZsaOFFjLUYaoyaYY8Y8bmEo_u/s320/Derby-Philpott-Fam_2525199c.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13884362330990669417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6169296175189231930.post-52231376557468892282013-03-26T23:05:00.000-07:002013-03-27T04:53:30.186-07:00All We Need is Love<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFU-TTt72rmUhfMSgsDx_UnCx4xwicqwmDDbVDl8M5cyI6JcWSGcTtZZ16xEnQSCiVIp24hzJ_-SHZre7Ec6pvEYhVO7xNrzZ1HhE_TUo7gqRTHPxeLgQxRBNDflMqMv2-EoLNskGgkNKU/s1600/5429_633361256693331_1553419052_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="318" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFU-TTt72rmUhfMSgsDx_UnCx4xwicqwmDDbVDl8M5cyI6JcWSGcTtZZ16xEnQSCiVIp24hzJ_-SHZre7Ec6pvEYhVO7xNrzZ1HhE_TUo7gqRTHPxeLgQxRBNDflMqMv2-EoLNskGgkNKU/s320/5429_633361256693331_1553419052_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Yesterday (Tuesday 26th March 2013) the US Supreme Court began their deliberations on whether or not bans on same sex marriage in the US in some states is both legal and constitutional, specifically the case of 'Proposition Eight' or 'Prop 8' as its more widely known. The law in California that denies same sex couples the right to marry. Today (Wednesday 27th March) they will begin to deliberate the Defence of marriage Act. This act denies same sex couples the same rights and mixed sex couples by defining a marriage as between a man and a woman. Neither ruling are expected to be made until sometimes in June, but whilst we wait for these decisions (and very much hope that the right decisions are made) there are still discussions to be had.<br />
<br />
My own position on Same sex marriage is very clear. It should be allowed in all cases, in all states, in all countries and for all who want it. Same sex couples should be subject to and benefit from the same benefits and rights as those in marriages who just happen to have two different kinds of genitalia. I can see no good reason why any loving couple should be denied the right to a life together equal to that of heterosexual couples for no reason better than they both happen to be of the same gender.<br />
<br />
There are numerous 'arguments' put forth against same sex marriage, a great deal of them religious in basis and quoting the bible as their source for this (Leviticus 20:13 and Genesis 19:1-30 being some of the main stays of the genre), yet this conveniently side steps the fact that even those who are religiously inclined side step parts of the bible that by virtue of being somewhere in the region of 3000 years old in the case of the Old Testament, no longer fit in with life in the 21st century. It is a clear cut case of religion being used as an excuse for very earthly prejudices and intolerance. Its worth remembering that in the past Genesis 9:25-27 was used as justification for Slavery, yet there is no one (or very few) who would seriously suggest that Slavery should be brought back on religious grounds. Opposition to Same sex marriage is a prime example of how religion can be used to promote intolerance and give it a veneer or respectability. Thankfully there are a growing number of individuals of all religious persuasions and in a few cases religious denominations and institutions who do not endorse this kind of bigotry and equality, but unfortunately many of the more powerful and institutionalized religions (I'm looking at you Catholicism and Islam and Judaism) are openly homophobic and other smaller fundamentalist churches share this view point. <br />
<br />
And do you know what? I do not understand it. I genuinely do not understand why people have such a problem with the idea of two people who love each other marrying. When you strip it down to its most base points it just seems so ...petty. Because if same sex couples are allowed to marry it does not 'violate natural law'. Homosexuality is not a choice, its just who some people are, a quirk of evolution in the same way that some of us have blue eyes, or red hair or are double jointed, or can run really fast or like Brussels sprouts. Same Sex marriage It does not 'offend God because either like me you don't believe in God in the first place or if you do believe in God you remember that He also told you to 'Love your Neighbour as your self' and that includes your next door neighbour with the same sex partner, or blue eyes or even the one that likes sprouts. But either way lets not pretend that it offends anyone but you.<br />
<br />
There is the argument that same sex marriages can't produce children, but a lot of heterosexual marriages (for a variety of reasons) don't either. Plus despite what the likes of Pope Francis might say Same Sex couples adopting does not 'discriminate against children' . It offers children without families the chance to be part of a warm, nurturing and loving domestic unit. A family.<br />
<br />
And that is the crux of the same sex marriage debate in my eyes. Why in a world where there is so much hate, so much sadness, so much hardship, would we deny people the rights and equalities of being married to the person they love? Why when we live in a world where children are stolen from their beds and forced to kill or be killed are people so offended that same sex couples might take children who find themselves alone in this world into their families and give them a loving and secure upbringing? And at its most basic level why the hell do we even care? It is an issue that should it become enshrined in law will affect exactly none of those who oppose it. Their lives will not change. The only thing that will change is that marriage equality will be extended to all regardless of their sexual orientation. There will be a bit more love in the world. And surely that cannot be a bad thing. </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13884362330990669417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6169296175189231930.post-9107427892164940522013-03-20T22:21:00.000-07:002013-03-20T22:21:25.107-07:00She had it coming...<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Two days ago two sixteen year old high school footballers were convicted of the rape of a sixteen year old girl. What should have been seen as a case of justice being served and perpetrators punished has instead highlighted the issues that still seem to face women and the stigma and appropriation of blame when it comes to sexual assaults.<br />
<br />
The girl in question, was apparently drunk, very drunk. By all accounts unconscious. And this, according to a frightening number of internet commentators seems to be a good enough reason to basically excuse these boys of all blame and plant that blame firmly on the door of the victim. The fact that these two boys were footballers, possibly good enough to have promising careers in the game seems to have compounded the 'blame the victim' culture in this case. Much has been made of how their lives have been ruined at such a young age. In fact CNN, a broadcaster that I have erstwhile admired, aired an exchange between two female journalists, Candy Crawley (a journalist whom I have always liked and respected) and Poppy Harlow, which waxed lyrical and the fate of the these 'poor' boys with scant regard for the victim, in fact she was hardly mentioned. Twitter has been abuzz with people expressing their opinion on the case. The girl has been labelled a slut, a drunk, a whore. There have been accusations that she consented and later cried rape out of embarrassment. At this point I should also point out that the 'poor' boys who perpetrated this horrible crime took photographs of the victim which they shared with their friends.<br />
<br />
The Steubenville rape case highlights a very disturbing trend and one which highlight the real issues we, as women still face in the pursuit of equality. Sexual crimes are still a matter if stigma, they are still a crime where jokes are made, elbows are nudged and where the victim is the one who is violated time and time again after the initial assault. <br />
<br />
And this is true in all manner of cases. An example from earlier in the week, a Facebook group of which I am member had posted upon it an article about a female police officer being groped whilst at work. Cue a number of juvenile, frat house jokes about whether her boobs were any good and letting her frisk them etc etc. When I and another female member of the group pointed out that sexual assault is no laughing matter we were labelled as 'militant feminists', 'pains in the ass' and as having 'no sense of humour'. Obviously on the sliding scale of sexual assaults this is on the less serious end but highlights perfectly the lack of respect with which crimes against women are often treated and displays a stunning lack of understanding of how, even relatively unserious assaults can impact on their victims. <br />
<br />
Regardless of the severity of the assault there seems always to be an unending stream of people (some of them shockingly and despairingly women) who are willing to make excuses for either the crime itself or those who commit them. In the Steubenville case, people blame the victim's inebriation, her dress, her attitude, her reputation, hell one of the defence attorneys even went on Piers Morgan to blame the crime on the fact his client's brain was not sufficiently developed. In the case I talk about above someone went so far as to state that because the victim of the groping was a Vietnamese traffic Police Officer that she was automatically guilty of being corrupt and therefore deserved it. Even in the horrific case in India where a woman and her male companion boarded a bus where she was beaten, gang raped and later died of the horrific injuries she sustained, a religious leader was quick to use the victim's perceived lack of piety coupled with the inebriated state of her attackers to excuse their actions and place the blame on the victim.<br />
<br />
The question is why is there this skewed view when it comes to sexual assaults? Why are some people so afraid to place the blame where it belongs? Why is the victim that often the one that ends up on trial?<br />
<br />
Statistics across the globe support the notion that a vast majority of sexual assaults go unreported, often out of shame or the belief that they will be somehow blamed. Even at the highest level sexual assault is often not treated with the gravity it deserves. Todd Aiken a republican nominee for the Senate in the 2012 election made world news with his comments about 'legitimate rape' whilst his colleague Richard Mourdock made the comment that pregnancy that resulted from rape were 'something that God intended'. Presumably those who think like this have not yet figured out that their mothers, wives, sisters and daughters are women.<br />
<br />
Rather than debating nuances such as the victim's attire or her mental state or her sobriety or her past the message on rape and sexual assault should be this. If she says no, its rape, if she can't consent, its rape, if she tries to fight you off, its rape, if she's wearing a short skirt or a low cut top, or both its not the same as consenting, if she is judgement impaired then that's not consent. We should not have to teach our daughter that she should act in a certain way if she wants to be avoid being sexually assaulted, but we should be teaching our sons how you should treat women. There should be no lamenting of opportunities lost for those convicted of raping a 16 year old girl in Ohio, regardless of their wasted potential. Whilst they may legally be children at sixteen they are old enough to understand the concept of right and wrong, of criminality and of basic human decency. They made a choice and their actions have, very rightly so, had consequences. Yet I can't help but think its the victim who's life has been ruined here and that seems to be a point that a lot of people are missing. </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13884362330990669417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6169296175189231930.post-23339579831236839882012-12-17T22:44:00.000-08:002012-12-17T22:45:42.799-08:00When enough is enough.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
You cannot have failed to have heard about it. Have seen the images of primary school children being led away from their school, the images of a normally stoic and self controlled President of the United States visibly shaken and barely able to hold it together. The images of twenty happy smiling faces whose lives should have just been getting started, the image of six adults who gave their lives so that fewer of their charges would lose theirs, the image of a mother who kept a veritable arsenal of weaponary in her home and taught her children how to use them, the image of a disturbed young man who wiped out 27 lives including his own.<br />
<br />
On Friday the 14th December, a young man, now formally identified as Adam Lanzda, got his hands on his mother's legally owned and registered firearms, shot his mother and headed to Sandy Hook Elementary School. Here he used a high powered rifle to murder twenty children between the ages of six and seven and a further five adults before turning one of the guns on himself.<br />
<br />
Since then the rhetoric has been endless. Those who favour gun control have argued that surely this event, the last in a long line of similar massacres and one of several just in the last twelve months, should lead to increased legislations, those who favour 'packing heat' have given the usual barrage of excuses. They have blamed lone sufferers of mental illness, they have claimed that they need their weapons for self defence, that they like to hunt (and given the nature of some of the high calibre assualt rifles and various other semi automatics that are readily and freely available in the US one can't help but wonder what exactly they are hunting. Orcs? Dragons? T-Rex?), that people who want to break the law still will. And on and on and on. Excuse after excuse after excuse.<br />
<br />
Because that is all that they are. Excuses. Nobody needs to own a firearm. If people want to hunt then they should have to join registered hunting clubs where all weaponary is checked out and returned to a centralised armourary. The self defence excuse doesn't fly because countries that have stringent gun control have fewer instances of gun crime and so the need to defend yourself against an assailant carrying a firearm is much depleted. Also, one needs to bear in mind that we are not talking about people owning a small calibre pistol, which feasibly might be a defence measure, we are talking about people owning multiple weapons, assault rifles, thousands upon thousands of rounds of ammunition. Unless you're house is surrounding by ravening hordes of zombies, just who or what exactly are you defending yourself from?<br />
<br />
The only excuse given thus far that carries even a modicum of credibility is the issue of mental illness. Now, not all perpetrators of gun crime suffer from a mental illness that seriously impairs their ability to judge and moderate their actions, but some do (James Holmes the assailant in the Aurora Cinema attack being an notable example) and there are some serious issues with regards to the treatment and identification of mental illness to be raised from such incidents. However, to even attempt to make these incidents about mental illness is a gross over simplification and misses the bigger picture. Yes, mental illness is a horrible, isolating and debilitating thing to suffer from and it deserves its own forum, but, and this is a big but, it is not the mental illness but the easy acquisition of firearms that is the issue at play. Of course people suffering mental illness that do not have access to firearms do go out and commit violence against both others and themselves, but the scope for destruction is radically decreased. Had Lanza walked into that school armed with any weapon other than firearms would 27 people be dead today? It is unlikely. Without access to firearms would men like Lanza even attempt these act, for the most part, I again, think not. Even in incidents where mental illness (and by this I'm generally excluding pyschopathy) there is a huge difference between the detachment of shooting strangers and the act of physically attacking them in a more up close and personal way.<br />
<br />
In short, with stricter gun control, without people claiming their constitutional rights to keep weapons that are made for no reason other than death in their homes, without people claiming that schools should have armed guards or that more civilians should be armed, without people being able to stock pile assault weapons in preparation for the 'end of days' , without people claiming 'guns don't kill people, people do' (which whilst undeniably true ignores the fact that it make it a hell of a lot easier), would have saved dozens of lives (possibly hundreds and maybe even thousands if we factor in all gun related deaths in the US) just this year. Tighter gun control would mean that first responders at Virgina Tech would not have had to endure the horror of listening to cell phones going of in the pockets of dead students as their anxious, desperate families tried to reach them to see if they were ok, 12 people's fun night out at the cinema wouldn't have cost them their lives and there wouldn't be 20 Christmas Trees in Newtown, CT with Christmas presents sitting under them that will never be opened...<br />
<br />
Thus far the NRA and other major gun lobbyists have kept a low profile and those gun enthusiasts who have spoken out have been unable to offer anything more useful than that schools should have armed guards and metal detectors. And these people seem to miss the point, the 'thin end of the wedge' situation that they are creating.<br />
<br />
Why people are so attached to their guns I do not know, as someone who grew up in a country with stringent gun control its not a mentality I understand. Maybe its fear, maybe it makes them feel more important, maybe they are purely constitutional pedants, but the fact of the matter is that the current gun laws across the US are simply not fit for purpose and people are dying as a result. And I will say this and I believe it wholeheartedly, those Americans who believe in loose gun control and the availability of automatic weapons are complicit in these acts. Every excuse that the pro gun contingent make is a spot of blood on their hands. Every person that cites their Second Amendment rights is in some small way culpable. You have placed a higher value on a piece of metal than on the lives of your children and there is no condoning this.<br />
<br />
If you live in the US and want to help bring about the tighter gun control that could save lives there are a few things you can do.<br />
<br />
1. Get in touch with politicians at a federal, state and local level. Ask them their views on gun control, tell them yours. Make them accountable<br />
2. Don't vote for candidates that accept money from the NRA or other gun lobbyist<br />
3. Get involved in One Million Children March on D.C https://www.facebook.com/1millionkidstoDC<br />
4. Be engaged, talk about it, tweet about it. Keep it front and centre.<br />
<br />
Finally, I'd like to take a moment to remember those children who won't be going to bed on Christmas eve filled with excitement at the prospect of the following day, who won't have graduations and weddings and children of their own. I'd like to take a moment to remember the adults who died trying to protect them and a moment to remember those families, hundreds and hundreds of them through the years, who have huge holes in their lives where their loved ones should be simply so gun enthusiasts can keep their weapons of death.<br />
<br />
This blog is dedicated to the memory of<br />
Emilie Parker Age 6<br />
Lauren Rousseau Age 30<br />
Ana Marquez-Green Age 6<br />
Dawn Hochsprung<br />
Noah Pozner Age 6<br />
Mary Sherlach<br />
Jesse Lewis Age 6<br />
Avielle Richman Age 6<br />
Caroline Previdi Age 6<br />
Nancy Lanza<br />
Catherine Hubbard Age 6<br />
Charlotte Bacon Age 6<br />
Chase Kowalski Age 7<br />
Daniel Barden Age 7<br />
Dylan Hockley Age 6<br />
Anne Marie Murphy Age 52<br />
Jessica Rekos Age 6<br />
Josephine Gay Age 7<br />
James Mattioli Age 6<br />
Olivia Engel Age 6<br />
Victoria Soto Age 27<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13884362330990669417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6169296175189231930.post-73205757762662718272012-08-13T19:06:00.001-07:002012-08-13T19:06:57.154-07:00Isles Of Wonder<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
This is not the normal Cranky Pants offering. Mostly because my pants are anything but cranky. In fact my pants are filled with joy, pride, optimism and verve and are covered in in Union Flags.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhz1uvdtM8m22LU2RHw364pGbEEQax3lXc2hkJyOf5iaGBEG6KO5-O0YKWc-QuPRle5eEt2pdGKV6PmiXuxbTcxtK-Fu0k5UhcVtyb4pEOyLRo22FQzIyMrOWLhq_ypzO6xVM2aYwgjT4f/s1600/union+jack+underwear+patch.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="307" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhz1uvdtM8m22LU2RHw364pGbEEQax3lXc2hkJyOf5iaGBEG6KO5-O0YKWc-QuPRle5eEt2pdGKV6PmiXuxbTcxtK-Fu0k5UhcVtyb4pEOyLRo22FQzIyMrOWLhq_ypzO6xVM2aYwgjT4f/s320/union+jack+underwear+patch.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
And the reason for this new found joy? Well its the Olympics of course. After 16 wonderful, exciting drama filled days they drew to a close on Sunday and whilst I'm currently suffering from the mother of all Olympic hangovers, I can't help but suspect that in some infinitesimal way I'm a better person for them. And I would put money on the fact I'm not the only one.<br />
<br />
Like a lot of people whilst I wasn't opposed or especially skeptical about the Games but I was certainly apathetic. I liked the idea, but I'm not 'into athletics' so I wasn't so fussed. I vaguely rolled my eyes at news of mounting costs, because whilst the Games cost an obscene amount of money to host, its worth bearing in mind that a significant proportion of this goes back into the British economy through the jobs it provides, particularly in construction, an area of the economy incredibly hard hit by the recent economic downturn.<br />
<br />
It was definitely a slow burn run up. The timing helped. The Queen's Jubilee (and last year's Royal Wedding) got the Union Flags out and then the Euros got us into the mood for some international sport. There were some wobbles along the way, culminating in the G4S fiasco and Mitt Romney telling the press that he basically thought it might all go a bit Pete Tong.<br />
<br />
When the eve (or the unearthly hour of the morning in my case) of the Opening Ceremony came around people in general seemed to have warmed up to the idea of the Games (though there were still plenty of doomsayers to be found), though I suspect many people tuned into to see just how bad it might be. And then there it was.<br />
<br />
Danny Boyle's opening ceremony, his love letter to Britain. It was wacky, confusing (especially for those people who don't know who Isambard Kingdom Brunel was), a bit chaotic and absolutely wonderful. It started with 'Our green and pleasant land' set to the tune of Jerusalem, Danny Boy, Flower of Scotland and Bread of Heaven sung by the Four Nations choirs. I can't lie I was a sobbing mass of snot and tears before they hit the second verse. From there it highlighted the History of our wonderful isles from the Industrial revolution, through women's suffrage, the Windrush and the wars. It was a powerful, emotive and utterly gutteral experience set to the sound of Underworld's I will Kiss You featuring the amazing Dame Evelyn Glennie (who was clearly channeling her inner Gaga with her look), the sound of the drums, the enormous smoke stacks forging the giant Olympic rings, it left me breatheless.<br />
<br />
And set the tone for the entire games. Fun, informal, dramatic and utterly British they showed us all at our very, very best. Our athletes showed what could be achieved when sufficient time and funding is given to them with a medal haul that we barely imagined two weeks earlier. The athletes played as a team and we got behind that Team. And this was what the games really did for us. It made us a team. The medals helped, of course, but it was the feeling of a collective identity and common goal that really made the games. Even here in Malaysia I felt like I was part of that Team, that it was something we all shared. For the first time I really understood the power of sport. How it can bring us together and unite us behind a common goal. And you know what, I LOVED being British. I loved it. I'll miss it a lot when the next big sporting event rolls around that will no doubt divide us back up into our respective smaller nations. And I hate that it will no doubt be the football, where we don't have a decent team between the four of us.<br />
<br />
The Games gave us so much not least in that it brought to the fore games other than Football. It gave us real role models. One's that we can all identify with. It showed us that you don't need to be earning 200k a week to be a sporting great. It introduced sports that some of us had never heard of (the Omnium anyone?) and brought them front and centre. I know I certainly wasn't the only one who found myself watching Kayaking or Women's weightlifting on a Wednesday afternoon. The athletes themselves ran, cycled, swam, jumped, rode, danced, tweeted, smiled and cried their way through the games and into all our hearts. The whole thing was one massive two week group hug and now its over, I'm feeling the cold.<br />
<br />
Like the Opener, the Closing ceremony once again showed its unique Britishness. Parts of it were crap and left me wondering at just what they were thinking (the Supermodels? Really?) but other parts were brilliant and random and quirky. Plus they had the Spice Girls on top of glittery Black Cabs. It was a great big party, but brought with it a melancholy that the one thing that made us collectively happy probably since the end of the Second World War was coming to an end. I know I wasn't the only shouting "No Boris, don't let them have it' when he handed over the flag to Brazil (whilst hoping against hope that Boris didn't set it on fire on the Olympic Flame). It ended with Take That. With Gary Barlow, embodying the very spirit of the Olympic ideal, albeit in a different arena, showing strength, control and emotional fortitude in the saddest circumstances imaginable.<br />
<br />
So thank you Lord Coe for your sterling work it making it happen. Thank you John Major for being the reason we have lottery funding in the first place. Thank you Tony Blair and Gordon Brown for bidding, thank you Boris for being a bumbling buffoon, but an amiable and entertaining one. You've been hugely supportive as Mayor of London, plus you gave us "Boris dangles from a zip wire' and "Boris dances to the Spice Girls' both worth their weight in Mars Bars. Thank you to the people of London for your patience in the face of what must have been massively inconvenient for many of you, Thank you David Cameron for extending the lottery funding through to Rio (though I still think you are a buttock faced pillock and we need to talk about your attitude to sport in schools), thank you to the Post Box painters of Yorkshire who were kept incredibly busy, thank you to the volunteers, the Gamesmakers who worked incredibly hard and were, by all accounts wonderful ambassadors for our country. Thank you to all the athletes who were incredible. Who showed us what hard work and determination looks like. Who showed us what sporting success looks like, who taught us what real sportsmanship looked like and conducted themselves with good humour, discipline and were justly rewarded. And lastly, but by no means least, thank YOU. My fellow Brit, my compatriot, my team member. We showed how much better we can be when we stand together and forget how much we like to complain, if only for a fortnight.<br />
<br />
I'll be back, no doubt, in full on Cranky Pants mode but until then...<br />
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13884362330990669417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6169296175189231930.post-89252099821529717352012-05-29T04:25:00.001-07:002012-05-29T04:25:53.669-07:00Flights of Angels<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
This post is dedicated to the children who have lost their lives this week both in the Doha Mall fire and in the Houla Massacre.<br />
<br />
My heart hurts. It actually hurts. Its almost unbearable. This week has seen the loss of innocent lives on a scale its almost impossible to comprehend.<br />
<br />
In what is undoubtedly the worst atrocity since the Arab Spring began 108 people, many of whom were children in Syria's Houla region, were summarily executed, Reports say most of these received single bullet wounds to the head. The culprits are reported to be the Army under the orders of President Bashar Assad.<br />
<br />
The horror of this massacre comes after over a year of violence is Syria and mounting pressure from the international community on Assad's regime. It leaves me wondering how far things have to go in Syria before that same international community step in.<br />
<br />
The second is a tragedy on a smaller scale, but that has touched me more deeply and more personally. At 11am local time on Monday 28th May 2012 a fire broke out in the Villagio shopping centre in the capital of the Gulf nation Qatar, Doha. A fire that was to claim the lives of 19 people, 13 of these young children, little more than babies. Whilst the cause of the fire, is at this time, unconfirmed, what is known is that the fire caused a stair case leading to a nursery school to collapse, thereby trapping the children and their teachers inside the burning building. Fire fighters attempted to break through the ceiling to rescue them and two lost their lives in the process, but alas in vain.<br />
<br />
I lived in Doha for several years, shopped in that mall, was part of that community and I will admit, this event has hit me harder than expected it could. I don't know any of the families personally and yet my heart is utterly broken for them. At least two families lost three children in the blaze and it is hard to imagine that these families will ever fully be able to heal from such a loss. As a parent I have spent a lot of time looking at my own children today and in turn counting my blessings and feeling horror and anguish at the thought of what it must be like to have your children taken so suddenly and so young. Imagining what it must have been like for those children, not much more than babies, a million what ifs in my head. And what I am feeling probably does not even scratch the surface of what these families, families from across the globe, are going through right now. Families who have lost children, those lives that will never reach their potential. I'm not a religious woman, but if anything would make you hope for something after this world, it is a tragedy like this, like Houla. Tragedies in which the most innocent of us pay the price.<br />
<br />
Tonight I hugged my kids extra tight before they went to bed. My bigger girl got an extra story and and when, as she does every night she attempted to get me to hand over some extra smarties, I gave them to her. Because I am one of the lucky ones. Tonight, I got to put my kids to bed, to kiss them goodnight, in the morning we'll have breakfast. I'll nag at my eldest to eat her breakfast, brush her teeth, put her shoes on. I'll trip over my baby boy as he crawls around whilst I'm trying to get everyone ready. And I'll be grateful. Because tonight not everyone is so lucky...</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13884362330990669417noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6169296175189231930.post-74888205088831432012012-05-22T20:41:00.000-07:002012-05-22T20:41:19.496-07:00Why Zumba can save the world.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I woke up this morning, it was dark, I'd slept badly and was woken from the middle of really interesting dream (I was lion if you're interested, a talking one) and I won't lie I was not in a good mood. In fact, had I been a cartoon character I would have had big cartoon bags under my eyes and a black cloud over the top of my head. I did my usual early morning stuff and then trudged to gym for my Zumba class. In fact trudged might be too tame a word. Stomp, might put it better. An hour later I was red faced, sweaty had almost lost my balance at least three times had ground to a halt in confusion twice and been stood on by the woman next to me once. And, I was (and still am) in a brilliant mood. Yes, of course I know a large part of it is the endorphins, a rush I could most likely have gotten doing any kind of physical exertion, but there is something a bit different about something like Zumba and this is why, I think, it can save the world.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.zumba.com/" target="_blank">(Zumba</a> is, for those who are unaware of its existence a latin dance based exercise class that popped up a few years ago and seems to have been on the rise ever since.)<br />
<br />
So let imagine, that every morning of the G20 summit, or the G8, or any get together of the UN, or basically anywhere that those people who make decisions that the rest of us have to live with gather to make said decisions, all those people had to have a big Zumba class. I genuinely believe the world would be a happier place. Its a lot harder to be cross with someone who you have just busted out a high energy cardio workout routine to LMFAO's 'I'm Sexy and I know it' with. Even when the lady next to me stood on me and put a big mark on my new trainers I just smiled and shrugged it off. If that had happened an hour previously I would have cut the bitch. Another reason it has to be Zumba is that it is completely non competitive. You could get them to run round the park together, but that would turn into a race, you could send them to the gym but that would turn into a competition to see who could lift more, team games are right out for obvious reasons. But Zumba is a level playing field. 99% of the people who do it are at best mediocre, a significant number of those are completely crap. (In the class I would say out the 50 or so people about 5 are decent and one of them is the instructor, I look like I'm fighting off a swarm of angry bees whilst running across hot flag stones and there is a lady who appears to be dancing to an entirely different set of songs to the rest of us) Yet every single one loves the class, comes out smiling. You catch someones eye during a turn and smile at each other, you're are in it together. A flailing mass of uncoordinated limbs united in the sheer joy of putting your hands in the air like you don't care.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHyj3zci1lJ5tj3bQBwFKLjnewcFRmTUnPAa0ty_zBF3kiTmHkc7zXRBFP2iHgjh98Ha5CGjkJ9s7tEqxFkSbtdfJDHNs3DYKgFm7Dl5z7p7vBc6YNJbelsrNl4rB6C2Nw-Nw19P2dz4_D/s1600/david-cameron_1406449c.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHyj3zci1lJ5tj3bQBwFKLjnewcFRmTUnPAa0ty_zBF3kiTmHkc7zXRBFP2iHgjh98Ha5CGjkJ9s7tEqxFkSbtdfJDHNs3DYKgFm7Dl5z7p7vBc6YNJbelsrNl4rB6C2Nw-Nw19P2dz4_D/s320/david-cameron_1406449c.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
So lets make Putin, Cameron, Merkel, Hollande, Obama and the rest bust a move every morning. It won't make the problems go away but it might make them feel a bit more like they want to work together to solve them. (Plus it would make Parliament TV a lot more interesting than it is most of the time) </div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13884362330990669417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6169296175189231930.post-62588200008781290672012-05-21T23:58:00.000-07:002012-05-21T23:58:35.162-07:00Bricking It<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Oh she's at it again. Many of you have probably read <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2124246/Samantha-Brick-downsides-looking-pretty-Why-women-hate-beautiful.html" target="_blank">this article</a> in which journalist (and I use that word in its loosest possible sense), Samatha Brick bemoaned the fact that women hate her purely for the crime of being pretty (conveniently omitting the fact that having read the article it was apparent to many of us that women didn't like her not because she's prettier than us, but because she doesn't really come across as someone you'd especially want to be friends with). She received a massive backlash across several mediums, including twitter, made the news in the US and reached a certain level of international infamy. Not content with her 15 minutes of fame Ms Brick is back with<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2147212/Samantha-Brick-Independence-A-career-Who-needs-A-husband-prizes-looks-key.html" target="_blank"> this</a> . Here she extols the virtues of life as trophy wife, valued for her looks not her mind. And I won't lie, I'm a little bit frightened.<br />
<br />
Almost every woman I know who has read this article has rolled her eyes and responses have ranged from stomping around the house muttering profanities (mine) to questioning just how tenable her position is if this is really how she views herself. Leaving aside for a moment the very serious issues such the message articles such as this send out to young women as to what a relationship should be, she seems herself unaware of the fact that if the scenario she puts out for us, is in fact the reality of her relationship, she's on borrowed time. Her husband is in control of everything in her life from money to her weight and looking good is her job within the relationship. She appears ignorant (willfully or not) of the fact that her looks and youth will not last forever. And if her husband, regardless of the love and respect she claims they do share despite the fact that she is viewed (and views herself) in such light, no longer feels she fulfils her end of the bargain, what then?<br />
<br />
Its safe to say that Samantha Brick is not my kind of woman.<br />
<br />
Whilst Ms Brick, in isolation, is an irritant, just the Daily Fail stirring the proverbial latrine, it is part of a bigger and slightly more worrying trend that seems determined to set women back fifty years or so. There are the machinations of <a href="http://crankypantsatlarge.blogspot.com/2011/08/big-step-back.html" target="_blank">Nadine Dorries</a> and her ilk who are actively campaigning for significant changes to the current abortion laws in the UK and the way that education on this matter is approached. In America although it has gone a little quieter in the light on President Obama's statement in favour of same sex marriage, the battle over the right to access abortion rages in many states and the argument over whether employers should be made to cover contraceptive costs for female employees. Women and their role in the world seems to be firmly front and centre, but there seems to be huge debate over just what that role should be. Brick and those like her would have us all nothing but purely decorative, there to stroke our men's egos (amongst other things, she claims to be a 'consummate professional both in the kitchen and the bedroom'), the likes of Dorries would have us returned to the 1950's when our bodies were not our own, men like Rush Limbaugh would label us as <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/07/rush-limbaugh-s-sandra-fluke-slut-remark-and-more-crazy-comments.html" target="_blank">'sluts' and 'over educated but not necessarily intelligent'</a> for daring to speak our minds on issues that effect us. Even the women who we should be able to hold up as examples, women like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman, women who, regardless of your opinion on their politics have climbed to the top of their professions, yet still pander to the idea that women are somewhat less than their male counterparts. Bachman herself famously stated during her run as a presidential nominee that a wife should 'obey' her husband.<br />
<br />
So where do we go from here? Will we continue or march forward and be allowed control of our bodies, careers and god dammit out wardrobes? I for one hope so, the alternative is just too scary to contemplate...<br />
<br />
What do you all think? Feel free to leave you comments below.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13884362330990669417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6169296175189231930.post-17752668484067346822012-03-12T22:18:00.000-07:002012-03-12T22:18:43.900-07:00How Do You Solve a Problem Like Bashar?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Unless you live under a rock or exist in some parallel university where newspapers, 24 hour television news and Twitter don't exist you'll be aware that there is something of a situation in Syria. A situation that is, tantamount to a genocide in the eyes of some people, a situation that is costing the lives of hundreds of innocent men, women and children all in the cause of keeping Bashar Al Assad and his regime in power. Its not an unfamiliar scenario. It was one that was played out only a short while a go in Libya. The only real difference is the reaction. Whilst a myriad of countries including the USA, UK, France and Qatar were quick to condemn the situation in Libya and the Ghaddafi regime and support that condemnation through a variety of military and diplomatic actions, this time round many of these countries are less quick to commit. Whilst most politicians across the globe have expressed their horror at what is happening in Syria, many have removed their diplomatic missions and dismissed Syrian diplomats from their countries, beyond that they seem hesitant to act. A UN security council resolution on the issue was vetoed by both Russia and China and the situation remains in a holding pattern. And whilst the men and women in power hold their breathes and mark time the death toll rises and the atrocities mount.<br />
<br />
So the big question here is 'Why'? Many would counter that this question has a brutally simple answer. Oil. Syria doesn't have any. There is nothing to be gained or lost by the continuing situation for the majority of countries who would be best placed to intervene. Its close relationship with Iran, a country long viewed with suspicion by much of the world, might be another factor. This is, quite obviously, an appalling state of affairs and one that sits very uncomfortably with the majority of decent people who care about the lives of others and feel that a government is there to serve its people and not the other way round. Go through your Twitter feed or check your Facebook news feed. Thousands of people around the world are watching in horror and asking 'Why aren't we doing anything?.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, to many policy makers this makes perfect sense. Whilst they decry the actions of Assad and his government they are simply not willing to put lives and hard cash on the line for something which is not in the interest of their countries. Its a terrible state of affairs, but in a world where the global economy is in free fall, we're all still reeling from the failed war in Iraq and the failing one in Afghanistan and a US election year, everyone is more cautious.<br />
<br />
So what can be done? Clearly its not a situation that can be allowed to continue. The question lies in just whose job sorting out this mess should be. The UN is currently stymied, at least until such time as China and Russia change their position (and there is immense pressure on them to do so), individual countries such as the US and UK are reluctant to act outside of this for both political and economic reasons. So who should it be?<br />
<br />
In my opinion its time for the Arab world to step up and take action. There have been stirrings of it. The Arab League have been attempting to mediate in countries such as Yemen, Qatar has been highly vocal in its condemnation of the various regimes whom have been challenged by the Arab Spring. Its a solution that makes sense. Western intervention in incidents in the region has been fraught with problems. Lack of cultural understanding on the side of the western forces, a feeling of being 'occupied' by those being aided and alas, often a general lack of understanding and respect from both sides mean that whilst western intervention can get rid of one problem it can often cause a greater one and the impact of this can be far reaching. The events of the last 10 years in general and specific events in the more recent past are testament to this. By using Arab forces, not only would the region be empowered with the idea that they can be the makers of their own destinies, something which a number of these nations are now beginning to realise, but it nips many of these problems in the bud. The problems work both ways and are creating further division and giving those who would damage international relationships fuel to their fire. Had Arab forces been fully involved in current international situations mistakes such as the recent Quran burning might never have happened, the trashing of the Commonwealth War Cemetery in Libya, in the wake of the UK's intervention might never have occurred, or at least might not have left quite such a feeling of distaste in so many mouths. In addition to the cultural aspects, The Arab League contains a number of incredibly wealthy countries. Qatar alone was very recently estimated to have somewhere in the region of 9.5 Trillion dollars worth of hydrocarbon reserves. They can afford to fund military action within the region. In addition greater involvement of other Arab countries in the reconstruction period could help these countries find what better suits them. I also feel that by letting the Arab world 'keep its own house in order' so to speak, it could have a positive impact on relationships between not only the Arab world, but the wider Muslim world and the West. Greater influence within their own regions coupled with an increased profile on the world stage, I feel would lead to greater understanding between nations and lead to a decrease in conflict and prejudice on both sides.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13884362330990669417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6169296175189231930.post-7703891231242265612012-03-09T02:42:00.000-08:002012-03-09T02:42:12.081-08:00A new start.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">I initially started this blog a while back to replace one that never really got off the ground and wasn't really going in the direction I wanted. A couple of the posts found their way here and then real life got in the way and this one was pretty much abandoned too. I'm hoping to blog a bit more regularly from now on.<br />
<br />
This blog will cover a wide range of topics. I live outside my home country so I have my finger in a lot of different pies, so to speak. You're every bit as likely to read an article about things going on in South East Asia, the States or the Middle East as you are about happenings in the UK. One post might be about a parenting issue, another an educational one, another a political one, and, well you get the picture. My interests are eclectic and this blog will also be eclectic. Please feel free to comment on what you read. I love spirited discussion and as adults I'd like us to be able to share our opinions, however, abuse either towards me or other commentators won't be tolerated and I'll simply remove your comments. </div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13884362330990669417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6169296175189231930.post-25328755906330320652012-03-09T01:52:00.001-08:002012-03-09T04:31:21.921-08:00In it together?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">So Kony 2012. Its the latest viral video and unlike many it carries a message. Those of you haven't seen it can view it <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4MnpzG5Sqc">here</a> . I think you'll agree its emotive stuff. Whilst the video is being seen across the world thanks to the power of Twitter, Facebook and other social media, the backlash to this seemingly well meaning campaign has, of course, begun in earnest. Many, including the Guardian's Michael Wilkerson, who posted <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/08/kony-2012-campaign-oprah-and-bracelets?intcmp=239">this article</a> and the Daily Want who posted this <a href="http://tumblr.thedailywh.at/post/18909727859/on-kony-2012-i-honestly-wanted-to-stay-as-far?fwcc=1&fwcl=1&fwl">article</a> have criticised both its methods and its aims. The main complaints, from both talking with people about the phenomena and reading the numerous articles dedicated to it, seem to be that the campaign is naive, that its too narrow in scope, that its not addressing the heart of the problem, that the problem isn't as bad as the film leads us to believe, that the film maker is being less than altruistic in his motives, that by targeting US policy makers its not targetting the right people. And I can't help but think that in all but the last point, which I concede willingly, its all a bit, well, picky.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwOGBMWXU_GTtDnsnNR2uBdhrQwU5bNsPEnMS6aJA93GyZ2m1iZwY62V5o0qg6_geNazliEWyzrsmBv3w2Sj1LDokfa9pLgJnJ9tjsCVWGbxkpXsCQkIxcojJdxnDlTQAHzocJEI3C5u1J/s1600/245696-stop-kony-2012.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwOGBMWXU_GTtDnsnNR2uBdhrQwU5bNsPEnMS6aJA93GyZ2m1iZwY62V5o0qg6_geNazliEWyzrsmBv3w2Sj1LDokfa9pLgJnJ9tjsCVWGbxkpXsCQkIxcojJdxnDlTQAHzocJEI3C5u1J/s320/245696-stop-kony-2012.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
From the off I will state that this blog is op ed. I'm not affiliated in anyway with the Kony 2012 campaign, Invisible Children Inc or Tri. These are just my opinions, but something that I felt sufficiently strongly about to merit writing about after a fairly extended hiatus from the blog (and one that will hopefully give me the impetus to actually blog a bit more often!). This is not a 'rebuttal' of particular article, simply my two cents on what is fast turning into a contentious issue.<br />
<br />
Whilst there are issues regarding the legitimacy of the charity and how the money is spent, I'm only going address, that fleetingly, purely as I know very little about how charities are organised and administered and the percentage of money that generally makes it to where we think it does whenever we make a charitable donation. I won't talk about things from a position of ignorance so I will work on the assumption that the article in the Daily Want, which does address this has done its homework, and I will concede to them that the charity needs to look at how its funds are being disseminated.<br />
<br />
One of my biggest concerns when reading pretty much any of the criticisms of the video and the campaign seems to be the tendency to down play the issue that Jason Russell and his cohorts are trying to bring to light. Yes, Joseph Kony isn't the baddest of the bad guys out there. Yes, he might not be responsible for quite so many kidnappings and murders (at least in recent years) as the video might lead us to believe, Yes, the video might turn out to be fruitless in the attempt to capture and bring to trial Joseph Kony. However, in my opinion, all these criticisms miss the point and in doing so do a grave disservice to the video, those who are behind it and the millions of people across the world who have taken this cause to heart.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizfR4Ls0_KndkVCYv3IETzsL9v_S7I0fKJZd9HK8pWnF3tjv7hLVjr91rwfPSb7D_vYxwBfxPPPRvdM5UmwCWjAAYw9B8FxZs1z8oLosLebiYEuRO4Xi9GljhHgn5KyQ23nrZ7QiP-x8r2/s1600/child+soldier.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizfR4Ls0_KndkVCYv3IETzsL9v_S7I0fKJZd9HK8pWnF3tjv7hLVjr91rwfPSb7D_vYxwBfxPPPRvdM5UmwCWjAAYw9B8FxZs1z8oLosLebiYEuRO4Xi9GljhHgn5KyQ23nrZ7QiP-x8r2/s320/child+soldier.jpg" width="262" /></a></div><br />
<br />
It is clear from the outset of the video, from the very personal nature of the way the video is structured that this is a cause close to Russell's heart. His desire to bring this cause to light stems from his real encounters with real people who lived this. None but the most cynical and hardened of us could fail to be touched by the young Jacob's very candid views on just what life was like and its lack of worth to him in his situation. I'm sure there are some who are accusing Russell of gaining fame off the backs of those less fortunate. To those, I say, more power to him. There are people who are famous for a lot less and for a lot worse. If professional success happens to be a by product of this particular project, is anyone seriously going to say he doesn't deserve it? Russell cites a desire to create a better world for his son, again, why is that so wrong? In a world where the value of the legacy you leave behind is counted increasingly the number of material possessions you amass, why is this idealism so misplaced?<br />
<br />
Several articles have also cited the fact that Kony is relatively 'small time'. To me, this is the poorest and most diabolical of any of the arguments against the campaign. This argument supposes that value of life lies in the quantity of those taken and that it renders the campaign somehow fruitless. Why? Why does the fact that according to critics of the campaign Kony's recent victims number only in the hundreds some how mean that it is a less worthy cause (this view also ignores the fact that the 30,000 children that have fallen victim to the Lord's Resistance Army over the last 30 years.)? What if that was your child? Or your neighbour's? Or the person you stood next to at the bus stop everyday? If this happened to only one child in most societies, there would be uproar, there would be parents on the street, it would be on every 24 hour news channel around the clock. We would care. That life would matter ever bit as if it were 100. So why is this situation any different? Why are these children's lives so much cheaper in our eyes? <br />
<br />
There have also been accusations thrown at those who support the cause of 'fauxtivism'. Again, I find this a cheap dig. Another thing this movement has managed to do, that others have more than failed to, is galvanise people in their hundreds, if not thousands. Its showing people that no one is too small or too busy or too unimportant to make a difference. In a world that is increasingly selfish its shown us that by uniting behind a common purpose everyone has the the ability to make a difference. It might be a small thing, but a lot of people doing a small thing creates a big thing. One of my biggest beefs with this particular line of criticism is that it undermines this principles. It reinforces the idea that we can't make a difference so why should we bother? Accuse the people involved in this cause of naivety and idealism all you want but its certainly better than the stony cynicism echoed in this particular sentiment.<br />
<br />
Many have countered that Kony himself is unworthy of the prominence he is receiving and again, I say, 'So What?' Kony is just one warlord, just one of the many butchers of children in the heart of Africa, but all things start somewhere. Its true, these men should be as well known as the George Clooney's, Rihanna's and Angelina's of this world. People should know who these men are and just what they do. Why not start with Kony? The message it sends is sound. That we will no longer stand for such brazen criminality, that these children are important to the world. Just because Kony isn't the biggest fish in the pond, it doesn't mean he should be allowed to remain in it.<br />
<br />
I'll be the first to admit that there are intrinsic flaws in the campaign. The financial administration, its support of military intervention, its tacit support of corrupt regimes in Uganda. Yet, somehow this has done what countless of other charities and causes have failed to do. It's roused people. It's touched people. At the time of writing approximately 5 million people around the world have watched the video. That's 5 million people who now know Joseph Kony's name. That's 5 million people who now know that there are children that are afraid to go to sleep in their own beds for fear of what the night might bring. That's 5 million people who might never have realised they had a voice who know believe that they can make a difference and that they matter in the grand scheme of things.<br />
<br />
The strength of Kony 2012 lies not just in the immediate results in which the campaign hopes to effect but in that which it instils in others, knowledge, understanding, compassion, humility, cooperation, the belief that we have the power to change things for the better. Those who criticise the campaign and its methods should look not at what it wants to achieve but possibly can't, but what it already has.<br />
<br />
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13884362330990669417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6169296175189231930.post-32883326494579328222011-08-02T22:27:00.001-07:002012-03-09T03:20:01.561-08:00A big step back<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: justify;">Originally posted 6th June 2011 </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Things are getting scary. The Christian Right are getting their claws into social politics and social conservatism is rearing its head in a big way. Abstinence based education is being endorsed and anti - abortion groups are going into the business of main stream government.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">But this is not the Tea Party's vision for America, it is the reality facing Britain in 2011 under the appalling ConDem coalition. Conservative MP, Nadine Dorries found herself in hot water a few weeks back, when, whilst endorsing her ideas on abstinence based sex education in schools, she insinuated (either purposefully or as a result of very poor skill of articulation - I'll let you be the judge of that) that if more teenagers said 'no' that sexual abuse would be drastically curtailed. At best a foolishly poorly worded statement, at worst a frightening insight into this woman's views of those most vulnerable in our society. And now it appears that the Conservatives (and by virtue their coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats) have decided to take this further. Several weeks ago it was reported that the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) have been 'disinvited' from the governments new Sexual Health Advisory Board and replaced by the pro life group, Life. Life are against abortion in <i>all </i>circumstances lean heavily towards an abstinence based approach to sex education. I addition to this a new amendment to abortion legislation is being pushed through by Dorries and her pals. This addition to existing abortion legislation will mean that women seeking terminations, for whatever reason, will be required, by law to undergo a 'counselling session' with an organisation that does not carry out abortions. And its part of a bigger organisation known as Right to Know. In the interests of fairness I will point out that Dorries partner in crime in the former Labour minister Frank Field.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Currently the backlash to these, what can only be described as legalised incursions into our civil rights and personal lives, are causing much consternation and a big Pro Choice rally has been organised and is due to take place on July 7th. Foremost amongst those who see the threat of Dorries and her ilk and their attempts to push through antiquated and morally judgmental legislation is Labour MP Dianne Abbott and she had this to say;</div><ul class="article-attributes" style="text-align: justify;"><div data-global-auto-refresh-switch="on" id="article-wrapper"><div id="article-body-blocks"><blockquote class="tr_bq">"We cannot allow Nadine Dorries and some of the anti-abortion groups currently advising the government to turn the clock back for millions of women," said Abbott. "Mainstream medical opinion is united in its agreement that, when carried out in a legal setting where sterile facilities are available, abortion is a safe procedure carrying a low risk of complications. "And we must not underestimate the chilling news that the government has appointed anti-abortion group Life to their expert advisory group on sexual health. This appointment, coupled with the retraction of an invite to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, one of the UK's leading abortion providers, signals a dangerous move." She added: "Increasingly, people up and down the country are looking to take a stand against what they see as an attempt to chip away at abortion access for women in England, Scotland and Wales. "There is a rising tide of opposition and concern about the agenda being pushed by figures in this Tory-led government, and David Cameron must come clean on where the Tories now stand on a woman's right to choose." (The Guardian, Sunday 5th June 2011)</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Depending on your own personal stance on the abortion question you may applaud or deride the actions on either side. Personally, as some one who is passionately Pro Choice (which is not the same as being Pro Abortion any more that being Anti Abortion automatically makes you Pro Life), I fail to see the good in it. Of course the argument that the new amendment would promote a greater understanding of the choice being made and allow women to make a more informed decision will be put forward in defence of this. In theory, yes. However, the truth of the matter is quite the opposite. Women should be educated and they should be informed. The decision to terminate a pregnancy should not be one that is made lightly. But that is not what the Right to Know campaign is offering. Instead it is taking women, many of whom will never again feel more frightened, alone or vulnerable and it is bullying them. By subjecting them to counselling by a biased and subjective body they will not be given the necessary information and support to make the 'right' decision (something which is highly dependent on the individual circumstances, not the agenda of an anti abortion organisation), if anything women, already facing, for many of them the hardest decision they will ever have to make, will be left feeling guilty, confused and utterly, utterly alone. What is needed is objective, non judgmental, open and honest advice and that will not be found within the frame work being laid out by Dorries and approved by the government. Women will be stripped of their power, their rights and in the case of the younger generation of women who may also fall foul of Nadine Dorries shortsighted and possibly dangerous push for abstinence based sex education, their chance to make an informed decision about their own lives and bodies based on a free exchange of views and information rather than the outdated convictions of others. </div></div></div></ul></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13884362330990669417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6169296175189231930.post-13174785029533777342011-08-02T22:23:00.001-07:002011-08-02T22:23:42.660-07:00Super Injunction? Not so super, actually<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Originally posted 23rd May 2011<br />
<br />
You can't possibly have not heard about it (I live 10,000 miles away and I know about it). The latest must have accessory for the rich, the powerful and the unfaithful. That's right. The super injunction. Essentially an uber gag order it legally obliges the media to not disclose certain secrets about certain misbehaving celebs and public figures for fear of being sued into the next world. Works in theory. The rich can keep their dirty little secrets and we, the public, continue on in blissful ignorance. <br />
<br />
Except the super injunction, and to some extent privacy laws in general, do not allow for the nature of modern media, and certainly do not allow for the rise in social media. People no longer necessarily get their news from the mainstream media. The fact that Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson reportedly tweeted the news of Bin Laden's death before it hit any of the major news networks is testament to that. Many people I know use the likes of Twitter as a newsfeed, preferring the 'here and now'ness of the microblogging site to sitting down and watching the news on TV or reading about it via the newspapers.<br />
<br />
One particularly high profile use of the super injunction has been the case of a 'well known premiership footballer' and poor former Big Brother starlet, Imogen Thomas. Ms Thomas was foolhardy enough to become embroiled in a seven month affair with this married 'well known premiership footballer' and by all accounts it ended badly. She has claimed that she never had any intention of making the relationship public, he's accused her of attempting to blackmail him. Either way, the truth is open to some debate as she, despite been thrown to the wolf pack of the press and the very interested public is subject to a gag order and can't really defend herself and he, despite being named (and in the case of a certain Scottish newspaper, pictured) is still, technically at least, under the protective shield of his expensively sought super injunction. However, Mr CTB (as he is known in the legal paperwork) has found that in many respects his super injunction has backfired upon him. Despite the fact that he cannot be legally nor officially named, he has in fact been named and most definitely shamed. A Twitter account set up with the sole aim of 'outing' celebs who have sought super injunctions to prevent the public uncovering of their indiscretions has seen to that. Whilst it also claimed a slew of innocent victims (poor Jemima Khan being notable for the accusation that she had been photographed in comprimising positions with Jeremy Clarkson - and out of interest did anyone even find that remotely plausible or believable?), it also outed the now notorious CTB.<br />
<br />
Clearly, however, Mr CTB takes his privacy seriously and has now gone to the High Court in an attempt to force Twitter to hand over the details of the person responsible. Presumably, so he can can sue them into next week. However, this could well have been CTB's downfall. Whilst there was much chat on the identity of this mysterious, BB starlet shagging, high profile premiership footballer, it had, to a large extent started to die down. Other things were starting to fill the space taken up by this particular piece of celebrity non-news news. But now the Twittershphere is riled. The threat against Twitter (who in any likley event don't care, can't be compelled to comply and are loving the free publicity) has been seen as an attack on free speech. Over the last few days CTB's alleged real identity as been tweeted over and over. He is pictured in a thousand avatars. He is the butt of endless jokes and has been more effectively humiliated and poked fun at than he probably could possibly imagine when he first panicked about his infidelity coming out and went barrelling off to the solicitors office.<br />
<br />
But why are people so angry about this? Is it really that they feel their free speech is being attacked? In part, yes. The internet and the rise in social networking has provided a voice to millions the world over and many do not see the distiniction over whether you use this voice to bring down an entrenched and corrupt leader somewhere in the Middle East or whether you use it to announce to the world who that bloke from that football team is slipping it to. The principle remains the same. People feel they have the right to say it like it is.<br />
<br />
However, I would contend there is more to it than that. I know there is from my point of view, at least. Philandering and faithless footballers are, as most of us know, ten a penny. Wayne Rooney, John Terry, Ashley Cole, Peter Couch... the list is as long as your arm. When the stories of these indescretions appear we invariably express, surprise, distain, indifference and a couple of days later its all but forgotten. These men are to many heroes and by and large their less palatable traits are soon overlooked as long as they're performing where it counts. This case seems to have unleashed a storm of anger that in some ways seems quite disproportionate to the crime. The issue of free speech, as I've touched on, plays its role, but there is something more than that. For me at least, the fact that this high profile philandering fuckwit, feels that he is so important that he somehow <i>deserves </i>the protection of the law against the savage barbarian hordes of the internet riles me more than his actual wrong doings. The sense of entitlement that this man must have that he feels that he deserves this special treatment, whilst the sad figure of Imogen Thomas is hung out for the moral high ground gang comment on her every action and pin the blame squarely at her door (something I find deplorable in itself, he was the married on not her, at worst she is gulity of criminal stupidity that she ever thought this would end well), whilst he hid behind his money. There is the argument that the whole thing was brought about by the desire to protect the family of the footballer in question, I would counter that by saying that really, he should have thought of that before he dropped his pants for someone other than his wife. <br />
<br />
By all accounts the issue of super injunctions and internet privacy will be discussed in Parliament after the summer recess and I will be interested to see what conclusions they come up with and whether they conclude they can effectively police what people say via the likes of Twitter, at the same time another (slightly less high profile) premiership football star has also been outed has having obtained a super injunction, so it will be interesting to see what happens next in this particular story<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13884362330990669417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6169296175189231930.post-29822023189089747762011-08-02T22:21:00.000-07:002011-08-02T22:21:50.342-07:00Something old, Something new<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">This blog has taken over from an old blog that I used to keep (erratically and sparsely might I add) and I have transferred a couple of posts over from there. In addition to posts that are exclusive to this site there will also be the occasional post written for other sites featured here also.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13884362330990669417noreply@blogger.com0