Do we need daddies?

In the aftermath of these riots-cum-looting, or general thuggishness, whichever you prefer, much has predictably been made of fatherless families

For example IDS has just said:

“We’ve been ambivalent about family structure in Britain for far too long.”

Of course, we all know this means single-parent families, predominantly single mothers, but are they really to blame?

Well, yes and no, I think

Undoubtedly the rise of the Vicky Pollard style teenage mother with her feckless brood is a problem - arguably if there were good hard-working fathers in those lives those children would be much better off (or alternate partner if you wish, I don't necessarily think it has to be a male, although generally it's going to be)

But this does not simply mean a single parent is worse, or a problem in itself

I come from a single parent family, did I go and out and rampage through the streets? I can't prove this here of course, but I'd like to think you believe me

You see it's all well and good to bang on about families and how bad people like me are, how I'm so much less likely to have a degree (masters) or a job (I do) or have a family (married), but the real issue is hidden in what I said earlier - 'good' and 'hard-working' - it is the stable environment that is vastly more important

I bet you we all know a single parent, and I bet, unless you roam around inner city ghettos that the kids are fairly standard, and likewise you may have right terrors born to 'proper' families

The statistics bear out of course, but they also bear out for black people - anybody want to suggest that's inherent to what they are rather than where they are?

You live in a place where young women are poorly educated, have little respect for themselves and are treated like dirt by feckless young men, who also have no respect for themselves or anything, then you are going to get social problems and out of control kids - even if you were to force marriage, and even fidelity, upon them, you are not addressing the root of the problem - the single mothers in question are a symptom, not the cause

So there's no need to worry about young Mrs Smith down the road, whose husband just buggered off with his secretary, producing the next gun-toting hoodlum

I do think welfare is misguided - we effectively encourage people to breed and be irresponsible, because we won't let anyone starve, but this just encourages dependency, ironically my mother never did, and never would, claim welfare

Ultimately this is about those willing, or able, to engage with society and play by the rules, and those who can't, or won't - a breakdown of respect, particularly for themselves, the individual family structure has little to do with that

So how could I ever say single parent families are to blame? I couldn't, and frankly anyone who says that is a dimwit, or just hateful

What I do say is a lot of these problems do happen to come from single-parent families, but what is needed is a stable and loving home, the culture that happens to create single mothers in deprived, inner-city areas rife with gangs is to blame - attacking the notion of single parenthood itself is, at best, just plain daft

Sheila's Wheels Come off

I am, as usual, very late to the issue, but alas life gets in the way of my witterings

I take it everybody is aware of the week-old news that insurers will no longer be able to take a person's gender into account

Now you may expect me to rail against this decision, I love to bash 'equality' with statistics and of course the statistics clearly show that men, as a group, cost more - that's a statistical truth

But I'm going to buck my own trend here, unlike say, Peter Hitchens, I do not believe that the enforcement of an equality law here is a bad thing

Yes, men cost more, but what you have to ask is - is it fair to charge the average man 60% more than a woman simply for being a man?

Surely, if he's 60% more likely to crash (or rather, claim), then yes?

While strictly speaking yes, it is cheaper to insure women as they are less likely to claim, what this really comes down to is where you draw the boundaries - why only stop at gender? You could show a difference between people with different hair colour, eye colour, height, weight, and of course skin colour - all of these features could in theory be assessed for risk

But we choose some very simple, easy to measure categories - is this fair on men?

'Because you are a man, you are more likely to crash' - well actually, for this to be true it has to be shown to be something inherent in men generally

However, we all know that this is not the case - many men are excellent drivers without a claim to their name (me included), and they are not even a minority, but we all know there are some, shall we call them 'twats', who drive like loons and write off three cars before their 18th birthday - these are the minority

Is there any link between these two types of men? Other than sharing the same chromosomal combination, no, a minority within the group force the majority to pay more because they all happen to have the same type of genitalia - as I said, it's a simple measure to use, it's easy to draw a line through sex and offer women a better deal

But it's not really fair, saying everyone of one group is more of a risk because of a small group within that, there is nothing to stop them drawing lines around any of the features I outlined (except practicality) - imagine saying 'black people claim more, therefore black people pay more'

Could be a perfectly true statement (almost certainly there's a difference either way), but it's not done, and nor would it be done, I expect, if women were shown to cost more - that would be discrimination, because quite frankly, it is, as it's pre-judging you based on your particular grouping

The only way around this is, as Hitchens junior remarked, is that men and women are different, racially you can't get away with that argument even if the stats bear out because races are considered equal, but the assumption is made that men's brains are hardwired to be more dangerous...because of the actions of a minority, which is exactly the same principle that leads to racial stereotyping

It means I am the same risk as Paul Gascoigne or Tony Blair, but clearly there are other factors at work - if I were a tiny minority then I could understand, but the fact is the majority are punished because we are arbitrarily put into the same box as the offenders, you may as well lump us in with murderers and paedophiles as we are far more likely to be them as well

Our sex has not been shown to be the overriding factor in the risk, some men are twats, but not all (or most) - it's just an easy, and very lazy, way of measuring us

So yes, it is discrimination and there is no reason why my gender should mean I pay hundreds more a year than my wife, mother or sister, unless you're a lazy insurer who wants to cash in on women costing less, us green eyed people would cost less too!

See!

(no pun intended)

While the likes of Guido have, rather bizarrely (for him, I feel), been lambasting the press for being atheist bigots because they are supposedly intolerant of a religious leader, it is clear that the Pope is trampling all over our beliefs the same way the metropolitan press supposedly do to his

Making comments about 'aggressive secularism' and 'Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society' are just as big a slight on the non-believers than a person of faith

As always with these debates, secularists have to show respect towards religious types, but conversely, they are allowed to criticise anything non-religious - this is why I shall oppose the Pope

He comes here belittling our secular beliefs, as the religious always do because they seem to think they have a (God-given?) right to be able to preach and convert the non-believers, which is a practice that would be condemned if it was addressed to members of another religion - but if you're secular you are fair game

I disagree with Guido on this, who I think is clouded by his own faith, this is not simply 'antipathy' towards the Church, it is a response to someone saying we're wrong, do we not have a right to stand up when someone criticises our ways? Can you imagine if he went to Israel and started belittling Judaism?

Wherever I see this debate, where usually Christians get offended and advocate their beliefs above non-belief - they never appreciate that being of no belief should command the same respect they demand for their faith, or others, we may not be a single organisation with rules and books, but we do have our own rational, secular beliefs and we are going to get just as pissy as a Hindu, Muslim or Jew who is being called godless by the Pope

I've said it before, even though I have my own history with the Catholic church and I know I'm completely biased against them and I'm also very sensitive to Catholic preaching, but the Pope is welcome to talk to his flock here - I have no interest in protesting him as an individual any more than I do Mugabe. However, he doesn't get to trample all over our secular values simply because he does not respect the idea of no faith, this is the ultimate irony of all the Christians who claim offence but never appreciate that they do the exact same thing

He keeps making comments like these then we are completely justified in protesting him

Mr Jones, Mr Jones

I seriously can't believe we're having this debate

I just watched on Newsnight as two people (Peter Tatchell and some Catholic woman) actually toyed with the idea of limiting free speech for fear of violence

Tatchell was the more freedom loving, the Catholic couldn't see past respecting faith, as you would expect, but he still felt it was best to try and stop this bloke

For all those who claim lefty BBC bias, it was the open-mouthed Paxman leading the free speech brigade, pointing out that we're essentially bowing to threats here and if it's the Koran today, what's to stop anything else tomorrow (my words)

As far as I can see there's not even an argument here - you can burn a book if you wish, obviously it's not ok if it's Nazi Germany doing it, but in a free society I can burn whatever I want (except the Queen's image...)

This happened when Harry Potter came out in the US and far more copies were burned than what this small church in Florida is about to, no violence from wizards, and no claims to ban the activity

Yet, 'oo it's a special book' combined with 'they'll kill people' provokes a different response, a coward's one

People may die, it may even be soldiers in the Middle East, which is a little unfair on them I'll grant you - but is that Jones' fault that this is a people that choose to kill in response to the burning of what is essentially, a flammable material? This is not a lawful, respectful response - while it is far more provocative than the satirical cartoons, which could be seen as a more appropriate expression, it is essentially no different

How provocative is it to kill British soldiers, or carry placards through London? We don't go out and riot, nobody dies, nobody is threatened (well, much)

I believe in freedom, end of - and Terry Jones has a right to do whatever nutty thing he wants, we are free and tolerant, they are intolerant and we need to start recognising that we cannot be afraid of threats

Live free, or die

*Pointing out there's absolutely nothing wrong with peaceful protests over a blasphemous act, and I'm not insinuating every Muslim, or Muslim country will have a violent reaction

Glug

Ah, good old sir Liam, he was the one who warned us all about swine flu deaths...remember?

Now he's saying parents (specifically middle class ones) who let their teenage kids 'taste' booze will make them more likely to be heavy drinkers as adults

Any stats for that?

I'm not saying he's wrong...but if you've been wrong before you can be wrong again, right?

Far be for me to use anecdotal evidence - but I was tasting booze from about 14, drinking possibly too much at 17 and 18, but nowadays I barely drink at all - I got bored of it once I got away from the first-year student culture, and I'd have to blame my friends and the culture of binge-drinking far more than my parents for my occasional excesses back then, I was a teenager - teenagers are quite stupid

Yet, here I am, faculties in order, with a proper academic degree and writing in prose - we all know alcohol is harmful, worse than a lot of illegal drugs in many ways - but it's not a substantial risk to drink it, particularly in moderation, we have a life expectancy of what? 78? And we've been drinking the stuff for millenia, while kids all over the world do fine after drinking, the stats do show that more liberal countries in Europe don't get nearly as much alcohol-related-violence so there's some balance to this debate, Liam

But don't take my uninformed opinion on it, thankfully the BBC love a good counter-argument

here's Jeremy Todd of Parentline Plus

He said: "Parents can have a huge influence on their child's drinking choices.
"Rates of teenage drunkenness are higher amongst both the children of parents who drink to excess and the children of parents who abstain completely.

So irresponsible and draconian approaches don't work - meaning being responsible does work, unfortunately no amount of government interference can make people responsible - stop trying, Liam

"Whilst parents have a greater influence on their children's drinking patterns early on, as they grow older their friends have a greater influence.
"It is therefore crucial for parents to talk to their children about alcohol and its effects."

Quite right, and banning stuff = not talking, I'm not sure if Sir Liam has ever met a teenager

I particularly liked Professor Ian Gilmore:

"We know that adults who drink sensibly tend to pass these habits on and that some families choose to introduce alcohol to their children younger than 15 in a supportive environment."
He stressed that not drinking alcohol at all remained the "healthiest option" for children.

Spot on - why isn't this man Chief Medical Officer? (He's already president of the Royal College of Physicians)

What we do not need is more bloody preachy adverts:

"He announced a major publicity campaign on the subject in England, which will get under way in January 2010."

 Stop wasting our bloody money on 'don't drink' adverts! Unless they actually return a profit through less cost to the NHS then they are a frivolous drain on our ever-growing deficit - don't they know there's a recession on?

It's her again

Last week, Allison Pearson got on my tits a bit with her claims of how great marriage is for society

On that entry I received a comment (anon) that pointed out she herself is divorced, and has children with a man she isn't married to

Wikipedia confirms this, as much as it can confirm anything (it also states she is my near-neighbour - so many annoying media types seem to take up refuge in my dear city)

So while I cannot claim certainty on the matter, I do have to question this article

My husband would kill to defend our family... so why has Munir Hussain been jailed for protecting his? [italics mine, of course]

Far be it for me to suggest she is lying, I have no proof of that, but I do have to question the headline, and would ask her to confirm her status, perhaps on her wikipedia entry - considering how she slammed unmarried mothers last week I would hate to think she is a hypocrite, or indeed, misleading the public on this issue

Too bloody right

On a day in which we're being subjected to the PBR I felt we should have some good news

Firstly, that stupid religious hatred case has been dismissed - how could it not be? It was someone's word against another's, and was in blatant contradiction of free speech laws

It's good news for justice and common law, but what's scary is the legislation and its use by the police and the CPS - they spent eight months following up this nonsense, the legislation itself is just a ticking timebomb waiting to go off until someone brings in a real free speech clause (fat chance)

Other good news is that a large group of people are lobbying for the government to change the archaic English libel laws - if he actually did it I might be able to forgive Brown one day, but there's not a chance Labour will get it through, if they even want to - the only party I'd trust on this would be the Lib Dems (fat chance)

Democracy/mob rule

Sorry I've been a little quiet lately - nets been playing up for one, and I've been busy, kind of lost my impetus to write, hopefully I'll get it back soon

One thing that interested me though, was the Swiss vote to ban minarets (or muslim towers)

There's been a fair bit of praise in the blogosphere for 'democracy' - the right to stop islamification and what-not, and of course the issue of sovereignty

Now if a country does want to stop islamification by such measures, and even if that includes extreme measures such as repatriation, then that's their choice, I'm all for sovereignty

But I personally do not see how Switzerland can call itself a liberal democracy (or direct democracy) if it's going to attack one religion over all others, this is against the idea of freedom of religion, simple as that

That is my issue, it's nothing to do with Islam per se, could've been Jewish or Hindu temples for all I care, but I just can't see how you can say you believe in freedom of conscience and tolerance and then pick on one religion because you dislike it

Many people dislike Islam, fair enough - but to ban certain aspects of it? Some have said that non-muslim practices aren't welcome in the Middle East so why should we be accommodating, but that really doesn't matter to me - the fact is we are the liberals with a long history of freedom, we shouldn't be engaging in a tit-for-tat battle with religious dictatorships any more than we should deny Chinese immigrants economic rights for coming from a communist country

I honestly couldn't marry this with Britain - we have allowed all religions to exist here for several centuries and the principle remains, simple fear of a certain religion is hardly a rational reason to deny a certain group the right to practice their religion

What I see this as coming down to is the age old question of when democracy becomes rule of the mob

I ask - would it be right to ban gays simply because a 60% majority disagreed with their practices? Or how about if 60% wanted to ban free speech (e.g. through the BNP, blasphemous literature etc)? Any minority viewpoint could be crushed in this system, that's why we have fundamental, inalienable rights

Remember, Remember

Yes folks, it is that historic day and it is probably the most poignant November 5th we've had in some time

Our politicians have not only been exposed as thieves, but many have revealed their contempt for us and showed us their arrogance and own sense of privilege, while we suffer under an unelected prime minister with no mandate, who has lied repeatedly and is supported by a bunch of spineless apparatchiks 

And we're still waiting on an election we should've had at least 6 months ago...

And so I must draw your attention to Old Holborn's stroll in Westminster - where as many Guy Fawkes as possible will descend upon our parliamentarians and expose the fascist nature of the metropolitan police and their new 'terrorism' laws at the same time

Full details at Old Holborn's, remember -

The police have no right to say 'papers please', nor do you have to show your face (you are a muslim in a burqa), or give your name or address if you don't want (do not take ID)

You are only walking with a mask on, not protesting, you ARE allowed in the public gallery of Parliament without a ticket, or ID

PCSO's cannot arrest you, or search you

The only thing that can happen is a search under section 44 of the Terrorism Act - itself a travesty, but that is all they can do, and they won't find anything - just take cash and a camera, they are helpless to stop you, ensure that it is a *police officer* not a jumped up mini-Hitler

Everybody should film it or take pictures, you will be in a public place and they cannot stop you recording, they can physically try but they have no right to say 'stop filming' (even though they will), and they cannot confiscate cameras unless they arrest you on suspicion of sigh..'terrorism'

I wish good luck to all that are going, the police will undoubtedly be monitoring, as they did last year - but they can't do a thing, so I look forward to seeing the films of them trying to bully people in the next few days - the police shouldn't even be there by rights, although I guess an army of Guido Fawkes wandering around could warrant some public safety concerns, but either way, they should be polite and have no right to stop you once they have checked you are unarmed

I am afraid I can only attend in spirit - but I will hopefully be back to be able to cast my vote when the time eventually comes

OH says all are welcome, so the more, the better

Boobs Ahoy!

Yes, The Mail actually are running an article entitled

'Mummy, why do those ladies have no clothes on?'

Superb, truly superb - While Viv Groksop says she doesn't want to censor anything (natch), 'it seems the prudes have got it right.'

Ah, yes, the good old 'I don't want to agree, but I must, for the public good' line, it works much better than antagonistic campaigner mode (also known as Hattie's second law), an alternative title for this would be 'I'm not racist prudish but..'

So, what's the story? Well, a five-year-old picked up a lads mag - conveniently the offending article is not actually pictured, but a similar one is lifted from Loaded - I don't see the relevance of using a different magazine with a different picture, particularly when Loaded (or 'Porn for wusses') is, in my experience at least, generally in the Men's interest, section while Nuts and Zoo are weeklies usually placed nearer the newspapers (now, I'll leave it up to whether I know this from buying them, or stocking them) - but we do actually have no proof of:

"two nubile girls in a steamy embrace, both completely nude but for a generous slick of lip gloss"

I guess we'll have to take your word for it, Viv - but isn't the picture rather misleading? As it implies that it's proof of the offending article, and if she's anything like my mother she'll be massively over-exaggerating - in mum speak 'completely nude!' normally means 'they have a small bikini on!'

And I really would like the Daddy's opinion on this, a man behind Viv was sniggering (as I would), and as I was reading this I was thinking 'if that was his Dad he would've found it hilarious', she conveniently brings him in at the end:

Three days later he returned to the same newsagent with his dad and pulled the copy of Nuts out from where he had remembered it was: 'Dad - take a look at this!' Pandora's Box is well and truly open.

Note how there is no reference to how Daddy reacted...probably pissed himself laughing

Truth is, I do actually agree with not putting these mags with children's comics, but the thing is - do they? I can't say I've ever been in a shop where Dora was next to Nuts, the weeklies are generally quite visible, but not in with the kiddie stuff, maybe the football stuff, but not comics - this really comes down to a question of what should be visible and what shouldn't - they want 'age appropriate stickers' and to remove them from 'toddler head-height'

Effectively what that means is somehow covering them up - because a sticker will do nowt unless it covers the images, it's not going to stop a toddler picking it up (not that a five year old is a toddler - toddlers, by definition, 'toddle') - and out of sight is top-shelf, like really high top shelf, because while you may be able to protect your under-4s from looking at things and noticing magazines, once they get to five and over they're a bit more observant, kids have eyes after all, the top shelf is there because 1) they can't reach, and 2) because it's a steeper angle for the little munchkins

They are far more aware, and I'm afraid I have to tell the author here that your boy is going to find all this out pretty soon - right now it's just new and entertaining, but he won't forget the image like a toddler would, and soon enough he's going to want to find these pictures, start seeing rude things on tv when he sneakily stays up late and becoming 'interested' in the female form by about the age of eight, if I'm anything to go by (and why do you think we men are amused by this? - Because we all did it!) - all she's trying to do is prevent her son seeing such images because she doesn't want him to see them, but it's an uphill battle that requires censorship of pretty much everything

She is perfectly entitled to try of course, but why should everybody else pay the price for her world view - in effect we'll be asking teenage boys to return to the days of reaching up to the top shelf, purchasing a sealed bag, and then probably carrying it home in a brown bag because it's 'taboo' again, and what will the age restriction be? Will 'Prudes United' (new tag!) allow a rating of say, 12 or 13, bearing in mind this is not even nudity and is the obvious demographic of these things? Or will it be a ridiculous 18 or 16? And will it be legally enforceable? Despite there being no nudity, and no breach of the Obscene Publications act

Those poor boys, denied their own fix of non-nudity, while the pseudo-feminists cheer and read their equally revealing fashion mags (but that's artistic) from the pram-height shelves, all because some people feel that:

These ladies' poses are not 'cheeky' or 'saucy' as the editors behind these magazines argue - their purpose is far more blatant than that.

In her opinion...given all the more (false) weight by the fact that the author knows sexy, because she worked for Esquire in the 90s - well that's settled then...

I'd like to know what the justification is, does it cause mental problems in young children? Does it create half-pint perverts? Or is it just that some people don't like these images and think they're inappropriate and want to force their opinions on a democratic society? Because as far as I can tell, all these do is use the female form to arouse males, there's no sex, not even frontal nudity, just body shape and a bit of flesh, something little boys can work out themselves without any literature

There have always been Mary Whitehouses, and they have always lost - lighten up and accept that you can't protect your little babies forever

Meanwhile, I'm think I'm going to be taking my six-year-old nephew shopping...

Finally found an argument to give 16yos the vote

Some prudish bastards MPs want to cover up so-called lad's mags because they might harm young children (because nudity, or rather non-nudity, is so harmful)

Now, I have no idea what the scientific reasoning for this is - maybe they cause schizophrenia in the under-12s or something, but let's face it, these things are aimed at teenagers - also known as 'children'

Why can the politicians get away with such an attack? The answer is simple - because the people it affects cannot vote - do you see them going near Knitting weekly? No, because as we all know, little old ladies are required for election purposes, but when it comes to teenagers they can do whatever they want to these poor scapegoats

So, while I couldn't find a real reason to give them a vote a few months ago, I have now found the issue - as they are being denied their right to access pictures of women in revealing attire and must no longer be denied political representation

Tarquin solves yet another of the day's throbbing political issues

Well, one out of two isn't bad

For once I actually agree with (Archbishop) Cranmer (see Sept 19th)

He posts in response to this story in the Sun over a regional Tesco (Bangor) ejecting a Jedi for wearing a hood

‘Threat to safety’ etc etc no doubt - but the hoods are not the issue, the issue is that other people are allowed in wrapped head to toe in black cloth, revealing nothing but eyes

These are of course Muslim women in burkhas - I know they are allowed in because, aside from it being common knowledge, I have been many a time besieged by these trolley-menaces (for some reason they seem to have little spatial awareness...)

Now there is respecting religion and there is this - why is a person in a crash helmet, or a hoodie/Jedi knight outfit, obliged to show their face, but a woman in full Burkha not?

Religious reasons of course, it is 'disrespectful' to ask them to take it off - bollocks is it, we're just cowards

The fact is, it's a legitimate safety concern, if a shop (or an airport!) requires you to not hide your face then you can't bloody hide your face in there - either you accept that or you don't go there

But no no, we must be able to do what we want where we want because it's a religious thing - we will ignore the fact that it isn't a religious requirement at all, and question the logic here

We can debate academically about religious freedom all we like, but the cold hard reality is that some aspects of Islam (for I do not wish to slander all followers) are tolerated in spite of the law for no logical reason - there is no legal definition of a religion - and to secularists like me, we see all religions as equally silly nonsense

Many may ridicule Jedi knights, but to people like me, they are as valid as Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Jews etc - they may well be a bit of a joke, and we know it, but they are based on pretty much the same thing - fiction, in a thousand years it may be that Jedi is a proper respected religion based on the ancient tales of Skywalker, as told by Luc-as in the holy trinity (the prequels got lost in time)

'Real' religions have no logical grounds on which to be seen as superior - except they are older and have more followers, Scientology is a legally recognised religion in some states

So the fact is, you allow adherents of one religion to cover people's faces, but no others may do this - the law is for all, religion must bow to the rules - there is a reason Christianity is so tame nowadays - because it was controlled by modern Anglo-centric liberalism, we (as in, every western nation) developed our own codes of what is acceptable, you don't get to usurp that with an alien culture and then cry foul when we deny you the right to behave how you would in another part of the world

In this case it simply refers to an article of clothing, but we are happy to condemn honour killings and female genital mutilation, another part of certain people's religious convictions - why do we have to tolerate this when it's clearly also against our laws

I will put it in simple metaphor - let us say a religion states that all members must be naked at all times - acceptable?

Yeah right, that religion would be forced to practice these acts (which are against public decency laws) in private, and they would have to conform, but considering the 'tolerance' shown to Muslims this should be permissible, just as it is their duty to cover their whole body, despite public interest, it is their duty not to cover any part of their skin, despite public interest

This is nothing against Islam - I simply believe that the law should apply fairly to all, and it should be respected by all

---

The second I refer to is Peter Hitchens, who, in a tirade against the Unions briefly mentioned the film 'Good', a story about a German academic drawn into Nazism through his support for euthanasia

Hitchens smugly declares this as

"about a nice, civilised academic who is slowly seduced...by ambition, flattery and his own anti-Christian moral liberalism.
Fashionable Leftists wouldn’t want to be reminded that the National Socialists shared quite a few of their views."

Liberalism takes us nearer to fascism than we might think...

It is a strange, twisted view, and is rather unfair to the film, and any 'liberal' (although I've no firm idea what he actually means by liberal), to condemn the main character's viewpoint as specifically being linked to Nazism

The point of the film was that any 'good' person can be quite easily corrupted by evil, I think the best way to destroy Hitchens' selective reasoning is to point out that abortion (another liberal pet-peeve of his) was of course, outlawed by the Nazis, whereas it was legalised in Weimar Germany (no doubt this is just as guilty for the converse - bringing down Weimar by destabilising the family structure..)

Hitchens points to the current support for euthanasia (somewhat different to the 1920s version I might add) and shows how evil leftie things such as this are not that far from the Nazis - but surely his own (and many conservatives') opposition to abortion is just as in line with Nazi ideology as to be pro-euthanasia was, after all they played to conservative, traditional thought far more than they ever did to liberalism, but no, support for a liberal idea that the nazis used in a horrific way is far more dangerous than any of the bulk of conservatism (family, nationalism, anti-obscenity etc) that made up Nazi ideology

In short, I found it a rather vile comment that is insulting to both the makers of the film and any 'liberal' who he smears with this contorted view, I don't expect a huge amount from him, but he's usually a decent person

But one conservative out of two isn't bad for me

Some musings

While I was at the Times reading for that last post, I found a few articles that piqued my interest

First Dominic Lawson argues to stop the segregation of men and women in sport - somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but centred on the gender issue of South African 800m winner, Caster Semenya - wherein lies the problem of 'females' who have extra chromosomes or genetic conditions that give them extra testosterone (not to say that Semenya actually has anything, but it raises the issue)

It is somewhat of a grey area - are they really women? Quite a dilemma, and I think he's right that in true meritocratic style we should let women try to get in men's teams - why not? We'd get the best performers regardless of sex

But oh no, men's natural advantage (which they don't have...) would be a handicap to the women, and they would unfairly be kept down

Now I do happen to think women should be able to play sports, segregation is the only way you'll achieve that - however I wish the feminists would shut up about giving female sports equal coverage, they are not going to be able to match the men in sports simply because men have more muscle - it's not a competitor, nor is it equal and they have been given a chance to do the same things at a lower level, they shouldn't be whinging for equal television and news coverage

You never hear men complaining they are under-represented in the shopping industry...

---

Then there's this, a review of a show called '16: too young to vote?'

It's not much of a debate starter, as it's just a bland review of a BBC3 show, despite being linked from the politics page, but it's always a good question

Should they vote? Part of me knows that 16 year-olds are a fair bit more immature than even 18-year-olds, some are better than others, but generally they're still children

But that said, maybe I'm getting old and will probably soon start thinking 21 year-olds are too immature, and after that 25-year olds, 30 year-olds - considering I have always viewed this derision by the older generations as arrogant I don't really think maturity is a valid concern

The same goes for intelligence - the capabilities of our brain and behaviour don't bar anyone else from voting so why should they suffer? I know some right idiots who are well over 18

Then it must come down to where we draw the line - we have to say where the child becomes an adult, clearly a 5-year-old doesn't have an informed opinion, although it's somewhat strange logic when you think most voters don't have an informed opinion anyway - but regardless, they couldn't care for themselves

An adult is 18 - this is where you can do anything you want, buy alcohol, see any film you wish, marry without consent, and now you can even buy fags, and with Labour's new rules on leaving education it's becoming increasingly clear that adulthood is 18, not 16 - you can hold a job, but it's likely to be a part-time one while you remain in education under the newest laws

But nevertheless you are a taxpayer, with enough responsibility to hold a job, clearly you have a case for some political engagement

And some 16 year-olds are very into it, you couldn't really deny them the vote on maturity grounds - and again, a hell of a lot of adults don't care, so if there's some who really do care then why not let them vote?

The situation also barely affects people - it will matter to a minority of people, assuming this government takes the maximum five years then they have a 60% chance of being either 15 or above 18 (as I was, I got to vote at 19) - but I suppose more regularly it would be half of them, but two years out of a lifetime is hardly a huge issue - but then...I keep asking myself 'why not?' - I see no harm in it, just a few more wasted votes in the pot

But then, I think those under 18 get more political representation anyway - they get the youth parliament, who actually get to sit in parliament on occasion, once they're over the 18 mark their representation will turn to zilch as they realise politics is monopolised by those over 30 and the 'youth' vote is meaningless

So, my view: I have no problem lowering the voting age, but frankly the kids are better off sticking with it at 18

Being Obtuse

I have a somewhat spurious suggestion - what would you say if Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi was British and had been held in Libya?

Different circumstances perhaps - you may not respect the governance or legal system of a country such as Libya, but they are nevertheless a recognised nation of people

Imagine if there was a British man held abroad for terrorism charges that we refused to believe - wouldn't you be happy to see him return home? You may have a lack of respect for the laws in the Islamic country, but no doubt they have an equal lack of respect for us, why should we regard ourselves as somehow 'better'?

Can the Lib dems get a swing?

Reading Vince Cable's regular column I got to thinking - would the support of the Mail give the Lib Dems a big boost?

He only has a column, and it's pretty much the only sane one in there, but it is nonetheless an endorsement of liberal politics, no doubt they are also capitalising on Cable's natural popularity, but isn't that what politics is all about? People like him, Mail readers must like his message, to an extent

The Mail may not be a liberal media outlet but the issues of civil liberties and individual freedom are ones where the hard-headed conservative and 'real' liberal share common ground, and while the Tories refuse to adopt any conservative policies, or any policies at all, it seems the Lib Dems have been left as the sole voice of freedom

This is to me, an opportunity - the political landscape is just begging for a party with actual policies to come in, rather than a bunch of chinless wonders who think they are destined for power, I know Tories who openly admit they offer nothing except for 'not being Labour' - but we need the media to back this change in our heavily-stacked system

There is of course one teensy-weensy problem: while the 'hard' liberal Cable strikes a note with a lot of people, and he clearly does a lot of the work in driving policy, there is still the elephant in the room: the EU - while they support the EU, moderate conservatives will not go near them

Why not drop support for it? Just pledge a referendum and be done with it, you'll never get in while supporting it, and what's the point saying good things if you can't get power? Just sacrifice the EU for the cause, I know that would be opportunism but is it really worth sticking to one principle if it's going to stop you ever putting the others in? In any case why support something that is deeply unpopular? This is their clause IV moment, or it should be

(It's not like you have to actually pull out...the Tories get away with it after all)

Is feminism an anachronism?

I've been reading across the feminist debate the past day or two, why? Mainly because the other (political) news is boring, and I came across this debate in the Times

Now I'm sorry but I cannot address the issues of sexualisation and the influence of the rise of 'normalised porn' (lads' mags, lap dancing clubs, the internet etc) - it simply doesn't work on my level

As far as I'm concerned I'm a liberal and believe in freedom of opportunity and a broadly free market, I don't like people who want to stop consenting adults doing what they like, and nor am I interested in how society affects the behaviour of girls and if it's bad - it's of little interest to me

What does interest me is politics, if I believe in freedom I cannot believe in discrimination and gender balancing - so as long as women have an equal opportunity to succeed that's fine by me, the outcome only interests me if there clearly is an impediment based on sex, which I struggle to see

On this point Janice Turner points out, briefly:

These are truly boomtime girls, part of that first generation to beat boys at A level, outnumber them at university and often out-earn them in the workplace. A decade of national prosperity won them that feminist ideal: economic equality.

That for me, is it - that's the goal, and in my view, today, girls are no more discriminated against than boys - if anything the system is weighted towards them - I have yet to find a young woman who feels held back by their gender

It seems pretty clear that most of the issues regarding opportunity come out of those educated prior to the 80s - I know and appreciate that my mother was discriminated against and it prevented her getting very far, but she was educated in the 60s and 70s - there's very little we can do about that now, she still has over a decade left til retirement and so remains a discriminated part of the workforce

And yet still people like Harman push on with these plans and their (dodgy) stats - their plans will only 'benefit' future generations, not those people still in the workforce who did have it worse

Why can't people like her appreciate that? You won't change working habits in the over-50s, those who were denied an education in sciences and told to be secretaries - you should surely be looking at the under 30s and 40s - how are they doing? As Janice points out, it's clear to all that young women are doing pretty well, given an advantage in education, given preferential treatment in the best graduate jobs

But still they persist with their agenda - trying to balance a gender gap that still exists in the cold war, there is no study of age groups used in their publications - which show that younger single women are virtually the same as the males (if anyone would like to wade in with stats, feel free) - and yet they address the gender gap so evident in the older workers by focusing on education and university leavers...

It boggles the mind - it just seems to me that it's common sense to say, 'look at the women coming out of education today' and note that there's obviously going to be a 40-year lag on this issue

And that is also why feminism is pretty much dead - women know that their daughters are facing no real hurdles, all the barriers have gone, they did win, and now people like Janice Turner want to focus on abstract issues about sexualisation and morality - the common person has never really taken to academic debate and it's unlikely the average woman will concern herself with such theories, that's for the chattering classes, for people with too much time on their hands (like me!)

Feminism will continue to exist in academic circles, as pretty much every line of thought does - but it is no longer necessary for the masses, because it has no tangible aims, and that is why Hattie looks absolutely raving, because most women know she's at least 20 years late

Atheist Brainwashing Bootcamp!!@1!!1!!!

The Mail asks should we be worried about Britain's first atheist summer camp?

Well, ummm, no, not really - why should we be worried about it when most camps are already run by Church groups or the Christian Scouts/Guides?

Are we particularly worried about camps run by those with a specific religious agenda attempting to place their ideas about God and what-not on our kids?

Not really...so why should I be any more worried about one that doesn't preach any religious dogma?

Even if a case is made that they do promote an agenda, how is it any different from what Christian (or other faith) camps do?

As far as I'm concerned this is just a feeble defence from the Christian-minded who think their religion should be the only viewpoint allowed

In fact it's such a weak jibe that I don't even need to rant about it, which is a shame really because I need a good rant...

Where are we headed?

I've been thinking lately, which in itself is never good, about old age and what will happen in the near future

I, and pretty much everyone alive right now, have all grown up with old people who went through the second world war, they may not have even served, but they witnessed it, grew up through terrible hardship... et cetera, et cetera

This has always produced an anchor of respect for the older generation, 'they fought off Hitler', or 'they lived through the blitz' - the onus has always been that the younger of us haven't done anything so meaningful

And by younger of us, I now mean anyone under the age of 70 - only those older than that will have any meaningful memories of the war, and to have served you need to be at the very least 82

I am not questioning what they went through, I am questioning what will happen when they're gone - in 10-20 years there will remain but a few centurions in wheelchairs, much like the last survivors of the first world war we have now

Even if there are still quite a few left by then, that broad connection that we all have with the war through our own relatives will be lost, grandparents will be like my own parents - Baby Boomers

No more will we have grandparents who witnessed D-Day, or even German air raids, as my own grandfather did, too young to actually serve, and yet he has already passed of old age

I've been wondering how this will affect generational communication, the loss of the living memory of one of the most significant events in world history is in itself important, but I've really been wondering how this will affect how the old will be viewed

You might think we just go back to how it was before - but there never was a 'before', our modern world has never had a generation who didn't go through one of the major world wars - we're talking about the end of the Victorian period here, not only was old age a relative rarity but technologically and politically it was eons ago, the world is immensely different now (we have the X factor now...)

So I see this as a real break - the first point in 'modern' (or post-modern if you want to be a pedant) history where the old will have no moral authority over the young, no massive issue of respect to beat the rest of us with

Think about it, the old aged will soon be the Baby Boomers - the generation which many of its own call 'the worst generation' - what tales of horror will they scare the grandkids with? The Cold War? The Summer of Love?

I don't particularly regard the Baby Boomers as any worse than the rest of us, they are usually seen as indicative of greed and excess, with a monopoly on power and placing a burden on the future generations, but that really doesn't matter - the point is that they aren't held in any higher esteem than the younger members of society

So when they become the old there'll be no nostalgic stories of where they served, or respect based on the fact that they shot down 17 Nazis, they'll just be people who lived through a time of relative security and increasing standards of living, granted there were negatives like the threat of Nuclear holocaust and the IRA attacks, but they don't compare to the nostalgia of 'fighting Gerry'

So how will it change? Will we as a society be more resentful of the large, privileged group who will now be a burden upon us? Will we continue to respect our elders and nothing will change? Will politics modernise substantially?

You could use the monarchy as a metaphor here - the Queen will, I'm sorry to say, eventually die, the much-loved sovereign who is held in high esteem and whose good grace has probably kept the monarchy alive in this country, will be replaced by her son - ridiculed by many, held in contempt by some, he will never attain the same level of respect as his mother, what little deference there is left for the monarchy will die with Liz, and that may well represent the symbolic death of that generation as well

In a wider sense, will we learn from the past? Many historians attribute, at least to some extent, the farcical first world war on the century of relative peace preceding it - the hardship of war was long forgotten and in many ways, romanticised

Somehow I doubt we'll be sending Imperial forces off expecting them home for Christmas, but will nations be less inclined to make peace the main priority? Maybe we'll become more selfish and protectionist, despite the impact of the UN and globalisation

We've already seen that people have largely forgotten the fear over totalitarian ideas that Nazi Germany provided us, I wonder how many adults from the 1950s would like the idea of ID cards being reintroduced - there has been an increasing trend of late for our selfish fears to circumscribe the basic freedoms that Churchill celebrated

No doubt we are a freer and more liberal country now, but it seems we are more and more willing to give up basic rights for our 'safety'

Likewise people seem to be prepared to resort to more extreme action, I could use voting for the BNP as one example, but there's a lot of other issues in that one

No doubt it will be an interesting few decades - in some ways it will be good to see what happens without a generation who can inspire huge levels of guilt in the rest of us, it really is quite amazing how a conflict which people had no choice over has been used as a stick to beat the rest of us with - many right-wingers talk about disrespect and how the young couldn't have fought the war (not that they did either) when in reality they had no choice in the matter and behaved as any human would have when confronted with that reality

I often wonder what the vast number of soldiers who never got out of their twenties would make of the use of their names now

But regardless, I just hope that we do in fact remember our history as it becomes less and less raw to those currently alive, and we don't, once again, forget our past

A bit o' bias

I must say, I wasn't too impressed with this BBC (magazine) article on battling the pirates

It is principally focused on trying to stop 'pirates', and then goes to pains to point out that people doing the downloading are using a false logic to justify what they do

This is one area I could see bias - it's rare that I find an article that I feel cheated by, most complaints of BBC bias are from right-wingers whinging the Beeb don't criticise gays or promote the death penalty

As I would say to them, it's because the law supports that position - you can't place a huge amount of emphasis on a minority group who oppose the right to be gay, they are allowed to exist of course, but you can't promote every group that opposes the law (although the BBC 'balance' policy may become that farcical one day)

If you look at more mainstream issues - there's plenty of space given to debate gay marriage, but there's little point pandering to a small group when society is broadly in favour and the law backs it up

The same goes for piracy, it is technically a crime - some areas are grey, but to give too much space to this sort of act would be very anti-establishment and would arguably be just as biased, I wouldn't expect it from the Beeb

I would expect a slightly less one-sided article, but welcome to the Magazine, it's a very strange and opinionated area of the site for old people - and I also remembered the fairer write-up the Pirate Party of Sweden got recently, and here's a clip from them

This article does grate at me, but thinking rationally I don't regard it as making the BBC biased, but what I will point out is the patronising of those who promote downloading as 'neutralisation' - there is no weight given to those theories and that I felt was going too far (allowing the industry to get their own way basically)

Issues such as regional coding, DRM, and exploitation are all valid - this is very much a battle between those who want to keep the power and those utilising a new method of distribution - for the article to simply belittle those arguments as being some sort of denial was wrong in my view

Just because there's a law against something doesn't make it wrong (so Lisa, go to your room) - when seven million people apparently break that law it means something needs to change, or be ignored (mince pies...)

What's the old adage - when one person does it, you arrest them, when five people do it, you move them along, when fifty people do it...you join in

You can't expect the BBC to promote it, just like they can't promote cannabis use - but they will do regular features on the issues because they are largely in the public interest

And as an aside - if the government actually want people to take note of their arguments they should stop lying in cannabis adverts - nobody trusts you to tell the truth so telling somebody 'piracy' is wrong is doing nothing when you aren't seen as a trustworthy public guardian

Aside #2 - why do Labour allow bullying in their 'knock-off Nigel' advert? As far as I'm aware it clearly promotes bullying of somebody doing something they dislike - calling a person names, seems pretty low to me, and if I were called Nigel I wouldn't be very impressed - should the government be picking on a name? Not that I hugely care, you understand, but that this government is so PC it seems rather hypocritical to me

Whatever happened to 'will of the people'

The BBC reports that seven million people, in the UK alone, engage in illegal downloading

Now that's impressive - it also proves that it's impossible to prosecute downloaders, only the individuals who actually post the content

Personally I think this situation can only be solved by adapting with the Internet, not putting up silly barriers like they're trying to in Australia - music companies and the like are only after as much money as they can get and their time was always going to come

Now I'm not sure how they've worked out how much it's all worth, and whether they count sharing TV shows as 'illegal' (bit of a grey area) - but certainly it's music and films

The point I would make is that this is the maximum potential figure, just because say, an album, has received 1 million downloads, does not mean it would be bought by a million people if they had to pay for it, nor does it mean all of them haven't bought a copy of it as well

People conveniently forget that a lot of stuff downloaded is actually downloaded because of availability - in this age of instant worldwide information, when a film/DVD/TV show is released or aired in (principally) the US, the information is all over the net as soon as it's out, but the product will not be released for months or even longer in many countries - those people know it's out and they want to know the goss - that doesn't mean they won't buy it/watch it legally when it does air in their market - in fact many downloaders feel obliged to do this as fans - they want to support the product and many go out and buy the DVD when it is released so as to ensure their favourite show continues (e.g. Futurama and SG-1, which are now solely distributed on DVD now)

We live in a worldwide market now and it's not right to serve one market first, part of the reason why you see now that the biggest films and TV shows are distributed around the world a lot more quickly than in the 90s, where places like Australia got blockbuster films years after the US and Europe, that's the reason why the later Harry Potter books were released worldwide simultaneously - the industry has already had to adapt to some extent

So who knows what the figure is, I'm sure there's some good I.T reporters out there who know, but don't simply believe that the full potential of what is downloaded is actually lost from the economy

Seeing as politics is always 30 years behind contemporary culture, I wonder if when we finally get a voice our generation will even give a hoot about protecting the media moguls