LaceOverSand

Alternate Universe

Imagine a world without nuclear weaponry.

I know, I know, a hundred dozen hippies have asked the same, but with the various posts I've been reading on the issues surrounding the replacement of the British nuclear deterrent, it suddenly occurred to me that I'd never really considered this particular alternate universe.

I can't really see it. I try to consider what life might be like if Hiroshima and Nagasaki had never happened, but I don't really get very far.

I get to the mental vision of a pilot in a cockpit peering down through... whatever the window bit in a cockpit is called. I get to crackling radio and various explosions making loud noises and shocking light.

I can sort of hear a voice, "Oh, crap, nothing happened." But in an American accent, which for some reason my aural imagination just can't reach to without introducing Ben Affleck. I point blank refuse to bring Ben Affleck into this, so "Oh, crap, nothing happened" will have to stay in a slightly out-of-place accent.

Later, I can maybe see a bunch of scientists getting fired.

Other than that there's nothing. Possibly, the human race is extinguished by something a bit icky due to resources being redirected to biological weaponry. Maybe we, like, unite and colonise space and learn to communicate with sweater monsters. Maybe we sit around in kimonos all day and smoke an endless supply of marijuana.

Not that anybody needs reminding, but they're called alternate universes because they didn't happen, and in this particular case my head isn't filling in any blanks for me.

So. What's next?

Foxes And Spiders

From Ofcom, via plasticbag.org.

Fox News said that the BBC had appointed a special executive to monitor ‘pro-Arab’ bias at the network; that tapping the phrase “BBC anti-American” into Google resulted in 47,200 hits; that the BBC “continually bashed” American policy and ridiculed the American President; and persecuted Tony Blair because he was pro-American. (Emphasis added)

Does this make anyone else laugh? Seriously. Is there anybody out there that's not ridiculing the American President? I'm not sure I want to meet them. They obviously don't have a sense of humour. Or, say, consciousness.

Oh, and just in case anyone was wondering. "Fox News stupid"? Gets you 409,000. Stupid for trying to make a point using an automated search engine, obviously. Stupid for a lot of other things too from what I hear, the specifics and even generality of which I know next to nothing and am therefore not going to comment upon. Because I knew a lot about this matter, ahem, and am therefore qualified to provide glib critique.

I hope I don't have to point out that the rest of what Fox News said has also been suitably squished. Read the rest of the damn article. Squished like a puny arachnid, to give arachnophobes pleasant thoughts.

I'm off to watch Spiderman 2. Thought I'd mention that, just to give arachnophobes an unpleasant thought - seamless link, yes? I'm expecting to come back to a world with a level of intelligence and intellect sufficiently greater than this movie. This hopefully shouldn't be too difficult for the planet. Please at least try.

Guh, I should probably just avoid Fox News in future.

Spacial Awareness Within My Head

So strange that you can read reasonably extensively about a place and still have no idea where it is. I realised earlier whilst catching up on some more politically oriented blogs that I didn't have a clue where within the Middle East Iraq was. I have general awareness of, and even some opinions on, its leaders, its former leaders, its citizens, its terrorists and its most recent war. Before today I had no idea where it physically was. The situation was only slightly less severe for Israel.

So I went and dug up a map of the Middle East. And it was a good thing I was sitting down, because whilst events are easy enough to follow and I try to keep informed, I didn't have a clue where any of these places were.

I was reading an article on the West Bank. Having realised that I needed to pay more attention to the geography of matters, I tried to work out with a certain degree of clarity where this might be. Well, I thought, it's a fairly descriptive name for a place, it can't be too difficult. And then I spent far too long trying to work out which way was west. Then, once I'd done that, hang on. West Bank of what, exactly? I thought the Mediterranean was to the west, which would make the whole thing an east bank, and had I got my east and west mixed up again? No, I hadn't, it all made sense once I pulled up the map. But I felt very stupid for my confusion.

I thought most of these countries were much smaller. Iran is, like... well it's really big! Bigger than Saudi Arabia, and why didn't anybody tell me?

Iraq seems much bigger than I thought it was as well. And more up and to the right than I had considered it. I know I knew it was on the Persian Gulf but for some reason I never quite connected the two.

I thought a fairly sizeable chunk of Egypt was a part of Israel, I thought most of the region was sort of squished underneath Turkey, and I thought Lebanon-was-a-bit-next-to-Tunisia-ohmigod-I-need-to-be-shot.

Afghanistan? I thought that was on the other side of India. Sort of. I don't know what I thought.

I know I had to do a double take when I saw that Sudan was in Africa. Sudan, in Africa!

Then I noticed Abu Dhabi, where my former next-door neighbours moved and my parents recently visited. Would you look at that. United Arab Emirates, I had no idea Abu Dhabi was there. Besides, I thought the U.A.E. was more in the middle of the peninsula, a tiny little place rather landlocked between what I can now see are Oman and Yemen. Turns out, not so much.

Lastly, all those times I've watched reporters on aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf on televisian. On a map, I could've pointed to exactly where the Persian Gulf was. In my head, when I watched tv? It was annexed by the Mediterranean.

For I will abuse the exclamation points and italics, and all shall forgive me, as they shall be too busy being awed by my complete and utter ignorance on other matters to care much.

Let's get one thing clear. I'm overeducated, I've attended a veritable plethora of different types of school, a couple of which were those classy respected joints that make it into the papers for reasons that make parents coo. I've only recently emerged from the system. Arguably, as a student (or hopeful student) I'm still a part of that system. I come from that middle-class culture where education is all, and I've always taken my duty to qualify myself as an academic snob seriously. I read. I travel. Practically my entire life so far has been about getting 'educated'. I know far more junk than can possibly be of use, and an alarming quantity of it comes directly from textbooks rather than Tolkien.

So how could my scandalous ignorance come to be? Maybe it's arrogant of me, but I'm confused. I know I'm supposed to know these things, but if I think about it carefully I'm not at all sure when I'm supposed to have picked them up. Geography at school was dropped just before gcse, but we never studied countries and capitals and, y'know, where stuff is. It was all about bits of rock and types of weather and populations doing various things. Volcanoes and earthquakes and ye olde tectonic plate theory. I got my leg stuck down a grike on a field trip, and cookies to whoever can tell me what one of those is without clicking on the link.

My ignorance is a personal failing, and I'm taking it incredibly personally. If I want to know things it's up to me to educate myself. But I can't help feeling the education system I've been through has let me down a bit my missing such a fundamental aspect of geography, the presentation of, as I so eloquently put it in my last paragraph, where stuff is.

I need to sit down and read an atlas, cover to cover, one of the ones without much writing. Spend a couple of hours on each picture, just coming to terms with the world. In particular, it would be truly outrageous, I think, to continue to invest as much time as I do reading about a region that I have such an inaccurate locational concept of.

The only problem being that the only atlas I own is a second hand one of Middle Earth. Believe me when I say I would probably be far more confident sketching out a picture of what that fantastical world looks like than how various parts of this one appear. And the features of Beleriand, and Numenor, and all the more obscure places that came before the more widely known Middle Earth.

Jew

I thought this would take care of itself.

Jew.

But it hasn't.

Jew.

Google does occasionally get things wrong.

Jew.

For example, I'm still the first response for thermal hiking socks.

Jew.

Go figure.

Jew.

But do you really want an anti-semitic site to be the first response for when you type in "jew"?

Jew.

To quote some West Wing, why then, I don't even want to know you.

Jew.

I thought it would take care of itself.

Jew.

Something so obviously wrong should be easily fixed.

Jew.

But it's still there.

Jew.

So maybe this is defeat.

Jew.

Maybe there's something about the world that I'm just not getting.

Jew.

Maybe there's nothing any of us can really do.

Jew.

But who are we if we don't try?

Jew.

Maybe it's a small thing.

Jew.

Maybe it's not.

Jew.

Maybe this makes no difference.

Jew.

But maybe it does.

Jew.

Who are we if we don't try?

Jew.

If you have a blog or a journal make the effort.

Jew.

Post a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew using the word "jew".

Jew.

Look, I've even done the html for you: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew">Jew</a>.

Jew.

Do it.

Jew.

Now.

Jew.

Because I said so.

... Jew.

Potential Ethics Within Harry Potter And Their Hypothetical Effects

So remember You Think You Know?

That's right, that big fuck-off piece of Harry Potter fanfic that I posted about a month ago and I doubt any of you read.

Well I'm going to pose some theories, and ask some questions, and if anybody wants to chip in with an informed/intelligent/doesn't-know-what-they're-talking-about-but-slightly-curious opinion then that would be greatly appreciated. To save you the trouble of reading it, I give you a basic synopsis.

Harry Potter and Co. won the war. Big surprise. At the end of the war Draco was still fighting for Voldemort. And if you read a lot of Harry Potter fanfic then that really should be a big surprise. Anyway, Draco spends much time angsting whilst in the custody of the Ministry and specifically the Weasleys.

What should happen to him? What kind of system would Dumbledore (plus Harry Potter and Co.) implement to deal with underage war criminals?

The wizarding world presented by J.K. Rowling is a curious one. On the one hand it is notably antiquated in comparison with our own (muggle) world. The school system, the mail, the clothing, banking and disastrously haphazard law-enforcement all point to a society firmly stuck in the past in many aspects. However, there are also frequent occasions where the up-beat modern nature of the wizarding world is sharply pointed out to readers. The parallels between attitudes towards quidditch and football are hardly subtle, the power, presentation and nature of the media is also easy to relate to. For me the most convincing example of Rowling's intention to enable us to identify the wizarding world as familiar to our own is the mostly bureaucratic nature of the Ministry. I believe Rowling has stated herself that the behaviour of the insufferable Professor Umbridge in Order of the Phoenix was a direct expression of her frustration over government interference in teaching.

She takes modern day people with modern day problems, relationships and interactions and places them in a world just antique enough for her to be able to utilise the elements of fantasy that make the Harry Potter books so appealing. She gains the aesthetics and storytelling potential of such a world whilst retaining characters and situations that readers will hopefully be able to relate to. The world by nature clings to the past, but the people advance relentlessly.

My question is, on the basis that wizarding society has progressed much along the same lines as muggle society, to what extent have the morals of both remained comparable? (And how would this affect the creation of a judiciary system?)

The fact that readers are supposedly sympathetic to so many of Rowling's characters would hopefully imply that readers are also sympathetic to their behaviour and ethics. It is difficult, for example, to create a character whose behaviour conflicts greatly with our own basic understanding of right and wrong whilst maintaining the character's overall integrity. In order to achieve the necessary degree of believability such characters must come attached with a comfortable sense of backstory, as is the case with Professor Snape. The underlying morals in the world of Harry Potter are reassuringly identical to our own at first glance. Bullying is bad, killing people is bad, controlling people against their will is bad, discriminating against people on the basis of birth is bad.

And yet the styled black-and-white conception of evil sharply contrasts with an adult view of the modern world. That can be worked around, the books were initially targetted at children and although that presentation is slightly patronising it is understandable. In attempting to consider the morals of an adult wizarding world, however, it is necessary to discard this view in favour of a more familiar array of grey areas. If not the the wizarding world is lost to a thoroughly archaic set of principles and thus all pretense of modern society must be abandoned. In the creation of a world otherwise ideal for storytelling and fanfic I do not believe this to be at all beneficial, and so it is the conception of evil that must be adapted for my purposes.

Another point of dissonance between the morals of the wizarding world and the muggle is brought up by Hermione and her failed (house-)Elf Liberation Front. This highlights the differences between the two very effectively; the complete lack of understanding on both sides and the lack of resolution to the situation helpfully illustrates that their must be some differences. The support for the wizarding equivalent of the death penalty, 'the Dementor's Kiss', also contrasts well with popular opinion from our society. This is perhaps more logical considering that the wizarding world has experienced a great deal of horrific war in its very recent history, but there are overtones throughout the books that leave me considering this explanation not entirely sufficent. My opinion is that the point stands, differences must exist. How deeply are these differences likely to run? What effects would they have in the handling of a post-war situation?

For the purposes of my fic I have the age of majority at 21. I have wands being snapped and preliminary hearings sending young offenders such as Draco to a hastily set up rehabilitative institution attached to Hogwarts and supervised by Dumbledore. Practical magic to be thoroughly prohibited, although continued education in subjects such as History of Magic to be encouraged. As a nod to Guatanamo Bay and to conveniently spin out the story setting, situation indefinite, pending trial.

What do you think? Opinions from all welcome, knowledge of actual law of epic value.

Political Menagerie

This thing about the Tory Chicken... is it for real? Like, seriously? I was twelve at the time and wasn't even in the country, so I really have no personal memory of it whatsoever. It looks a bit, ahem, silly. In a pefectly respectable serious politics way, of course. But still. Silly.

And if it did really happen, surely it renders the argument that the proposed tv show 'Political Idol' will undermine politics just slightly null and void.

Not that I'm casting in my lot in support of 'Political Idol' because I'm not. On the one hand attempting to bring politics further into popular mainstream media can be nothing but a good thing. On the other, it sounds like bad television, and there's not much excuse for that. It also worries me that a significant chunk of the public might end up basing its opinion on what so-and-so's hair was like rather than what his/her policies were. There's probably a study around somewhere, but how many people pay attention to the content on tv as opposed to the charisma of the respective presenters?

Maybe they should have a political 'Big Brother' show instead. That way they could take the chickens along for the ride and attain some level of comedy value. Mr. Blobby was never anything but incredibly annoying, but he was certainly far more entertaining than the likes of Gareth Gates.

Clean Little Footprints

[link (and html) gacked from Aquarion. Yes, tables are occasionally beyond me. Not often, but just occasionally.]

Category	Global Hectares
Food	0.7
Mobility	0.2
Shelter	0.6
Goods/Services	0.5
Total Footprint	2

In comparison, the average ecological footprint in your country is 5.3 global hectares per person.

Worldwide, there exist 1.8 biologically productive global hectares per person.

If everyone lived like you, we would need 1.1 planets.

This is here because it's something I feel particularly strongly about. The amount of the earth I use up, as calculated by MyFootprint. Personally, I think I've done quite well.

So.

For everybody that knocks vegetarianism. Shut up. There are reasons that do not revolve about the cuteness and cuddliness of feathered and furry things. It may be 'cool' to talk about how you could never live without bacon, or sausages, or a good roast every Sunday. That eating meat makes you in some way earthy or manly. It doesn't, and whilst I don't really care about others' eating habits I find disparaging comments on mine to be thoroughly contemptible. I find it increasingly difficult to tolerate the meaningless and un-thought-out mocking attached to vegetarianism, not to mention the complaints of people not even cooking for me and various family/friends' repeated attempts to get me to eat meat. There are reasons, there are good reasons, and you should think about them.

The other significant thing here is, I think, mobility. I don't drive. I don't like driving, I'm not very good at it, I can't afford it, and I failed the theory test. I am a dedicated pedestrian. I walk everywhere in town and get on the train whenever I have to be somewhere that's else. This is probably the other major contributing factor to most people's footprint, and yet it is also the other main item on the list that I get flack about. I have lost count of the number of times people have tried to explain to me how soon I will simply be unable to function without a car at my disposal. Well, I'm sorry, but I will. Somehow, I will find a way, and I personally find it disgusting that something so environmentally damaging is practically socially imposed.

It's like smoking. Somebody wants to smoke, that's their choice, that's fine by me. Somebody wants to borrow a cigarette even, just to try it, then absolutely, people are entitled to try things and decide for themselves. But you don't go around actively encouraging and pressurising people into taking up something that can never be anything other than harmful.

I'm no saint, but if more people lived like me we'd be 4.2 planets better off. To be honest, I'm still worried and guilty. I feel I should cut down some more, not just to get rid of the 0.2 hectares I'm going over, but to compensate for all the people I see around me everyday. The people going so hideously over and not even thinking twice about it. Somebody needs to take some responsibility.

Mona Lisa Grimace

Yesterday I went to see Mona Lisa Smile. In 50's America, liberal Katherine Watson (Julia Roberts) arrives at Wellesley College, a premiere Girls' education centre, to teach art history. Much to her dismay she finds the place predictably conservative and even somewhat diminutive of a woman's role in society. The main aims of her wards are to get married and keep house, and the overbearing school board do nothing but obstruct any attempts to encourage the girls to think for themselves. There follows an unoriginal but touching story of various characters finding their true paths.

Is that all I have to say? Where's my usual scathing condemnation? Either that or my unbounded adulation, surely. Suggestions that I am incapable of anything resembling a happy medium are undoubtedly well-founded.

Surprisingly enough, I am, for once, stuck at neither extreme.

Wellesley College made me feel nothing if not incredibly uncomfortable. The warped, narrow-minded characters that it and upper-class society de facto churned out during this period produced in me a sickened reaction almost physical in nature.

Having attended an elitist girls' school for the despicable last two years of my school education, the movie hit unhappily close to home. It seems so obvious to the modern western world that a woman should have a choice to do more than sit prettily at home. That a young girl's life should not revolve around finding an appropriate husband and then holding on to him long enough to build a comfortable home to which to tie him. Women can and should be more than that, and any institution surely thoroughly undermines its own prestigious doctrine of academic accomplishment with any suggestion that to expect anything more from life is at the best "subversive."

What upset me so much, is the disgusting feeling that nothing very much had changed. Perhaps this is a testament to the director's achievement in creating environment and characters that many in a modern audience can relate to in at least a small way, whether they have relevant personal experiences in their past or not. The core aim of these estabilishments may have followed the revolution and evolution of women's rights over the years but their methods and attitude is not markedly different.

Such places assume the necessity to be the best. Unsurprisingly, most parents support this. Individuality is encouraged only within understood bounds, and girls subjected to this system from the earliest age never question this. As long as an activity will assist in the procurement of a place at a well-respected university and a secure high-powered job, it is respectable and encouraged. Anything else - scandal. The holy grail that was a husband has been replaced with much sought-after popular university places, and the atmosphere surrounding their pursuit remains as stifling as ever. Indeed, even if a particular extra-curricular hobby is approved, it is unlikely to be supported unless a student can produce the requisite flourish and promise of notable achievement.

Personal enjoyment isn't even a factor. Sometimes I doubt whether girls bred through this system even know how to enjoy something without being particular adept at it.

Where does this come from? This ridiculous pressure, both self-imposed and welcomed external, to succeed? The answer does of course lie with the parents. Most students not coming from an overtly upper-class family instead hail from a home in which at least one parent is some form of business-suited professional. They grow up being shown how to succeed, and given no reason or excuse to do otherwise. Growing up, they live in such an environment that they are sheltered from anybody suggesting they do anything but follow the carefully mapped out route of success assigned to them. When most finish school, they will not know a single peer that is not going on to higher education, allowing for gap year variation.

Anyone not going to one of the more respected universities is obviously either mediocre or a slacker, and those not going to university at all are clearly stupid, or deficient, and doomed to a life of menial labour. These paragons of educated thought are there to do the thinking for the lesser masses, and is it any wonder that they are often initially incapable of doing anything but patronising, pitying, and judging? Opinions are fashionable but rarely gleaned from personal experience, thought, or investigation, and General Studies lessons are the latest forum for affected and impassioned debate, the poses echoing eerily of the Elocution and Poise lessons so seriously satired by Mona Lisa Smile.

For me, Mona Lisa Smile showcased nothing but the heralding of the wave of new ideals and thoughtless goals rather than any more substantial overthrow of traditions. The women coming out of the modern-day Wellesley Colleges are just as blindedly rooted to their culture's definitions as the characters of the 50's. The Katherine Watsons of this world did nothing but change the instruments the band were holding; the music played remains the same.

Centres of academic excellence shouldn't automatically be presupposed to be marching hand-in-hand with snobbery and odourous elitism, but I believe often the two are closer than we should be comfortable with. If there are parents in relevant situations reading this, I would appeal to you to consider remarkably carefully the environment in which you wish your child to grow up. Intellectual children in less achieving schools may feel somewhat isolated for a while. But among the mass of unhealthy motivation to be found amongst the striving "academic elite" there lies nothing but the promise of a callously warped perspective on life, leading to a stress-dominated lifestyle reflective of that, and leaving only the unexploited potential for personal development. Exactly the same potential, if not somewhat lessened, as when the individual first entered the school. Academically, intellectually, a safe option, perhaps, but socially an almost inevitable condemnation.

The sixth-form school I attended that I hated so much was, to put it mildly, unwise to accept me, and dafter still to offer me a scholarship. I attended 8 (9 if you count junior-senior school transitions) different schools prior to my entrance to this last one, and most of these were state-owned, none in even the same league in either acheivement or prestige as the last. Most of the girls I encountered there made me cringe every other time they opened their pretty athletic mouths, and I wish I didn't know that such a culture of pure attainment existed. But I do, and if I had my way I'd probably outlaw all institutions encouraging such a one.

So I suppose it's probably a good thing that it's not up to me, my reaction is undoubtedly far from objective. I couldn't possibly tell you if Mona Lisa Smile was a good movie or not.

Campaign Groupie

My first direct encounter with student politics was probably the same as many students', and fairly negative. As treasurer of the NUS at one point, my mother was heavily involved in student politics, and I grew up with the vague idea that students were often politically enthused and active. I guess I never really looked too closely at how that view matched up to my more general observations of my peers.

I was still shocked, however, that the Union had to resort to such measures as threatening society budgets in order to coerce students to attend the AGM. I was still further shocked when, after indignantly reporting my discovery to my mother down the phone, I was informed with no small hint of amusement, that yes, this had always been the case.

Well, I can understand why, it really was all rather boring. Still feel a bit duped, though, and far more freakish than I previously considered myself. Apparently, I probably am the only person online that's read LotR rpg fanfiction and a transcript of the PM's Question Time at the same time. Who'd have thought.

Anyway, the AGM was boring. Cardiff University is in the final stages of a merger with the medical college, a couple of boring old men talked to us about that, and then we voted on obvious issues such as whether the medical students should be allowed to vote in the coming elections. If I remember correctly, there were no abstentions, and only 2 or 3 pranksters against. Upon being asked if it was actually possible to withhold the right to vote from the medics, there may even have been a spiderman quote: "With [great] power comes [great] responsibility..." I am ashamed to say that I left early with the majority of those assembled, and headed up to the pub where we'd been promised a free drink for attending.

I am a detestable apathetic, lazy and boozing. Looked like I wasn't following in Mum's footsteps after all.

On Wednesday night, however, I put on makeup and wore a specific t-shirt. I went out to the pub at the Union and had a couple of drinks. I was cheerful, friendly, highly visible, and, dare I say it, possibly even bouncy. Before I'd had the drinks, may I add.

I made my way around practically the entire bar, grinning up at nameless faces and making random conversation, smiling constantly. I laughed at bad jokes, listened to slightly-drunks, cajoled and was cajoled.

"Bouncy" is probably what should have given away the game. I'm rarely bouncy, even after a couple of drinks, let alone before. I normally keep to myself, and unless you get me babbling about something I'm comfortable with I don't generally say much. I'm not very good with large groups, or even small groups, and people with whom I have happily conversed at length one-to-one often seem surprised when I clam up once we attach to a group.

I'm quite comfortable with people I don't know, however, and I can't remember a single name from Wednesday. "Bouncy" was affected but I think positive, I was helping a friend out campaigning for a sabbatical position with the university. I rolled the sleeves of the t-shirt up, and for once withheld my irritation with others' overt stareouts with my chest. It was quite legible, after all.

Gary Andrews for Media Officer.

You know, the only people that were actually mean to me were medics. I wish to hell I'd cared about that vote a bit more, principles be damned.

If you're a student (which you're probably not), and if you're at Cardiff (which, once again, you're probably not), and if you're planning on voting (which you should be), then you should vote Gary Andrews for Media Officer (which you're probably doing already).

Possibly an entirely pointless entry, but Gary isn't actually allowed to campaign online. I can understand that in terms of email, but he isn't even allowed a webpage. It should be ok to mention him here however, and I plan to discuss this shamefully archaic campaign ruling at a future date.

Why Homosexual Marriage Should Not Be Legal

Shamelessly pinched from Anatketani, who, as is the way with such works of genius, got it from myburningviolin, who got it from a friend of a friend twice removed on her cat's maternal cousin's side.

[Update]: Having been contacted, I am delighted to reveal the true origin of this piece, the Gator Gay-Straight Alliance.

Top twelve reasons homosexual marriage should not be legal:

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world definitely needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents raise only straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears' 55-hour-just-for-fun marriage was so meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a 'separate but equal' institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

That WMD

"I did not have sexual relations with that WMD."

Of course you didn't, Mr. Prime Minister. You're too busy talking out your arse for it to be possible for anyone to shove a missile up it. However much some may wish to.

Because it wasn't at all obvious that you were lying through your teeth. And frankly, trying to pretend you knew nothing was never really a very good plan of action. Either you're lying, or you're responsible for sending us to war on information that sounds like it's been through the world's largest game of chinese whispers. A game of chinese whispers in which nobody speaks the same language. And if you trusted that information, then that's your own stupid fault.

I used to lie to my teachers all the time. I had it down to an art form.

"Oh, I've managed to forget my exercise book, I'm so sorry. I have done the work, honest." She says as she slips the mislaid book into her classmate's bag and smiles innocently.

They knew I was lying. I knew they knew I was lying. They probably knew that I knew that they knew that... The key point of the standoff was that it didn't matter. I created a general situation that made it impossible to challenge me on the issue. It was very clear that I would take great offense at being called a liar, and that the faculty had better make damn sure they had some good proof before they did so.

Fortunately, we can, should, and do confront the government on a regular basis. As humiliating as the situation is then exposed to be, it would be more humiliating to pretend that it wasn't there.

Didn't know, your arse. Just how stupid does this guy want us to think he is?

Note About The Beeb

I do. I hesitated about it, I had to think quite carefully about why, exactly, but I eventually came to the conclusion that I support the bbc. Even if it now doesn't seem to need that support quite so badly, as Bush is working hard enough to undermine Blair himself, thus giving our esteemed news coporation a bit of a breather.

The first thing to make clear is that I don't actually like the bbc. I don't have a TV license, they keep hassling me about that, I think most of their programming is utter tripe, and I refuse to pay for it. I don't have a TV, and when I am at home I only occasionally make the effort to watch the news. Which I inevitably find slanted and unsatisfyingly undeveloped. But that's because I'm comparing it to reading about events online from a variety of blogs and newspapers with a selection of differing perspectives.

So I suppose I can forgive that.

I didn't actually know that much about the Hutton Inquiry and the events that sparked it previous to the last few days, as when it all started in July I was busy... slobbing around and doing absolutely nothing constructive whatsoever. So for the last couple of weeks I have been reading all these articles and opinions on the matter and only having a vague idea about what it was all about. So then I went and did some more reading, got even more confused, and eventually ended up at an encyclopedia. Which cleared a lot of things up for me.

It seems to me that the clinch factor in forming a view on this is whether or not one believes the Hutton report. If you believe it, then the bbc are guilty of irresponsible journalism. If you don't, then the government has maliciously indicated the corporation in an attempt to villify anybody but themselves. A part of me believes this is quite a hard one to argue, and that it is much more of a personal response than anything else.

Who do you trust more, the government, or the bbc?

It seems to me that the bbc do need to sort themselves out rather a lot. Fiasco. Piss-up. Brewery. All I'm saying.

But if the bbc needs to yank up its socks with both hands, then the government's pair need a thorough soapy bleaching. And if morals were socks, then the government's would need some severe patching as well, and preferably some nametapes to ensure they don't lose them entirely. The bbc is guilty of incompetence, the government of willful deceit.

I see no reason why anyone at the bbc should take the fall in order to vacuously pander to this government. Which isn't to say that they shouldn't be hitting the road anyway as part of overdue restructuring. Just that the government shouldn't be able to make it look like anything even resembling vindication of their behaviour.

Overall. I support the bbc.

Power, Chocolate Biscuits, And Damage Limitation

This article (gacked from British Spin) suggests that government has given up on power.

Well. I'm slightly curious as to where all the power's going to go. The Tories don't exactly, ahem, inspire confidence, what with their leadership struggles and slightly snotty public image. Indeed, the very same article points out that they did exactly the same thing after 1992. The fact that I don't agree with much of their politics isn't really relevant, the point is that their chaotic meanderings seem to "want to be in power" even less than Labour's.

And that leaves us with who? The Lib Dems? I know I'm not overly up on my political history, but seriously, the only power wielding I remember anyone connected with them doing was old Lloyd George, and that was, shall we say, a while ago. Having done a quick bit of reading that now turns out to have been a coalition government. The Lib Dems don't really seem very serious about power either.

Personally I don't think Labour are going to collapse any time soon, no matter how hard they seem to be trying. There isn't anyone to take their place, and the power's got to go somewhere.

Or else we might wake up the next morning and have to start looking down the back of the sofa for the political power hot potato that nobody really wants. We might as well have a look for the weapons of mass destruction and the dodgy dossier too whilst we're at it. I can see the search already.

"This power thing we're looking for, what exactly does it look like?"

"Dunno. Feels kind of tingly when you get close, though. Hugh Grant mentioned chocolate biscuits."

Democracy, indeed. Damage limitation more like.

The Atlantic Rift

There's a lot between the USA and Europe.

The first thing that springs to mind is the big fuck-off ocean. Big salty blue wet thing. Tidal. Gets a bit deep.

It used to take weeks on wooden boats, sorry, ships, to cross that ocean, and most of these we never seem to hear about, as they either sank, mysteriously disappeared off the map and then sank, or mysteriously disappeared and ended up in Sri Lanka.

Advancements in technology not-so-soon meant that the journey eventually took only a couple of days in bigger, more metallic, ships. The most famous of which, oh, whoops, yes, that sank too.

There was a big airship that made the trip at one point, and that managed not to sink, by virtue of blowing up instead.

Nowadays it takes 8-9 hours of bad movies and potential deep-vein thrombosis to get to the US. The place isn't getting any closer. (In fact, due to the mid-atlantic ridge on the constructive margin, it's actually getting farther away.)

But as an explanation of the current deficient and deteriorating relations between this shore and that, geographical inconvenience has to be amongst the most pathetic. I don't know why I bothered writing about it. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

I have been attempting to widen my blogroll to include some less left-wing blogs. This venture has so far seemed nothing but disastrous, but it seems slightly shameful to allow only opinions from one fairly common angle to influence me. I should be making my mind up myself, and this necessitates reading positions that I may not initially agree with.

Specifically, I was attempting to read some Melanie Phillips. I couldn't do it. It was painful enough to start out with, but after getting to "the British don't grasp the concept of free expression, never have, and never will." I just had to move on. I then felt pathetic, and clicked a couple more times, in a guilt-ridden attempt to force myself to read the debate, but I failed each time. I felt, surely there must be someone that's going to ridicule this view appropriately, but nothing was forthcoming, and shuddering I gave up.

Well, assuming that we do have some sense of free expression, it seems to me that this opinion reflects a growing alienation between two peoples. Like, duh. They see us as fuddy-duddies with our heads in the clouds, happily ignoring sophisticated morals and principles. America seems to think it's better than the rest of the world, and that includes the Brits. Everything's so much more efficient, cheap, and convenient in the US. Everything's bigger. Everything's better.

In return, we see them as a loud-mouthed, harsh-accented, in-your-face lot with about as much subtlety as a 10-tonne truck. We don't share a language with them; we own it, and they mutilate it. More money than sense. Severe lack of anything resembling culture, a healthy diet, or respect for the environment. Isolationist idiots. Can't even count their own votes reliably.

For the record, I went to an American school for a while, and I have, if not a lot, then certainly a few, American friends. I'm not anti-America in general, I just happen to be feeling slightly... defensive. Well, actually, I might be anti-America, I'm not sure yet, and even if the giant does make me feel considerably uneasy, I still don't want to label myself too hastily.

But back to the main idea behind this post. Where does it come from? Why such a rift? It's all to easy to blame the whole American extreme psyche on Sept. 11th at the moment, but surely there's something more fundamental behind the current contempt fashionable on both sides of that ocean I mentioned? It doesn't even feel like it's all that connected with the politics, as it resembles a general attitude far too much for that. Makes it even more alarming. Changing politics is inevitable. Changing entire peoples doesn't even seem possible.

I don't like the idea that they're all a bunch of patriotic snobs, and we're just a bunch of culture-centric versions of the same. It seems like a really pathetic state of affairs, and suddenly blaming it all on geography doesn't seem so awful.

So there. I came up with an excuse for the rambling entry to this post after all.

Discussion Of A Manifesto, Following Talk Of Thighs

I'm currently sitting in bed, typing, with my head positioned directly between Hugo Weaving's thighs.

Hehe. I stuck up my posters a couple of days ago, and was alarmed to discover during the night that rolling over to my right left me looking straight up into Agent Smith's crotch. It's rather... disturbing. I think I may have to swap him for a head-shot of Jack Sparrow.

Life is good. I'm sitting reading the Guardian's columnists whilst listening to the Fellowship of the Ring soundtrack, with my first attempt at dabbling my misguided creativity in the world of graphic novels. All I need is for some small flavour of Essence of Mathematics to seep into my mind without me actually having to do anything, and I've got the perfect blend of nearly all my worlds.

After surviving the long 24+ hours of net deprivation, (damn ntl), I have finally caught up with a few of the more political blogs I read. Over Christmas I more or less gave up on them due to the parental rationing of my net time, but I'm back now, and the people that seem to have endless opinions and write remarkably profusely are still there.

The main issue to have caught my eye is the question of lowering the voting age, and methods proposed for ending youthful political apathy.

Most of the comments on Newsround suggest that young people believe that it is a bad idea, as a 16-year-old is significantly less well equipped to decide such important matters than your average 18-year-old. That there is some magical enlightening event that occurs in the two years which will leave a dull-witted 16-year-old a well-rounded and opinioned citizen. Maybe it's something you learn whilst purchasing cigarettes legally and having stupid sex with the support of the law. Maybe there's something mystical about cigarettes. They are capable of inspiring wisdom, but only if bought legally.

The only thing these mini-adults seem to have yet to learn is that most immature/apathetic/bewildered 16-year-olds will still be exactly the same in two years' time. The people that are interested in politics at 16 will most likely be the same people that are interested in politics at 18. But most importantly, the people that have the confidence to have political opinions at 16 will be the same people that do so at 18.

It occurs to me that this is merely another reason to get people involved at a younger age, yet for some reason I am not convinced. I see no reason why a larger proportion of 16-year-olds than 18-year-olds would vote. I also believe that it is dangerous for a section of the voting population to still be under such severe and direct influence as that of a teacher. State schools still being state owned, presumably. Whilst stupid 16-year-olds in themselves may not be particularly more impressionable than stupid 18-year-olds, many of them are still in an environment that could potentially leave them wide-open to some extreme exploitation and indoctrination.

Frankly, from what I have heard of attempts to bring politics to the classroom, I have little respect for the venture. This article in the EducationGuardian leaves me apalled at the patronising and unimaginative exercises employed and suggested. In particular, under the heading "Activism In The Classroom" halfway down the page. It suggests:

• Draw up a class manifesto for change by encouraging pupils to prioritise topical issues in order of importance.

  A class manifesto? If you were to throw 25-30 random adults into a room together would you expect all of them to be able to agree on enough grand issues to be able to form a manifesto? Anybody in the minority with a differing opinion is stuck with a manifesto that by its very nature attaches a label to them, for there is no way you can leave the class on the basis of politics. I can imagine the very conversation.

  "This request is very unusual, why exactly do you wish to leave form group 9F? Are you being bullied? Has Mrs Butler unjustly punished you?"

  "No, sir, but I can't bring myself to identify myself as a part of that form anymore, as it would force me to subscribe to the opinion containted in line 4 of paragraph 2 of the 5th article of the Right and Political Manifesto of Class 9F."

  The grim truth is that the majority often seems to miss the point somewhat. Which leaves those that actually care about the subject and have therefore educated themselves upon it in the minority, and forced to give way on the issue. I still bitterly remember, sometime during year 8, when I had to acquiesce and voice the group's opinion that the Mirror was a better newspaper than the Telegraph. This judgement was based soley on the fact that there was a big advert on the 3rd page of whatever broadsheet it was we had looked at, and that the tabloid lacked this atrocity.

• Challenge students to design and plan a campaign to change something about their school.

  Most schools already have what is known as a school council. Having sat upon one, I feel fairly confident of the issues that would be raised. If it's a school with a uniform, it'll be the uniform. If it's a school with a sports uniform, it'll be the sports uniform only twice as ferociously. If it's a boarding school, I guarantee that someone will suggest getting Sky for the common room. There might also be suggestion of a basketball hoop, meal times, meal standards, and the heating. A possible mention for better board rubbers.

  None of this is the point. Aha, the elusive afrontery of an actual point! There is already a system in place to deal with these issues, and most get dealt with appropriately. The ones that are ignored, the uniform and tv issues mainly, are the ones that are rightfully ignored. They come up year after year, and I myself refused to bring them to the council's attention as I deemed it a thorough waste of time. Every year it would get a mention, and we'd here the same reasons why it wasn't practical, and every year the reasons would be agreed as good reasons and then passed on to the rest of the school. Which would reluctantly concede the point, only for the entire process to be repeated the next year.

  The last thing this completely banal but delicately balanced system needs is campaign to disrupt the entire school. The only two outcomes I would foresee would either be a swift quashing of the movement, which would discourage more than a few budding politcians, or... choas of some kind? The undermining of the school administration? Something like that, and nothing resembling something that we would view as either viable or disireable amongst mainstream politics.

  I also have to question the suggestion that each and every class should come up with something to change. Not even just for the sake of it, but as part of some carefully staged exercise. Not only patronising, but not at all practical, either. Think of the number of classes to be taught each year. Then think of the number of years that this number of classes must be taught this same programme.

So, yes, obviously better access to politics would be a good thing. But not necessarily this.

I think I just dropped my phone down the side of my bed. It joins my key to the university laundrette and two hazelnuts. The world is full of quandaries.

Four-Letter Word Angst

It occurs to me that this is the first exam period of my life that this blog has so far encountered. So I thought maybe I should explain some stuff, or just think it through more carefully than usual and exorcise the whole thing here before it even starts up properly.

I'm not good at exams. I don't do them very well. It's the bit where you have to answer the questions that gets me every time.

I'm actually a bit worried. Not about the exams, it's not worth getting worried about them, as I actually find it very difficult to connect myself to them. I spent several years doing ridiculously well in exams, so well that the results always just seemed to be something that happened, rather than actually anything to do with me. And if exams are just a tiny, inaccurate reflection of some warped part of me that I don't even acknowledge, how can I possibly be expected to be concerned about what might be seen in them?

What I'm worried about is their effect upon my life and happy-bunny mental state. Will I get depressed, even as I obstinately declare they mean nothing to me? Logically, rationally, I really don't care all that much. I don't know why I still end up upset every now and again. I should probably just get over myself, but I don't know what I'd do without my bravado to cling to. It would be terrible to actually care about these things and then have to deal with how awful I'm going to do in them.

I tend to get irreverent and silly more than depressed, however, which I believe to be tragic in its own way.

If this turns me into even more of a spoilt denial-ridden brat than usual, I apologise before hand. There's a part of me that remains overwhelmingly bitter over just how much my priceless education has dominated and perverted my life. I have far-reaching psychological scars thanks to society's need to market every conceivable facet of a person.

Far-reaching psychological scars, I tell you. My personality's been seriously trashed by this tyrannical education thing.

To be perfectly honest, it makes me feel dirty. Like some whore for intellect. I let whoever got in line first stuff whatever information or techniques they like into my mind on the offchance that I might some day get some money for it. I sell my mind out to strangers, examiners, examination board members and Lord knows who else. I'm just some kind of temporary recepticle for whatever happens to be in this year's textbooks.

Part of me wonders why we automatically assume selling one's body is so much worse than this. If there's such a thing as a soul, then surely one's mind is closer to it than such a fickle thing as flesh. And selling one's soul... well, pop-culture tells us just how wonderfully that always turns out.

At the end of exam time I feel used and discarded and bad. It's the final testing that caps the insult. It's bad enough that they cram my head full of all this information they deem important, but then they have the audacity to poke and prod at me in order to see what I remember. But they don't really care if I remember in the long run, they just want to see if I can. They just want to see if I survived their information implantation, as if my mind is some factory product, and maybe if it's good enough it'll be moved further down the conveyor belt to be tossed to some stray employer.

This is what I meant when I mentioned "depressed." I have a sneaking suspicion it might also be "spoilt brat" material too. I'm blaming it on the psychological scars, and as for the depression, I'd like it to go away. Now, please.

Billowin' Smoke

*hic*

I'm not a regular smoker.

*hic*

I'm really not. I'm a regular drinker with side-effects, one of which would be tobacco ignition.

However, I really do think that banning smoking is really a rather stupid idea. And yes, this may be coming from the girl that just spent the last 3 hours burning obscene pictures onto the underside of the table using a lighter. And another side-effect of that may be that she now has a slightly strangely shaped and incinerated thumb nail, as well as a thoroughly inspired pyramid of chairs in her kitchen, but honestly. This seems like a thorougly crap and unrealistic prospective prohibition.

Infringement of civil liberties, man, like, totally.

What are they going to ban next, caffeine? Paracetemol? Alka-Seltzer?

Dear lord, they better not bloody do. I'm going to need all three of those come next morning.

*checks time*

Ok, later this morning. I'm going to need all three of those later this morning. If I manage to get up sometime before noon. Alright then, stop being so damn fussy, it'll probably be sometime this afternoon. Like it really makes any culturally significant difference.

People should be trusted to make decisions regarding their health themselves. Seeing as I always seem to fall back on West Wing quotes to get me through opinion stuff, I'm going to stick to this. In the words of the ever-wise, if abominally blonde, Donatella Moss, "In a free society you need a reason to make something illegal."

Rather than the other way around.

It would be funny if we finally succeeded in legalising marijuana just in time to criminalise tobacco. Complete bummer. We'll be stuck with nothing but dodgy cookies forever more.

*hic*

There are certain times and places where smoking is evidentally not socially acceptable. Enclosed spaces. Bus stations. Restaurants. Mothercare, and my personal pet target of revilement, smoking in bathrooms/toilets/restrooms/whatever-the-fuck-you-want-to-call-them. Smoking, like alcohol and caffeine and loud music, is an inescapably unhealthy and often unsavoury part of various subsections of our culture. If someone wants to smoke all by themselves in a dark room in a closed off house, then why the hell shouldn't they? In fact, why shouldn't they smoke in a pub, either? If you are truly so averted to smoky environments, then don't go in those particular pubs, or find a relatively smoke-free place to drink. Or go sit in the garden. Or the no-smokers area. It's not like places that are going to be smoky are hard to spot. General knowledge and experience and junk like that.

I always used to follow the doctrine passed down to me that smoking was worse than alcohol, because every single cigarette you smoke you know is killing you. Whereas a single drink is potentially harmless. However, from a social perspective, excessive drinking is far more harmful and offensive.

So far, I have never encountered a bloke whilst walking down the street that has grabbed my arse due to an obvious over-indulgence in the quality concentrated nicotine he has allowed himself to absorb through his lungs into his blood-stream. How many relationships have been ruined due to alcohol? How much damage to personal property can be attributed to the liquid past-time? How many bar fights? How much grievous bodily harm and even manslaughter?

If people want to kill themselves so slowly, then that's their choice. As long as they pay for their eventual stay at the NHS, which according to my permanently overdrawn smokin' housemates, they do, via the high taxation thingy, then they should be allowed to just go ahead and light up.

I've been meaning to check. Is suicide illegal in anyway?

*hic*

Shit, I really need to make sure I sober up before blogging in the future.

A Child's View Of Politics

This little boy goes to his Dad and asks "What is politics?"

Dad says, "Well son, let me try to explain it this way: I'm the breadwinner of the family, so lets call me capatilism. Your mum, she's the administrator of money, so we'll call her the government. We're here to take care of your needs, so we'll call you the people. The nanny, we'll consider her the working class. And your baby brother, we'll call him the future. Now think about that and see if it makes any sense."

So the little boy goes off to bed thinking about what his dad has said. Later that night the baby brother was crying, so he gets up to check on him. He finds that he has severly soiled his nappies. So he goes to his parents room and finds his mother fast asleep. Not wanting to disturb her he goes to the Nanny's room. Finding the door locked he peeps through the keyhole and sees his father in bed with the Nanny. He gives up and goes back to bed.

The next morning, the little boy says to his father. "Dad I think I understand the concept of politics now."

The father says, "Go on son, tell me in your own words what you think politics is all about."

The little boy replies, "Well while capatilism is screwing the working class, the government is asleep, the people are being ignored and the future is in deep shit!"

Conversation Killer

I've been meaning to complain about this for a while. The problem with politics and news is that there's just so damn much of it. It takes a long time and some serious dedication to read through the bare minimum required to merely keep up to date with the world. As soon as I come across a subject upon which I know practically nothing, I'm really rather screwed. By the time I've done the necessary catch-up reading, the world has moved on, and I'm left scrambling trying to get back to grips with the day-to-day event-reading that I neglected in order to make the time to do the extra reading.

It doesn't normally take long before my sporadic waves of enthusiasm are quashed, and I become demoralised with the whole idea of social awareness, conscience and involvement. It just turns out to be too much effort, and gives very little reward. Apart from me making an idiot of myself. Yup, that seems to happen pretty much every time I attempt to get opinionated.

Everybody seems to be talking about either New Wave Labour, or the big conversation. I just tried to read the conversation starter feature. I've come to the conclusion that it's not a conversation starter at all, but a definite conversation killer. Considering it's suggested as a piece for people who "don't know where to begin," it seems dead set on being as intimidatingly long and formal as possible. I thought the whole point of this conversation thing was to get people talking rather than to scare them off.

Everybody seems to be talking about it, but only if they already know what they're talking about.

I've read the first few chapters, but I'm leaving the rest of it for a braver day. Maybe I just need to get used to only reading one article at a time. It's a particularly bad habit of mine to be reading a news article, a blog, a fic, message boards, and my email all at one time. Sometimes there are two message boards. Sometimes there are three different email accounts. Strange really, as I've always almost religiously only ever had one book going at a time. It probably comes from not quite having adapted to broadband and unlimited internet access. At home I always used to read something else whilst the other page loaded, because otherwise I would run out of time.

If I do end up finishing it, which I doubt now will happen, I expect I'll be so zoned out by the end that in all likelihood I won't have anything to say. Personally I find this a bit of a shame, as I would very much like to have some Informed Opinions on some issues. Some of my very own, to love and to nurture, and possibly to yell of at the top of my voice in a public place whilst being carted off by the police to be thrown in the back of some van where I will sing inspiringly out of tune with my fellow comrades.

Actually, apart from the last bit that sounds very similar to what I plan to do at the Leicester Square LotR premiere.

To quote some west wing:

Decisions are made by those who show up. So are we failing you, or are you failing us?

As Bartlet says on the show, it's a little bit of both. This is something I'm trying to do for myself more than anyone else, but it sure as hell isn't being made in the slightest bit easy for me.

[update]: Someone else is also less than impressed.

Dear Gair Rhydd...

Wrote to the student newspaper gair rhydd today. (btw, that link is practically useless, there's nothing there. I plan to offer up my services next semester and help get them sorted.)

In issue #752, they said (after I'd corrected some of their typos)...

"Inequality in leisure facilities"

After a long history of living in a male dominated society it appears that Cardiff is harbouring its very own little matriarchy.

gair rhydd has discovered that Cardiff's only municipal swimming pool, the Maindy swimming baths, is offering a service which can be described as none other than sexist. They hold women-only pool sessions on numerous evenings; however, when questioned it was found that they had absolutely no plans to extend this service to men-only pool sessions. They justify this decision by acknowldeging that women often feel insecure about their bodies and would rather swim in a single sex atmosphere.

On the surface, this policy may appear reasonable; it provides women with a chance to escape uncomfortable male gazes when clad in relatively little. However, when you reassess the situation, you can see that their policy is basically sexist.

In a society where image is everything it is ignorant to believe that men are not susceptible to the same insecurities as women. The incidence of male anorexia has grown rapidly in the last few years providiing evidence for the simple truth that beneath a layer of masculinity and testosterone, men may be just as anxious about their bodies as women, especially considering how 'laddish' young women's attitudes have become. In light of this, offering male-only swimming sessions does not seem such a ridiculous idea.

Of course our patriarchal society does not judge male appearance as brutally as it does women's; their status can be defined in terms of occupation, activities and possessions while women are still evaluated soley on their exterior. Still, women seem to have no problem with this; you only have to go to a meat market nightclub on a Saturday night to see hundreds of women quite happy to flaunt their assets by adopting the minimalist approach to clothing.

The other reason given for this disgraceful inequality is that Muslim women wish to use the pool and cannot do so in front of men. Well, I'm sorry, but this is a Christian country and we should stop pandering to the 'rights' of ethnic minorities at the expense of the indigenous male population who have paid their council tax and would like to be able to use the pool also. Equal oppurtunities is fine, but preferential treatment based on religion is wrong. After all, should one of us go to a Muslim country, we would be unable to have a few beers, which is an important part of our culture. You see, the multicultural ideal only goes one way, and most of us are fed up to the back teeth of it.

If they feel so strongly that they need separation of the sexes, maybe local Islamic organisations could build their own private swimming pool without any assistance from the taxpayer?

In conclusion, with the rise of equal oppurtunities, surely this preference of women over men must be regarded as outrageous prejudice?

I said....

Dear gair rhydd,

Whilst I agree, with reservations, that the swimming pool's policy is highly questionable, there are many arguments contained in this article that I find highly objectionable.

I agree that it is unreasonable to assume that men will automatically feel more secure about their bodies, but female insecurity is far more frequent on a scale that this article fails to recognise. Male anorexia may well be on the rise, but they still account for a bare 6% of cases in eating disorder clinics. Men are generally considerably overweight before developing the full disorder as well, whereas women are usually within 90% of ideal body weight prior to illness. The occurence of female eating disorders truly dwarfs that of male, and the argument for the practicality of men-only sessions is thus severely weakened.

I'd also like to point out that women at your average "meat market nightclub" are hardly representative of the entire gender. You say "women are still evaluated soley on their exterior." I do not believe the situation to be quite so dior. Maybe I'm deluding myself on the matter, but in any case your following statement that "women seem to have no problem with this" is even more outrageous. I don't know which women you've been talking to, but I know few women, or even men, that would be pleased by such a situation were it to prove a serious actuality. Maybe this is indeed your problem, and you struggle to find women to talk to. Hard to believe, what with your self-righteous, somewhat sexist and blatantly racist views.

Considering you are attempting to condemn what you term a "disgraceful inequality," you seem remarkably comfortable skipping right over the more general appearance-based discrimination you believe the world to be based upon. Obviously the supposed subjugation of half the world's population based on gender and appearance is immaterial when compared to the overwhelming sufferance endured at the inconceivably inconsiderate timetabling of the municipal swimming pool.

Your support and indignation on the topic of equal oppurtunities would seem to be incredibly selective. Your disregard of the 'rights' of ethnic minorities borders on offensive. The impression of your views gathered from these few paragraphs is that equal oppurtunities is all very well as long as it is not at all inconvenient to the average white Christian male. In particular, I am alarmed by your suggestion that we should not bother to accommodate others' customs on the basis that, were we to visit a Muslim country, they would not bother to accommodate ours. Forgive me if I am uninformed on the issue, but I was not aware we were attempting to model our society on a group of countries possessing some of the worst human rights records in existence.

I'm disappointed. I thought we were supposed to be better than that.

Yours, Jas.

IQ Tests, Statistics, Gadgets, and Posers

Settling in for a day of blogging.

The MSNBC tech IQ test is one of the stupidest things I've seen in a long time. Before I launch right in, I got the link from D4D, who got it from somebody else, who got it...

To be obnoxious and brat-like, I object.

First thing's first. The "How Do You Rank?" is completely meaningless. There is no way the results from this test could be considered even remotely useful. It's an online test for tech IQ. Somewhat similar to polling readers of untranslated Kafke on whether they know how to ask for milk with their coffee in a German café. Idiots. Incompetents. Over two thirds of people that took this test got in the top two marking bands. Colour me stunned.

I hate statistics. I hate it when people are so blatantly stupid that it makes even me think in terms of statistics.

I also don't like the implication that being tech requires gadgets. Gadgets require money. Gadgets often also require a certain poser lifestyle. *cowers* Ok, so not so much a poser lifestyle, but certainly a specific lifestyle of some kind, and gadgetry does seem to be the latest poser accessory. I'm sick of guys that seem to think that just because they have PDAs I should be fetching them coffee and leaning over in a low-cut top just to get a glimpse of their shiny 6 inches of the latest technology.

I'm sorry, survey-writing arseholes, but I smell inadequacies. There's just something about a tinsy screen displaying meaningless obsessive information that fails to compensate in even the slightest for whatever else you may be lacking.

Gadget-lovers are not, of course, always posers. Posers are not always gadget-lovers either. Sometimes they have cars. Others use hair gel. Having enough money to fritter away on the latest developments that won't be worth 10% of their original price in only two years time does not automatically make someone tech. It most certainly shouldn't be the dominating factor in an IQ test.

I didn't do very well in this test. I'm not bitter, I've been saying for a while that I really am a bit of a disaster at tech. Apart from my crowning acheivement of being able to accurately set my video recorder, I'm really rather clueless. It took me two years to work out how to txt on my mobile phone. It took me another two years before I worked out predictive txt, and I still handle CDs like they might break if the wrong side were to come into contact with anything other than the player/drive or the case.

I still get nervous when a computer I'm on in the library slows down just a little, as there's a small part of me that clings to the terror that I might still possess the ability to crash a network of over a hundred machines just by walking in the room.

I'm no tech guru, in any field, but I don't need to be in order to identify this quiz as almost entirely worthless. *twitches* Ok, rant over.