papal hypcorisy

I came across an article in the telegraph which quite succinctly highlighted the hypocrisy of the pope and the catholic church. I don't think that was the intention of the article, but nonetheless, that is the conclusion that I drew.

The article explains how the pope has apparently decreed that mobile phones are bad for the soul. Apparently

“In the age of the cell phone and the internet it is probably more difficult than before to protect silence and to nourish the interior dimension of life...that must be guarded and nourished. If it is not, it can become barren to the point of drying up and, indeed, dying,”

yet despite this potential death of the soul, the pope seems happy to utilise modern technology when it comes to trying to brainwash, ahem sorry, engage with young people.

At World Youth Day in Sydney, the Pope texted daily messages of inspiration and hope to attendees, while digital prayer walls were erected on-site.

The Vatican has even made some of the manuscripts, documents and ancient texts from the Apostolic Vatican Library available to view online.

The article also mentions how the pope has warned that

Last month, Pope Benedict XVI said that the current global financial crisis was proof that the pursuit of money and success is pointless, and that wealth meant nothing.

Yep, that coming from a man who lives his life as a spokesman for an obscenely rich organisation.

It is nice to know that this kind of hypocrisy is alive and kicking in an organisation which has caused and perpetuated human misery for centuries.

one last quote from the article, referring to the use of technology:

Today, this is a very grave threat, and it is the most irreparable misfortune.

I personally think that the ongoing AIDS epidemic in many catholic African countries is a far more grave threat, and far worse than people using mobile phones, especially as the spread of the disease could be slowed a great deal if the pope just said "Wear a condom". But hey, I'm an atheist, what would I know about it, eh?

dunce

I have just discovered that I know nothing about chemistry.

I just found this interesting article on the guardian website, about standards in science education. The RSC found that pupils who took part in the study scored very badly on GCSE level chemistry questions from the 60's. They also include a downloadable version of the exam and a separate download of the answers.
I am rather disappointed in myself as I cannot remember how to answer any of the questions. Worryingly I did not even understand many of the questions. Now I am the first to admit that science was never my strongest subject, and I always found physics way more interesting than chemistry (although I didn't exactly have the greatest chemistry teacher) but I did somehow manage to get B's in my GCSE science subjects.
The first question, about mols - I vaguely remember doing something about that because I recall drawing moles on a bit of scrap paper. I also remember being told off for talking in class, and other pupils stealing my plastic ruler to melt it on a bunsen burner. Unfortunately I do not remember any of the actual science.
Hmm, me thinks it may be time to get a few basic science books out of the library.

who's the daddy?

The earlier post about sperm has got me thinking actually.
Imagine this scenario.
Mr and Mrs Smith are a young black couple who have decided to undergo IVF treatment using their own sperm and egg. After undergoing all the fertility treatment they are ready to have 2 embryos implanted back into Mrs Smith.
On the same day at the same hospital Mr and Mrs Jones, a young white couple are also about to have their 2 embryos created using their own egg and sperm implanted. They are also very excited.
Both ladies become pregnant, and each carries one child to full term. They give birth within one week of each other.
Both sets of parents are thrilled with their new arrival but there does seem to be something strange - Mr and Mrs Smiths child is exceptionally pale considering their ancestry. Likewise, Mr and Mrs Jones are surprised at how dark their own child is.
It is only a week or so later though at a new baby clinic that the mix-up comes to light, and DNA testing shows conclusively that Mrs Smith was implanted with Mrs Jones embryos and vice versa.
What I wondered was, in this situation what would happen? Would the parents be parted with the child the women had grown in their womb so they could be returned to their biological parents, or would the parents bring up a child that was not biologically theirs, whilst knowing that someone else was raising their genetic offspring?
Would the situation change at all if only one set of parents had progressed through the pregnancy, and the others were still childless?
And, as we occasionally hear in the news of these accidental embryo swaps we know they do happen, however it is only obvious when the children are obviously of a different ethnic origin. Which makes me think - how many times does this actually happen when the parents are all of the same ethnic background? Would anyone ever know?

eating our way out of a recession

I just took this article from the Daily Mail, it has really made me laugh:

"Drugs police raid grandmother's home after mistaking tomato plants for cannabis"

It was a golden opportunity for police to land a devastating blow on the country's drugs trade.

Mob handed and armed with sniffer dogs, officers raided a remote Highland cottage where they were certain a huge crop of cannabis was being grown in readiness for sale on the streets.

But the drugs bust quickly descended into farce when it emerged the green plants visible in the window of the croft were nothing more sinister than the family's prized tomatoes.

And rather than finding a den full of drugs Mr Bigs, all they discovered was 79-year-old widower Lulu Matheson warming herself by the fire.

Mrs Matheson told how police took a sample of her plants to be sent away for analysis, even though they were clearly bearing fruit.

Less funny of course is the distress caused to the people targeted and the heavy handed way in which they were treated.

I really think that the government should just legalise cannabis, especially now they are facing growing debts and financial problems. If they legalised cannabis and sold it through licensed outlets they could claim hefty tax on it, and it would cut down on the police resources wasted on the "war on drugs" at present, it would save money on all the people in prison for possession of small quantities of drugs who could be released and start working and paying tax rather than being a drain on the system and it would drastically reduce the large gang led organised crime networks who are currently in control of drug production and sale. So the government makes money through tax, controls supply, cuts crime, frees up prison places, frees up police resources, creates new jobs in the licensing, production and retail of cannabis and of course all the people who smoke/eat the cannabis will massively boost the economy through consumption of large amounts of snack food produce. Every ones a winner!

infertile minds

I read today that 5 cancer patients whose sperm was accidentally destroyed when a hospital freezer broke down have decided to sue for "personal injury" damages.
The men had frozen samples of their sperm before undergoing cancer treatment which may have left them infertile. They are claiming that now the sperm has been destroyed they have lost the only chance of ever being a father, hence why they have decided to sue for damages.
I think this is wrong. They are now attempting to sue the NHS for substantial compensation, presumably the same hospital trust which has saved their lives after diagnosing their cancer. They seem not to have realised that by trying to claim damages in this way they are in effect reducing the NHS budget used for treating people with serious illnesses, such as their cancer which could have awful consequences. Whilst the situation is certainly unfortunate it was an accident, and there would have been no guarantee that the sperm samples were viable for IVF or insemination purposes anyway.
I also disagree with the sentiment that this has ruined their only chance to be parents. Fertility treatments have a low success rate under any circumstances, so as I said, there was no way to guarantee that they would have been able to father a child this way anyway. Secondly they do still have the option to adopt a child or children and be a parent, they have not "lost their only chance", many people are unable to biologically father a child anyway, cancer patient or otherwise.
But mostly I just find it bizarre, not to mention selfish, to try and sue the same hospital that saved their lives.

"Abdul"

I decided to post today about someone I used to know. As I do not know his present situation I will call him "Abdul" for the purpose of this post.

I met Abdul in late 2002, at the bus station in my city. I was working in a part time job in a shop whilst studying, and had just finished work for the day. Sitting in the bus station in the dark waiting for a bus home I was joined on the bench by a group of young men, chatting away in an unfamiliar language. One of the men asked me if he could borrow my lighter, and I asked him what language they were speaking. He told me that it was Arabic, and that his name was Abdul. He asked me if he could talk to me for a few minutes as he wished to improve his English. I thought this was just a corny chat up line, so I told him I was married (!) and talked guardedly while we waited for the bus to arrive. Abdul explained that he had been searching for a job, but that his English was not yet good enough. We chatted for a few minutes, and I was surprised to learn that he actually lived just around the corner from me. When we got off the bus he invited me and "my husband" round that evening for a coffee as he said he did not know many people in the area. I had only moved to the city a few weeks before so that evening my boyfriend and I decided to call around and say hello.
This became the start of a surprising friendship.
Over the following months I got to know Abdul better. He was a muslim, born in Somalia and educated in Somalia and Yemen. In his late teens something bad happened to him in Somalia and he fled along with some of his sisters. I do not know what happened, he found this very difficult to discuss. He had lived in several European countries and was in prison for a while in one country for having incorrect paperwork. He had moved to England hoping to study English and convert his qualifications into something he could use here. Indeed his English was improving all the time, although he was unable to work as he did not have the correct paperwork. Instead he threw himself into his studies, working towards GCSEs in several subjects.
It was probably mid 2004 that things started to change. I went round to the house one day when we had arranged to meet, but he did not answer the door. I went back a little later but still couldn't get an answer. I left a note and asked him to ring me. A few days later, he turned up at my house and told me he had moved to a new flat and gave me the address, telling me not to pass it on. I went the next day to visit him, and he was very nervous and jumpy, and kept forgetting English words that he knew. He told me he was afraid and had not eaten for a few days as he thought the food might be poisonous.
Obviously I was seriously concerned. I cooked him a meal in his kitchen, which he ate and tried to find out what had happened, but he was reluctant to talk.
On subsequent visits he often broke down in tears, but would not tell me what was wrong. I would call in whenever I had the chance and try to encourage him to eat and he often told me that I was like a sister to him, that he didn't know western women could be so nice and that he was afraid.
His behaviour was becoming increasingly erratic, and I asked him if he had been taking drugs. He broke down in tears and admitted he had been drinking alcohol, and was terrified as he had broken a rule of islam. When I asked why he had been drinking he explained he had heard people say that it numbs pain. I told him that he really ought to see a doctor or counsellor but he said he would do after consulting the mosque. Although I knew he was a muslim he had never seemed overly religious - he did not pray, visit the mosque or wear typically islamic clothing.
Then things all got very weird. The next time I went to visit a strange man with a beard and headdress answered the door and told me that women were not welcome in the flat. I asked to speak to Abdul but this man told me to go away. I called through into the flat but the man shut the door on me. I kept calling back every day until Abdul answered. He looked dreadful, had lost loads of weight and was shaking. He told me that I shouldn't be here as I was a bad influence and that he was possessed by djinn. I asked what he was talking about and he let me into the flat. He explained that he had contacted the mosque to find out about seeing a doctor (he had not registered with a GP) and the people in the mosque told him he was not ill, he had been possessed and needed to be exorcised. I laughed and said this was rubbish, he needed to see a doctor and have a chat, but he said he was terrified that if it was a djinn then something bad might happen. I helped him cook a meal, which he ate, although he told me that the people from the mosque had told him to fast.
The next time I visited a different man was there. He let me in to visit Abdul but sat staring at me the whole time, while reciting the koran.
A few days later, near the end of November 2004 I got a frantic phone call from Abdul asking to meet me in the bus station. He was really wound up when I saw him, and he pressed a key into my hand and told me that he had to leave. I tried to calm him down and get some sense out of him, but all he told me was that he had to leave and would I please keep safe the things still in his flat. He then boarded a bus to London and vanished.
When I went to his flat all I found was a koran written in Arabic and a plate with Arabic writing on it wrapped in a black cloth. I took these home as I had promised to keep them safe.
I heard nothing for a few weeks and then suddenly on christmas eve 2004 I got a call from Abdul. He sounded much better and told me he was in northern Indonesia. He apologised for leaving the way he did, and said things from Somalia had caught up with him. He told me he had contacted his cousins and that his mother and sisters were now in Yemen, and his father had vanished. He said that he was grateful for my friendship and that he missed me and my boyfriend.
He told me that he was planning to stay in Indonesia until the end of the year, that he was sleeping on the beach and that he would contact me on the 26th December. The call never came, instead the news was full of stories of the terrible tsunami that had devastated much of the region. I tried to call the number that Abdul had rang me from just before christmas, but it would not connect.
I have no idea whether Abdul survived the tsunami and just lost his phone and contact details, or if he was killed as so many others were.
I hope that he survived and was able to use the experience to cut all his ties and move on although I know this is unlikely.
I do wonder if one day the phone will ring and it will be Abdul, laughing and ready to tell me what he has been doing for the last few years although I realise this is very unlikely.
I am writing this today as it is 4 years now since he left, and I was thinking earlier of that last meeting in the bus station. I hope that Abdul did not lose his life that day even though I realise he probably did.

I declare today... Voltaire Day!

Let me describe my current situation. At present I am sat in a hotel, ostensibly on holiday, wrapped up in a big soft dressing gown. I have spent an hour or so in the spa this afternoon, done some exercise in the gym and eaten a beautiful 3 course dinner. So I bet your thinking "she must be totally relaxed now then". Ah, no. You see silly old me decided to bring the laptop with me, there is WiFi in my room and I thought I would have a quick look at the news headlines.
And thus, the day has arrived that I never expected to see. Yep, today the bitchin' atheist is actually going to defend the BNP. I did not think I would ever be writing a post to defend this political group but strange things happen. Hence why I am declaring Voltaire day: I detest most of what the BNP stand for, but they have as much right to say it as anyone else.
The trigger for this is the news today that a list purporting to be the entire membership list of the BNP has been released to the British media. (For those that do not know the BNP stands for the British National Party. They are a far-right, though completely legitimate political party who campaign to end immigration, put British workers first, promote heterosexual monogamous relationships and want more independence for Britain. They are very right wing and have had some rather dubious policies in the past. They are a much reviled party) This list includes full names, addresses and phone numbers of the members, along with other information such as family members names and occupations.
Why the big deal? I hear you ask. Well, you see the thing is many employers will not employee someone who is an active BNP member. In certain professions you are not allowed to be a BNP member at all, such as some local councils and police forces. Therefore by printing this list many people may now lose their jobs, have difficulty gaining employment or may even be attacked in the street. While much of what the BNP stands for goes against my own beliefs I do not think it is right that in a supposedly free and democratic nation that people are persecuted in this way for holding certain political beliefs. After all, people from different religious groups are allowed to go about their business unchallenged, even when that religion calls for horrendous acts, such as stoning adulterers to death, persecuting homosexuals, or attempting to destroy the west (the list goes on, I don't need to go through the all right now). Anyway, the point is that you are able to join far left political parties without fear, you can belong to a religious organisation and display your affiliation loud and clear, but for some reason you are not allowed to join the BNP, a supposedly legitimate and democratic party. I think this is utterly abhorrent. Some jobs have already been lost as a result of the list - a radio presenter has lost his job and one policeman has already been found to be a member.
BNP members are not allowed to join the police for fear that it could "damage race relations". Er, right, but wearing a turban or a hijab, that's OK is it? Because that is stating a far clearer message of political and religious affiliation in my opinion. And surely, if someone has been a police officer for many years without a problem and you know discover that they are a BNP member then what is the issue exactly? If you could not tell before then why should you treat them differently now that you know their affiliations? After all the party is legal and legitimate.
I know that in a previous job I was told that I was prohibited from joining the BNP. I had no desire to do so, but I am sure there are some that would have wanted to. What kind of democracy dictates which political parties you are allowed to support?
So, while I detest what the BNP has to say, and have no interest in supporting them, I defend their right to exist, to stand for elections, to promote their policies and for people to join their party. Because that is what democracy is all about.
On that note, before I get riled about something else (the prostitution story has caught my eye) I am going to go and have a bath and try and calm down.
So much for a relaxing holiday evening, eh?!

willie ever be the same again?

Something that has been puzzling me for a while now is why religious people circumcise their children. Now I am ignoring female genital mutilation for the time being as it is such a horrendous abuse that I really do need to write an entire post on this topic. For the moment lets just consider male circumcision.
I have an issue with any form of body modification/alteration/mutilation/non-essential procedure when it is done to an individual who cannot give their own consent, such as children or those with mental impairment. For this reason I consider it child abuse when parents have their children circumcised, or have their child's ears pierced. In the case of ear piercing there is utterly no benefit to the child, it carries a high infection risk and could prove dangerous if the young child catches the earring when at play if studs are not worn. I also cannot see any reason why you need to try and make your child look more attractive if that is why people do this - they are a child for goodness sake, not a fashion accessory.
In the case of male circumcision, apart from in a few rare cases where the procedure is necessary for medical reasons there are no benefits.
Advocates claim that it makes the penis cleaner, and reduces infections. I can respond to both these things. Firstly there is some evidence to suggest that a circumcised penis increases likelihood of urinary tract infections. Secondly, there is an easy way for men to keep their uncircumcised willies clean - you can wash them. It is a revolutionary idea, I know, but it actually works. As anyone knows, you really ought to have protected sex if you do not really know the person that well, if they have slept with other people, or if you are not in a long term monogamous relationship. Therefore the infection issue is negated anyway by the condom. After all, even with contraception, would you rather have the unwashed but circumcised penis, or the washed, clean uncircumcised one?
Anyway, I digress. There is no health benefit to children to be circumcised, instead this is a pointless and painful procedure that the child does not have the right to protest against. The boy, depending on the religion, tends to be between a few days and a few years old when the "ceremony" takes place, often by a religious leader not a doctor, using non-sterile equipment in a non-clinical area. How this can be seen as anything other than abuse is beyond me.
I will clarify that if a fully mature adult man decides that he would like to be circumcised and chooses to go ahead and have this done, having received sound medical advice and understands the potential risks, then I have no problem. It is his body and his money. However to make that decision on behalf of a young child is disgusting. Often, in instances where the child is a little older he may be given the illusion of choice but be told that without this mutilation he will never be a "real man", that he will shame the family and so on. This kind of bullying is despicable.
The real puzzler for me though, is why it tends to be the religious people who go in for this cruel practice. I mean, surely to lop off a part of the anatomy is like saying "god got it wrong, but I know better". The title of my blog may give you a clue as to my own religious beliefs, so I am not claiming to understand the mindset of this fictitious being, "god" but from what I do know I would have thought that he would be mightily annoyed if his creations started getting so uppity and claiming that they knew best and gods design was flawed. So maybe I am missing the point, but I cannot understand why so many religious people would doubt gods design abilities in this way when they give so much credence to his other ideas.
Also, if god requires circumcision as some kind of sacrifice then wouldn't it be much more meaningful to consciously make that choice as an adult, rather than go through it against your knowledge or will?
If anyone can offer any further insight into this issue please leave a comment below.

green and pleasant land

I know I tend to get rather annoyed rather frequently, so I thought I would share something nice with you instead today, attempting to avoid sarcasm, exasperation or negativity. So here goes...
I went for a walk earlier this afternoon, about 3pm and I have to say it was most pleasant. The sun was out, the sky was a lovely vibrant shade of blue, with a few puffy white and grey clouds and it felt really mild for mid November.
I decided to walk through the local park and it felt so English; the well maintained grass of that very British shade of green, the families playing cricket on the flatter areas, the old man wearing a green waxed jacket walking a border collie, the late afternoon sun shining down through a gap in the steep pointed roofs of the Victorian villas which line one edge of the park. The woods to one side of me were aflame with leaves of amber, russet, gold and brown still clinging to some of the trees, with the odd interspersed non-deciduous trees still a deep green and several trees which were already bare. The path underfoot crunched with fallen leaves as I walked and the air felt fresh and clean despite being in the inner city. It was all extremely pleasant and so I thought I would share it with you.
See, I am not always angry.

organ donation

You may remember a while ago that politicians raised the topic of organ donation and something called "presumed consent". What this meant was that when somebody died it would be presumed that the person had no objection to donating their organs unless they had opted out of the scheme. This would drastically increase the numbers of organs available for donation, thus saving many lives. I personally cannot see a problem with this system.
It would seem however that this is not going to go ahead, due to opposition from the house of lords and also, worryingly, by politicians being concerned that they might look bad.
This is extremely unfortunate in my opinion. I would have thought that a system like this, which could save hundreds more lives every year would be welcomed - after all anyone who felt strongly that they did not want to donate their organs after death would be able to easily opt out of the scheme and it would mean all those people who meant to join the organ donor register but never got round to it for some reason would be able to save several lives after their death. I joined the organ donor register a few years ago. It is something that I strongly believe in, and I would love to think that I have the potential to save many lives after I have gone. However I found that out of my friends, despite the vast majority of those I asked saying they would like to donate, most have not signed up the main reason being "but I am so young, I don't intend to die for decades." Well no, I don't think anybody is planning to go ahead and die, but the point is that we never know what will happen. So by having a system of presumed consent, all those who feel too young to have to worry about these things would still be able to donate should anything happen to them. Interestingly, the friends who were against organ donation had already gone to the trouble of slipping a piece of paper into their wallets and purses stating as such. I think that a system of presumed consent could do so much good that it is a blow to hear it will probably not be going ahead. Imagine that you are in the position where you or a close friend or relative needed a new organ to survive. You realise that their only hope is that someone else dies, and that the person who does pass away has previously consented to organ donation. Obviously you feel for the families of those who dies, but you know that if the situation was reversed you would be glad to know that your loved one was giving life to someone else. Now imagine the situation at present. You are aware that hundreds of people are dying every day, and that you only need one viable organ to save your loved ones life. However because there is no system of presumed consent you are not able to get an organ due to the massive shortage. You watch your loved one slipping away knowing that right at this minute, somewhere in the country there is someone else being buried or cremated with the organ that could save your loved ones life. That is how things currently stand.
I realise that some people hold beliefs that prohibit them from donating their organs or their blood, but many of these also actively state that they do not wish to receive organs or blood either. (for example I have friends who are Jehovah's witnesses, who carry "no blood" and "no organs" cards in their wallets and have had notes to the same effect added to their medical records) I cannot argue against that - I strongly believe that if you would not donate then you should not receive. But what of all the people who would be happy to receive an organ but would not donate? they are hypocrites in my opinion. I suggest that we go ahead with a system of presumed consent, and allow those who oppose the scheme to opt out fully - that is, they opt not to donate or receive blood or organs. I think that would be totally fair and cannot see any reasonable argument against this idea (if you have one please feel free to comment, I am always open to new ideas)
I sincerely hope that the system does come into effect and that it goes on to save many lives. However at the moment it is not looking likely.

Please visit www.uktransplant.org.uk for more information on how to become an organ donor.

Unclean!

Mini Rant part two:
This one is really simple and incredibly effective. In fact it is so easy that small children, once properly informed, can obey this rule which can drastically reduce the spread of disease.
When you cough, or sneeze, simply place the hand over the mouth and nose. This will prevent all those nasty germs which reside in your body from being shot out away from you at speeds of up to 30 miles per hour. If you get anything nasty on your hands when you do so simply wipe them on a tissue until you can get to a sink. Dispose of the tissue in the bin and wash your hands at the earliest opportunity. By doing this you will prevent the spread of illnesses such as colds, flu, throat infections, coughs and even more serious illnesses like TB. This is a basic manner that I was taught at a young age (I can hear my mothers voice saying "hand over mouth" even now as I write this decades later) yet it seems that many people, children and adults alike completely disregard this bit of common sense. Similarly, if you cough and get a bit of phlegm caught in your mouth or throat you can swallow it. The body is perfectly designed to be able to cope with this little bit of mucus, there is no need for you to hoik it onto the floor. By swallowing rather than spitting you could potentially be saving lives. For you, as a reasonably healthy adult may have the immunity to fight off whatever germs are released into the air, although the fact that so many people go down with viruses in the winter should suggest how infectious these illnesses can be. What you should consider however is that the very young, the elderly and those with other health problems including immuno-suppression can become seriously ill or even die from contracting even relatively minor ailments. So next time you are out in public and you feel that you are going to cough or sneeze, cover your mouth and nose and you could even prevent a death. Yep, it really is that simple.

driving me crazy

Warning: Mini Rant.
You know when you are driving along in your car, and you reach a junction or roundabout? Well, you have these amazing inventions called indicators, which are little flashing lights on both the left and right hand side of the car. If you hit the switch for the left a few moments before you plan to turn left, the little light on the left of your car will flash, and all the other road users and pedestrians in the vicinity will know you intend to turn left. The same goes for the right hand side. When you do not use the indicator, this means you intend to go straight on. This is a really simple but effective system to inform people of your intentions so that everyone can use the highways safely. If you are driving down the road and wish to turn onto a side road but you do not indicate it is not acceptable to swerve in front of a pedestrian who is halfway across the road and shout abuse at them. As you failed to indicate they could only assume that you were not planning to turn. If you reach a crossroads and do not indicate all the other road users will assume you are heading straight over and you will cause a dangerous situation if you then turn. Why not learn this simple rule, part of the highway code and an essential part of your driving theory and stop being so stupid and dangerous. Taxi drivers and white van drivers, this includes you.

banging. head. on. wall.

Just when you thought it was safe to leave the house and avoid displays of utter stupidity a load more stupid people went out and did stupid things. Admittedly I could say this every day (and I often do) but sometimes people do things so ridiculous that I have to comment on them.
So first up for today's roll call of idiocy are all the people I see, with disturbing frequency, feeding their precious little babies with fizzy drinks sugary juices straight out of a teated bottle. I have come up with 3 possible reasons as to why people may chose to give their babies (and I mean babies) sweet, sugary additive ridden beverages of no nutritional value:
they want them to be completely hyperactive
they want them to go on to develop type 2 diabetes
they want to rot their teeth before they are even fully emerged
I cannot come up with any other reason, after all it is not as though these drinks are the cheapest ones available.
I am of the belief that children should not drink fizzy drinks except on rare occasions as they have no benefit whatsoever (unless they are pure juice which has been carbonated, and even then any child will be better of with the pure juice or water). Many popular fizzy drinks contain pretty nasty chemicals, some of which are even banned outright in other countries as they are known to cause health problems and they are often laden with sugar. My general rule for any food or drink product is that if I do not know what any of the listed ingredients are then I will not put it in my body. It is known that excessive consumption of sugary and fatty products can lead on to diabetes as they cause the body to gain weight - a major risk factor. It is also known that excessive sugar and consumption of E-numbers leads to hyperactivity in children, which will make them harder to control, affect their concentration and contribute to unruly behaviour. So why would you do these things to your own children?
With regards the effects of excess sugar on children's teeth - my stepfather is a dentist and he tells me that he has had to treat small children whose teeth are rotting as they grow - they have consumed so much sugar that as soon as the tooth emerges it begins to rot, leaving them with a mouthful or painful rotting decayed teeth that have to be removed. He says he has treated children as young as 2 who have needed to have their baby teeth surgically removed as they are beyond saving. I find this information both appalling and saddening.
To be giving children who still require a teated bottle to drink from sugary drinks of any kind is perverse and stupid. If they can only use a teated bottle then they should be drinking milk or water - not fizzy pop or sugary juice. How this basic idea is so alien to so many people is worrying. As I have said on here before, why on earth have children if you are not going to do your very best to raise them to be the best, and healthiest, that they can be?
Another disturbing trend I have noticed recently is the amount of young primary school age and younger girls parading around in full make up with high heeled shoes. Why on earth as these girls being taken out by their parents in full make up? I can understand letting your children play dressing up at home or a friends house, borrowing an older female relatives clothes and shoes and possibly make up to prance around and have fun in, fine. But to then take your made up child out, round a supermarket or to the city centre just seems weird and creepy to me. It may all be perfectly innocent but it really does unnerve me. Children don't need make up (actually women in general tend not to need the cosmetics that many of them refuse to go without) and I find the whole dressing children as miniature adults complete with make up, bleached hair, short skirts and high heeled shoes just wrong, on so many levels.
Perhaps equally as disturbing as stupid people with children is the sight of stupid people with animals. I caught the bus home yesterday at the same time as a young woman with a puppy. The puppy, she informed me when I asked was a mastiff/rottweiler cross. It was 4 months old and as big as Labrador already. I therefore found it rather worrying to see how the woman was with the dog as the journey progressed. The woman was sat with a man who appeared to be her boyfriend. The dog was initially sat quietly at her feet. The woman began pulling up on his leash till the dog stood up. She then told it to sit. The dog sat. The woman then told the dog off, hauled it sideways and then angrily told it to sit again. The dog laid down at her feet. She then started prodding it and nudging at it with her foot until it tried to move under the chair out of the way. She told it off and yanked it back into the aisle. The dog then tried to climb onto the seat with her. She hit it in the face and shoved it on the floor. As soon as the dog was sat down she started trying to coax it back onto the chair with her. When the dog refused she hauled it onto the seat to pet it. At this point the bus driver yelled over that she must take the dog off the seat. She shoved it back onto the floor.
The dog went over to the man, who was sat at a right angle to the woman. He started trying to get the dog to shake hands with him, which it did the first few times. He then grabbed one paw and refused to let go until the dog growled at him, at which point he hit the dog int he face. He then clamped the dogs head between his knees and started punching its face. A couple of the other passengers and myself mentioned to the man and woman that this was probably not a good idea and they should stop. The man ignored us and continued hitting the dog until the dog growled and leaped at him, biting him hard, growling with his hackles up. At this the woman stood up, leaned over and punched the man in the face. I got off the bus at this point but I am left wondering if I should have done something, although I do not know what. Obviously the concern for the dogs welfare is worrying, but I am also seriously concerned that this dog, which is obviously going to grow very large is going to become aggressive and unmanageable and may end up seriously injuring people. It has been noted locally that some people are forcing staffies and similar dogs to hang off swings by their teeth to strengthen their bite. These people are a disgrace - what possible legitimate reason could they have to encourage their digs to be able to bite so hard? There are many young men in my area who purchase aggressive breeds of dog such as akita's and rottweilers as status symbols and penis extensions and the vast majority are completely unable to control the dogs. Even more worrying is that they encourage them to be aggressive and then let them off the lead in the local park. I have experienced first hand one of the dogs locally going in for the attack (my friend was bitten as he got himself between me and the dog) and I know several people locally who have encountered similar themselves and the local police do keep an eye out but it is still a very worrying trend.
Anyway, onwards with the stupidity. (last example, I promise you) Yesterday I saw a sign up advertising a christian group, with a slogan telling me to discover jesus and gain meaning in my life. Well actually my life has a great deal of meaning already, and you know what? All the good things I do, all the voluntary work, the helping people out, trying to be a good person whilst still enjoying my life - I do them because I want to, not because some imaginary friend in the sky tells me to, not for fear of damnation if I do not, not because some old story book demands it. I am seriously concerned about the religious people who claim that atheists must have no morals, or that an atheists life is meaningless and worthless. They imply (and some even explicitly state) that if they were not commanded to behave well, receiving eternal punishment if they do not then they would go out raping, killing and maiming at will. The only response to that is that these people are disgusting and sick. So, religious poster people, do not tell me that my wonderful life has no meaning just because I am able to use logic and rational to say "there is no god and I will live my life as I see fit. Bad things do not happen as some kind of divine retribution they happen because life is random. I will take the rough with the smooth and make the most of everyday because this is my life and it is the only I have got and it is full of meaning, thank you very much".

never knowingly PC

I generally try and keep abreast of news and current affairs and try and read several online news sources every day. This, combined with my love of people watching means that I am generally exposed to a large amount of stupidity every day. While this may be detrimental to my mental well being, not to mention my blood pressure it is like some kind of destructive addiction, to take in as much of the information as possible, constantly forming counter arguments in my mind and reevaluating my own opinion, preparing to take to pieces the next person who blithely parrots some drivel they have read without considering what they are actually saying, the implications of their statements or the disturbing nature of their blind acceptance of something they have read in a tabloid.
I say this as a precursor to a news item today that has truly p*ssed me off, that being the story which has run in several of the major newspapers and has been repeated throughout the day in the broadcast media, following comments from Trevor Phillips, head of the equality watchdog who stated that racism would prevent a black man from becoming a British prime minister. He does not go into detail of how he believes this "institutional racism" is preventing people from becoming members of parliament. I take issue to this for several reasons, but mainly because these comments appear to be misleading and inaccurate.
According to the 2001 census data 92.1% of the population of this country is white, with only 7.9% being from a non white background (this includes all other minority ethnic groups) and only 2% of the population is recorded as being black. At present there are 646 MPs. If black people were to be proportionally represented then you would not expect more then 13 of these MPs to be black. It is also worth pointing out that I have made no adjustment for age in this - according to the census data about 30% of the black population was under the age of 16, (compared to less than 20% of the white population) and therefore not eligible to stand for election anyway. You would therefore not expect to see more than 11 black politicians if this ethnic group was proportionally represented. It is therefore clear that it would be statistically unlikely for a black politician to be elected as prime minister. This is not down to "institutional racism" as Mr Phillips has stated, rather it is down to maths. However that sounds far less sensational doesn't it - in fact it is not even newsworthy in my opinion. Surely the more interesting angle from an equality point of view is the fact that despite the population being a roughly 50-50 split in terms of gender there are 521 male MPs to 125 female MPs. From statistics alone it would appear that women are facing far greater challenges in becoming members of parliament. All of this however ignores the issue that there might not necessarily be that many people from a particular background wanting to stand for parliament - many women choose to have families over careers and so on, and it may well be that people from ethnic minorities are over represented in other areas.
On top of all of that is the fact that we live in a democracy. Most people can put themselves forward to join a political party or stand for election, and as a democracy it is we the people who vote and decide who we wish to represent us. If people are exercising their right to vote and happen not to choose a certain candidate it is far more likely to be down to their policies, their knowledge of a constituency, their experience or their personality rather than their skin colour. That is not racism, it is democracy.
Also, let us not forget that while Trevor Phillips is extolling the virtues of the American system and their newly elected leader and many columnists and commentators are praising the fact that America has elected a mixed race president and using this as an example of how tolerant and wonderful America is this week has also seen the US reverse gay marriage laws as proposition 8, an amendment to the constitution which prevents gay marriage in all but 2 US states, has been passed. Proposition 8, which was largely funded by the Mormon church, was not condemned by Obama who has previously stated that he believes marriage is between man and woman, and cited religious convictions as his reasoning. I wonder what the head of the equality watchdog makes to this lack of tolerance and equality for homosexuals?

the common sense deficit

To continue on the same topic as yesterday, I have again encountered some rather dubious reasoning today.
The first thing I will mention is the topic of food. (you know I like this one)
I had popped into the local supermarket to try and buy a carton of natural yoghurt as requested by a friend. I was startled to find that the shelves contained no ordinary full fat yoghurt, instead stocking a selection of reduced fat, fat free and substitute products. Whatever happened to normal live yoghurt? And what on earth do they make the fat free stuff out of, considering that milk based products are supposed to be fatty - milk is an emulsion - fat suspended in liquid, so what do they use to make fat free yoghurt? I know I have expressed my disdain for unnecessary obesity in the past but surely some of us are still able to moderate our diets appropriately and can be trusted with full fat yoghurt. It was hard enough finding any "live" yoghurt and trying to find full fat live natural unflavoured yoghurt proved impossible in my local store. We should be nice to the bacteria in live yoghurt, it is the only culture some people get. Anyway, a quick perusal of the shelves showed that yoghurt is not the only casualty, I could not find full fat coleslaw, cream, hummous, soft cheese, margarine or ice cream either. I think this attitude goes a long way to explaining some of the weight problems in this country - if you are overweight and trying to cut down your fat and calorie intake switching to reduced fat products like soft cheese and ice cream is not the way to do it, instead you should alter your diet to include more fruits, vegetables and fibre and eat a smaller amount of high fat products like coleslaw and soft cheese, if any. I view it in a similar way to reduced nicotine cigarettes - rather than cutting down and learning to enjoy these foods in moderation this merely encourages people to eat more of the reduced fat product which is a far less healthy attitude.
Anyway, the point is whether or not shops and brands can make money on selling "diet" alternatives they should still sell a "normal" variety of the product. In the end I went home yoghurt-less.
Another bizarre and illogical display of irrationality and general stupidity was on display in my local pharmacy when I went in to collect my repeat prescription this morning. There was a woman with a small child came in whilst I was waiting for my prescription, and asked the pharmacist for some brand name infant paracetamol suspension under a scheme whereby those on a low income can receive medication for minor ailments free of charge without a prescription. The pharmacist asked a few questions of the mother and returned a moment later with a generic brand of the same product for the woman. The woman refused this medicine, saying she would only accept a branded product. Despite the pharmacist explaining that the product was the same the woman still refused it and instead stormed out of the chemist after insulting the pharmacist. What lunacy! The product is the same, and she is being given it free of charge, why on earth wouldn't you accept this? Surely if your child needs painkillers you would give them the own brand product, rather than refuse and leave your young child in pain?
Worse was to come however, when another lady with a young child in a pushchair entered a couple of minutes later. The child really looked ill, and had a terrible cough that left her wheezing and bubbling as she tried to breathe. The woman was asking for a cough syrup, but the alarmed pharmacist came around the counter and told the woman that the child looked seriously ill and needed to visit the children's hospital. The woman stated that she would do no such thing and asked again for some cough syrup. The pharmacist asked the woman if the child had been vaccinated. The woman replied that the child had not, and that she believed vaccines were a conspiracy! (I am not making this up, although I wish I was) Everyone in the store looked concerned, it was clear that the child was very unwell, and was struggling to breathe. The woman shouted that the pharmacist did not know what he was talking about, and said she would go elsewhere for some cough syrup. I do not know what happened to the child as the woman promptly left, but I sincerely hope that the mother reconsidered and took the child to the hospital. I cannot understand why anyone would allow their child to suffer in this way.
Lastly, an event that infuriated me when I was at the doctors surgery (those of you who have read this carefully will realise that the events I mention today are not in chronological order)
When I was sat in the waiting room a muslim woman was called by the doctor. When she reached the doctor the woman said, with a heavy accent, that she needed an interpreter. The doctor asked why she had not booked one when she made her appointment, but the woman just repeated that she needed an interpreter. The doctor told the woman to sit back down, and she would see what she could do. The woman went back into the main waiting area, sat down opposite me, picked up an (English) newspaper and began reading, turning occasionally to another muslim woman sat next to her and discussing the stories in English! This kind of behaviour really winds me up, The woman did not require an interpreter, her English was fluent, and the cost to the NHS of unnecessary interpreters runs into the thousands every year. I have friends who work in the local hospitals who tell me that they are commonly asked to provide interpreters, often with no prior notice, only to hear the patients chatting away in English in the waiting room. I think the behaviour of the people who do this is selfish and stupid and makes it more difficult for those who genuinely require assistance and translation to be taken seriously.
After the events of yesterday and today I am unsure whether I live in an particularly illogical area, or whether these local examples are an indicator of the state of things generally. Despite the risk to my own sanity I hope that this is a local phenomena, otherwise I dread to think about the state of the country in general.
Right, I am off to bang my head against a wall for a while.

common sense, manners and other things lacking in our society

Another day, another trip to the city centre and yet again I am so disappointed in the total lack of common sense and manners on display in our society today. I will share with you a few examples that I have encountered today.
Firstly, on the bus into town today I was unfortunate in travelling at the same time as a pair of young women who I would say were about the same age as me; they were certainly in their early 20's anyway. Between them the women had 6 children. The women and the two children still in pushchairs were down at the front of the bus, whereas the other 4 children were running riot around the moving vehicle. Obviously this in itself shows a total lack of understanding of the potential dangers of allowing the children to run around, up and down the stairs, messing around near the emergency exit door but not only that, the women were more interested in discussing how drunk they were going to get tonight than they were in looking after their kids, or disciplining them when they misbehaved. At one point one of the children sat with a packet of cheesy poof crisps, took them out of the packet one at a time and crushed and smeared them across the back seats of the bus. The women just laughed. Once the child had completed this task one of the slightly older children stood on a chair to throw the empty packet out of the window. A few minutes later two of the children decided to have a spitting/dribbling competition to see who could make the biggest puddle on the floor. Again the women did nothing. This kind of behaviour really winds me up. I would say the children were almost definitely all under 4 years of age, and if this kind of bad behaviour is not stopped now then what hope do these kids have of amounting to anything? If they can run riot without any sense of right and wrong and without ever being disciplined then how will they ever learn? The point of being a parent is to raise your children well, to socialise them into the norms and values of out society, to teach them right from wrong and enable them to grow up to become happy, healthy and functional members of society. These women were totally failing in that regard.
Which brings me onto the second example of a total lack of common sense. I read on a news site today that certain boroughs of London have decided to ban any smokers from being foster parents. Now at first glance that does seem pretty reasonable, after all we know that smoking is unhealthy and the cause of many problems when children are around smokers. But if we actually consider this for a moment I think that this idea is not actually all that good. For starters there is no differentiation between the types of smoker. For example, there is a big difference from 2 adults who chain smoke continuously within a confined space such as the living room of their house and another individual who occasionally goes into the back garden for a cigarette. There is a vast difference between someone who smokes 60 fags a day and someone who smokes 3. I realise that smoking at any level is damaging to children's health but is being exposed to an occasional cigarette really worse for the child's well being than being left in a care home or orphanage, which however hard they try is really no substitute to being raised in a caring home environment. You only have to look at the statistics that indicate that children raised in "care homes" are far more likely to have behavioural problems and be low achievers in school. In my opinion it would be better for children to be in a home environment, smokers or not, than to be in a care home. There is already such a shortage of people willing to be foster carers that it seems counterproductive to limit this even further. By all means offer smoking cessation support to would-be foster carers, and encourage those foster parents who do smoke to do so outside but do not limit even further the amount of people able and willing to foster.
My final example of a total lack of common sense was something that occurred in a charity shop this afternoon. As I walked past I noticed there was a book that I had wanted to read displayed in the window, so I popped in with a mind to purchase it. The book itself was not a new book, and was not in especially good condition and was priced at £3.49 - the problem was that I had only £3.00 with me. I asked if they would accept £3, what with the book being in less than great condition and with it being a charity shop but they refused, stating "the book is priced at £3.49, we cannot change that". I pointed out that they had set the price themselves, and that I could purchase the book for the same price from certain online bookstores and have a brand new copy, or borrow it from the library, and that the reason I had called in there was because it was a charity shop. I reasoned with them that as I could purchase a copy for the same price elsewhere and that it would be better to accept £3 than to receive no money whatsoever. They still refused to budge. I searched my pockets and found I had another 20p in change, but they would not even accept this amount - they were prepared to forfeit £3.20 for the sake of 29p. I therefore left the shop and will get the book elsewhere. To me this attitude displayed by the charity shop simply does not make any sense, and I will be unlikely to visit that shop again because of the attitude and lack of manners of the staff I saw today. I understand that they want to obtain as many funds as possible, but surely it would be better to accept a slightly lower price than nothing at all?
So those are my three examples for the day of the lack of common sense and manners frequently on display in this country today.

top-up treatments

I was pleased to see the news today that Health Minister Alan Johnson has given the go ahead for "top-up" treatments.
There has been some controversy over this issue. Until now any patient receiving NHS care has been prohibited from paying for additional treatments, which would include new medications which had not been approved by NICE, or by those which NICE had deemed too expensive or not cost effective. Previously, if any patient had opted to pay privately for top-up treatments then their NHS care would be withdrawn, something that I view as inhumane and unnecessary.
I understand the argument that there may be possible interactions between the different drugs, or associated problems and side effects, but why should we be denying those people who wish to use their life savings in order to attempt to preserve their life for a few more months or years, or to improve their quality of life for their remaining time the opportunity to do so? Again, people who oppose the scheme have argued that it will create a "two tier" system of health care where only the more affluent members of society will be able to afford this level of care. In response to this point I would say that the NHS standard treatment is the one thought to give the best possible results within the parameters set by the government. If an individual wishes to use their own finances to add to this treatment, possibly on the advice of their doctor then they should be able to spend their money as they please.
Presently NICE will not approve treatment that costs more then £30000-£40000 for a year of "good quality" life per patient, something which could now be doubled to £80000 under the new guidelines. I am hugely relieved at this, although I find it disgusting that a life is valued at only £30000, especially when you consider that the NHS will pay up to £27000 per woman for IVF treatment. I think it is disgusting that the life of a person who is alive, living and breathing is valued at about the same price as fertility treatment which is non essential and unnecessary when the overall costs of bringing another person into the world and their lifetime medical costs will far exceed this amount. Surely it makes more sense both emotionally and financially to provide better end of life care than to bring more lives into the world, if the funding is so tight that we cannot stretch above £80000 for the cost of someones life? I have a very close relative currently receiving treatment for a terminal illness and I value his life at far more than £80000. I realise that we are lucky to live in a country with such a good health service (because despite what critics say, the NHS is an amazing organisation and the health care we receive in this country is among the best in the world) but I would prefer the money is spent on treating those people who already exist than it being spent on fertility treatments. Infertility is not life threatening, cancer is; spend the money where it is needed and can make a real difference. I often wonder how the government bodies would feel if it was they who required the kind of treatment they are so slow to approve for the use in others, and how they would feel if they had their NHS health care withdrawn because they had opted to pay for additional treatment.
I also think it is decidedly iffy that it has taken so long to accept the recommendations outlined by the Richards Review due to concerns about interactions and side effects when you consider that many patients receiving NHS care for cancer continue to smoke, but still receive NHS care, continue to drink alcohol even while suffering with liver diseases yet still receive NHS care, patients who are obese but still receive care from the NHS for weight related life threatening diseases and so on. That is why I welcome the news that top-ups will be permitted. Far from providing a two tier system I feel that this goes someway to redress the imbalance caused by so many other factors. After all there are many working class or lifelong unemployed people who have only made minimal tax contributions who receive NHS end of life care while continuing to smoke, drink or take drugs, so why should more wealthy individuals who have paid higher rates of tax be denied NHS care just because they opt to pay for an additional potentially life saving drug to top up their care? Not to mention the thousands of terminally ill patients who continue to take untested and unproven "alternative" treatments such as Chinese medicine and other supplements?(and I am not for a second trying to imply that only working class people drink, smoke or use illegal drugs, I am fully aware that these activities are enjoyed by those from all walks of life)