The Holiest of the Holies, Pope Benedict XVI, or Joseph Ratzinger, or Joe as I prefer to call him has been edict-ing again today in his papal infallible way.
Apparently, and he must be right, what with him being infallible and all, apparently condoms are bad for you and can exacerbate the likelihood of contracting HIV/AIDS. Chutzpah eh! Well, what he said technically was that throwing money and condoms at the problem was not the answer. The only answer was to take the church's traditional stance of abstention from sexual intercourse. Of course, what better way to kill off AIDS than to stop shagging. It's the perfect solution. I'd like to hear his solution for the problem of global poverty - probably something along the lines of stop being poor and become better off. Or he could solve the Islamic terrorism problem by stating "stop being Muslims and be Catholics". Simple solutions for a simple world from a simple man. In theory obviously abstinence would work but let's not forget the old saying "Abstinence makes the heart grow fonder". If people really abstained for any length of time, you can guarantee that they would be rutting before the week was out, on a never before seen level. Abstinence as a solution could only come from a guy who killed his sexual urges or had them killed before he was out of lederhosen (by which time he was already in the seminary, where the only sex is... well let's not go into that).
What his papal plan overlooks, other than the glaringly obscene suggestion that condoms increase the likelihood of causing AIDS infection, is the fact that you cannot impose cultural ideals on other cultures. It's a bit like Robbie Williams being inexplicably successful in the UK but seen as god-awful in the USA. What works for one culture, cannot be guaranteed to work for another; especially when the culture that brought about this particular plan was an austere, medieval European society, based in piety. It's a miracle that such an anachronistic teaching could survive in any form in Europe today. It's another thing altogether to expect that such a teaching could be accepted amongst a completely different culture.
If Joe's idea of abstention is successful in any way, it is only through people's greater fear of eternal damnation than of AIDS.
If it isn't and people go ahead and do what comes naturally to them (and let's face it, if we were created, we were created with sexual desires, so what God could justifiably expect us to suppress them), I just hope they also ignore the Catholic Church's stance on contraception. Some countries in Africa have HIV/AIDS rates of around 25%, which should make you gasp in horror. With rates as high as that, African people can't afford to listen to the Papal Bullshit that emanates from his holiness and it is immoral that people should be bullied and compromised by religion when their lives are at stake.
God, I hate the irrelevant old fucker!*
(* that wasn't addressed at God, because he doesn't exist, it was just a figure of speech)
Friday, March 27, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Is your Homeland Secure?
It was reported today that the Liberal Democrats had made a Freedom of Information request regarding the use of RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) by local councils in the last five years. RIPA gives local authorities the power to use surveillance to investigate serious crimes. The list of crimes that have been investigated is startling and the underlying theme leads us to some worrying conclusions.
RIPA powers have been used to surveil members of the public for such things as dog fouling (them shitting, not us jumping in two footed on them), littering, vandalism and investigating the residence of parents who claim residency in one area to get in a school's catchment area.
The use of such powers should only be for the most serious of crimes and all these crimes seem petty. So, what does this tell us about the usage of RIPA by local authorities.
We could surmise that they are abusing the purpose of these powers and using them to snoop on people. This could be seen as an erosion of civil liberties and a grim sign that we are marching inexorably towards a surveillance state of '1984' proportions.
Or perhaps there is something else, that is less obvious. Perhaps there is a deeper reason for this ostensible abuse of serious legislation. In other words, perhaps the target of this surveillance is as serious as the use of RIPA requires. We don't know everything; maybe we should give the authorities the benefit of the doubt. What better way for those who hate our freedoms and our way of life to destroy them than to attack our infrastructure. We know they take on big targets e.g. 9/11, Bali, but what about the unseen? We need to open our minds a bit here. It isn't always possible to blow up buildings and slaughter innocent people in a town square. It's high profile and attracts a lot of attention; nibbling away at our infrastructure is a subtle way of destroying our way of life. We see dog fouling and fly tipping - RIPA could be investigating the pollution and degradation of our parks and public spaces. We see a tramp has pissed in a lift or phone box - could this not be an attack on communications and transport? We see that stuck-up parents don't want their precious children to go to the local comprehensive so they fake their address to get them into the school of choice - the authorities probably see the same and just want to catch the conceited bastards at it.
These are things you probably haven't thought of but it's food for thought. Next time you walk past a melted bin in the town centre, think who benefits the most from this 'random act' of vandalism. Perhaps then you might look at the camera pointed at that bin and feel comforted, rather than the cold fear that 'Miniluv' is just round the corner.
RIPA powers have been used to surveil members of the public for such things as dog fouling (them shitting, not us jumping in two footed on them), littering, vandalism and investigating the residence of parents who claim residency in one area to get in a school's catchment area.
The use of such powers should only be for the most serious of crimes and all these crimes seem petty. So, what does this tell us about the usage of RIPA by local authorities.
We could surmise that they are abusing the purpose of these powers and using them to snoop on people. This could be seen as an erosion of civil liberties and a grim sign that we are marching inexorably towards a surveillance state of '1984' proportions.
Or perhaps there is something else, that is less obvious. Perhaps there is a deeper reason for this ostensible abuse of serious legislation. In other words, perhaps the target of this surveillance is as serious as the use of RIPA requires. We don't know everything; maybe we should give the authorities the benefit of the doubt. What better way for those who hate our freedoms and our way of life to destroy them than to attack our infrastructure. We know they take on big targets e.g. 9/11, Bali, but what about the unseen? We need to open our minds a bit here. It isn't always possible to blow up buildings and slaughter innocent people in a town square. It's high profile and attracts a lot of attention; nibbling away at our infrastructure is a subtle way of destroying our way of life. We see dog fouling and fly tipping - RIPA could be investigating the pollution and degradation of our parks and public spaces. We see a tramp has pissed in a lift or phone box - could this not be an attack on communications and transport? We see that stuck-up parents don't want their precious children to go to the local comprehensive so they fake their address to get them into the school of choice - the authorities probably see the same and just want to catch the conceited bastards at it.
These are things you probably haven't thought of but it's food for thought. Next time you walk past a melted bin in the town centre, think who benefits the most from this 'random act' of vandalism. Perhaps then you might look at the camera pointed at that bin and feel comforted, rather than the cold fear that 'Miniluv' is just round the corner.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The Feminine Mystique
I wonder, as Emily Wilding Davison ducked under the railing and prepared herself, whether she could imagine how successful the struggle for equal rights for women would become. As Betty Friedan sat down to write the Feminine Mystique, could she imagine a world with female world leaders let alone redefined gender roles. Indeed, how far we've come. There is no better example of how far we've come than the advertising world.
In adverts, the woman is usually seen as independent, important, business-like. She is a working mother, juggling the duties of a mother and a CEO. Man is her equal, not her better half. There is even a cheeky hint of superiority with slogans such as "so simple, a man could do it"(evidently, this advert wsn't for female razors, which look like they've been designed by the Early Learning Centre)
And what about the products that this successful, business-like, power-sharing woman is targeted with. Well, lets construct a model of the average woman and her day, as seen through the eyes of advertisers.
On awaking, (no doubt at 4:30am, to feed the twins, fill up the road tank and wake up her lazy good for nothing husband) she applies seven different skin creams and oils that will give her a healthy flawless complexion (that is, unless her face doesn't sag like a balloon filled with water due to all the moisture in it). For breakfast (no doubt a power breakfast, just berfore a board meeting) she wants to eat a bowl of low fat cereal. Low fat, so that she still looks good (presumably in a bright red business suit). Whilst at work, in between selling stocks, shares etc she needs to find time to take a break... to have a low fat, low sugar, piss poor fizzy drink and ogle a builder. With so little time for lunch, this highflying, fast living exec/mother will need something light and quick - no doubt a low fat cheese spread on crispbread will do the trick. Home time, and it's time to unwind. Curl up on the sofa with a low fat, low sugar hot chocolate drink. But it's been a busy day and she's worked hard, so she deserves a devilish treat - a big chocolate bar and where better to eat it than in the bath with a luxurious scrub. Finally, shattered from a busy day of hedgefunding, dogwalking and child and husband raising, she will turn in - but not before removing all the badness of the day with one pad and applying goodness for the nighttime with another.
Indeed, how far we've come. No longer slave to the kitchen, free to make decisions for herself, judged solely on the content of her character, not the colour or texture of her skin. I'm sure as Miss Davison saw the hoof falling, she smiled as she imagined future generations enjoying the freedom, to apply a fake tan, that she fought and died for.
In adverts, the woman is usually seen as independent, important, business-like. She is a working mother, juggling the duties of a mother and a CEO. Man is her equal, not her better half. There is even a cheeky hint of superiority with slogans such as "so simple, a man could do it"(evidently, this advert wsn't for female razors, which look like they've been designed by the Early Learning Centre)
And what about the products that this successful, business-like, power-sharing woman is targeted with. Well, lets construct a model of the average woman and her day, as seen through the eyes of advertisers.
On awaking, (no doubt at 4:30am, to feed the twins, fill up the road tank and wake up her lazy good for nothing husband) she applies seven different skin creams and oils that will give her a healthy flawless complexion (that is, unless her face doesn't sag like a balloon filled with water due to all the moisture in it). For breakfast (no doubt a power breakfast, just berfore a board meeting) she wants to eat a bowl of low fat cereal. Low fat, so that she still looks good (presumably in a bright red business suit). Whilst at work, in between selling stocks, shares etc she needs to find time to take a break... to have a low fat, low sugar, piss poor fizzy drink and ogle a builder. With so little time for lunch, this highflying, fast living exec/mother will need something light and quick - no doubt a low fat cheese spread on crispbread will do the trick. Home time, and it's time to unwind. Curl up on the sofa with a low fat, low sugar hot chocolate drink. But it's been a busy day and she's worked hard, so she deserves a devilish treat - a big chocolate bar and where better to eat it than in the bath with a luxurious scrub. Finally, shattered from a busy day of hedgefunding, dogwalking and child and husband raising, she will turn in - but not before removing all the badness of the day with one pad and applying goodness for the nighttime with another.
Indeed, how far we've come. No longer slave to the kitchen, free to make decisions for herself, judged solely on the content of her character, not the colour or texture of her skin. I'm sure as Miss Davison saw the hoof falling, she smiled as she imagined future generations enjoying the freedom, to apply a fake tan, that she fought and died for.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Quickie
Just a quickie, to keep things ticking over. Following on from my previous post, I thought I'd have a go at another song title:
Bon Jovi wrote a song called Bad Medicine.
The chorus claims:
"your love is like bad medicine,
bad medicine is what I need."
To claim that someone's love is like bad medicine is probably not a good thing, but to claim that it is what they need is ill advised. I can't think of many bad medicines, but they probably don't work and at worst put the recipient at risk e.g. EST or Thallidamide. If you were to substitute the words "bad medicine" with "thallidimide", would you sing along? Would you encourage the song writer to pursue this relationship? I don't think you'd be a friend if you did. Is the fact that we don't see much of Jon Bon Jovi nowadays a result of him following this course of action? It acts as a cautionary tale for all of us.
Anyone got any other song titles they want to tear apart. Share them with me!
Bon Jovi wrote a song called Bad Medicine.
The chorus claims:
"your love is like bad medicine,
bad medicine is what I need."
To claim that someone's love is like bad medicine is probably not a good thing, but to claim that it is what they need is ill advised. I can't think of many bad medicines, but they probably don't work and at worst put the recipient at risk e.g. EST or Thallidamide. If you were to substitute the words "bad medicine" with "thallidimide", would you sing along? Would you encourage the song writer to pursue this relationship? I don't think you'd be a friend if you did. Is the fact that we don't see much of Jon Bon Jovi nowadays a result of him following this course of action? It acts as a cautionary tale for all of us.
Anyone got any other song titles they want to tear apart. Share them with me!
Monday, March 2, 2009
The Burning Question
Every now and then a question arises that sears itself into our consciousness; a question so potent and existential in substance that we are forced to stop and think. Typical questions in this field are: What is the meaning of life? Is there life beyond our planet? Does God exist, and if he does, why is he such a twat?
Such questions can consume the average thinker. Well, another one has been raised, that for so long has been overlooked:
"Are we human or are dancers?"
Many will never have considered this question as an issue. I have always had a nagging feeling that there might be a problem here. I could never crystallise the question as succinctly as this but I always questioned the simplicity of the belief that we are "human". Now, quite brilliantly, the Killer's, a pop group with a number of records in the Hit parade, have piqued our curiosity.
Looking at the question, it begs a whole raft of other questions. Does it allow for some of us to be "humans" and some of us to be "dancers"? Minor celebrity Lionel Blair is quite insistent that he is a dancer, as is Wayne Sleep and Bez. If they are insistent that they are dancers, and were able to present proof that they were dancers, does this mean that we are all dancers - with latent ability to dance? It is an interesting question.
Perhaps more intriguing than this is the mind boggling possibility that this is a visible step in human evolution. A question that is quite often levelled at evolutionists is "why aren't we still evolving"? Despite the more subtle ways that the human body evolves and adapts, an evolutionary step of becoming a dancer would certainly be a landmark step in human evolution. From here the logical next question would be - "Would our evolution as dancers be similar or would we be subject to the same bio-diversity as the finches on the separate Galapagos islands?" Better put, would "dancers" develop differently in different societies e.g. British "dancers" would become adept Morris Dancers, whilst Austrians' became Waltzers? If this is the case, what would happen when "dancers" from different societies clashed? Could we expect to see conflict or coexistence and would we have the inevitability of weaker "dance" groups e.g. voguing, being condemned to extinction by more dominant forms e.g. The foxtrot?
"Human" history doesn't bode well for such a clash of cultures. Perhaps we should disregard this precedent as we cha cha cha into an unknown future.
I applaud the Killers for bringing such a "killer" question to the world's attention, but I feel they may have unleashed a philosophical power they can't control.
Such questions can consume the average thinker. Well, another one has been raised, that for so long has been overlooked:
"Are we human or are dancers?"
Many will never have considered this question as an issue. I have always had a nagging feeling that there might be a problem here. I could never crystallise the question as succinctly as this but I always questioned the simplicity of the belief that we are "human". Now, quite brilliantly, the Killer's, a pop group with a number of records in the Hit parade, have piqued our curiosity.
Looking at the question, it begs a whole raft of other questions. Does it allow for some of us to be "humans" and some of us to be "dancers"? Minor celebrity Lionel Blair is quite insistent that he is a dancer, as is Wayne Sleep and Bez. If they are insistent that they are dancers, and were able to present proof that they were dancers, does this mean that we are all dancers - with latent ability to dance? It is an interesting question.
Perhaps more intriguing than this is the mind boggling possibility that this is a visible step in human evolution. A question that is quite often levelled at evolutionists is "why aren't we still evolving"? Despite the more subtle ways that the human body evolves and adapts, an evolutionary step of becoming a dancer would certainly be a landmark step in human evolution. From here the logical next question would be - "Would our evolution as dancers be similar or would we be subject to the same bio-diversity as the finches on the separate Galapagos islands?" Better put, would "dancers" develop differently in different societies e.g. British "dancers" would become adept Morris Dancers, whilst Austrians' became Waltzers? If this is the case, what would happen when "dancers" from different societies clashed? Could we expect to see conflict or coexistence and would we have the inevitability of weaker "dance" groups e.g. voguing, being condemned to extinction by more dominant forms e.g. The foxtrot?
"Human" history doesn't bode well for such a clash of cultures. Perhaps we should disregard this precedent as we cha cha cha into an unknown future.
I applaud the Killers for bringing such a "killer" question to the world's attention, but I feel they may have unleashed a philosophical power they can't control.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
