Wayne Besen provides some data on the upcoming vote on gay marriage in California. It shows that whilst the potential electorate is pretty equally split, the pro gay marriage "likely to vote" electorate is slightly in the lead.
For those not in the know, Proposition 8 is a proposed measure to amend the Californian Constitution to ban gay marriage, something which has now been legal for a few months. Personally I think it is quite right for this to be on the ballot, I think that it gives the gay community in California the chance to get democratic approval for the legal status of gay marriage. Winning this is the only way to silence the anti-gay marriage bastards (the reasonable, sane ones anyway).
The anti gay marriage brigade are wrong. Their attempts to politicize marriage are disturbing, and downright underhand. Marriage, something they seem to place plenty of importance on, is being treated by them as just another chip in their culture wars.
Their idea that having gay people marry is somehow going to diminish heterosexual marriage is ludicrous, and the suggestion that it'll be a slippery slope into bestial and paedophilic marriages is bizarre. If we use that logic surely bringing sex into the concept of marriage is the first part of that slippery slope? Thus rendering legalising heterosexual marriage as the opening round in the degeneration of marriage.
Of course, personally, I feel marriage should not be any business of Government and only the business of the courts as part of sorting out problems with the contract. I still completely agree with Peter Tatchell's proposal which basically says "Mutual care and commitment, not sex, should be the basis of partnership rights." Now that would truly be a beautiful thing.
Thursday, 28 August 2008
Did Tower Hamlets Council Think This Would Help Community Cohesion???
Sometimes I wonder if people actually think about what they write in emails? I've had my brushes with stupidity (once sending out an extremely personal and inappropriate email to all of the TVW Folkestone staff) but at least I wasn't in a position needing public scrutiny. Tower Hamlets council employee John Williams ("Head of Democratic Services"), however, should really have thought through the wording of his email before sending it out and playing right into the hands of the racist scum that bedevil this country.
Check out this news story. Read it all, and you'll see what he was trying to say... "Oi, this year keep your hands off the specially laid on Ramadan food, you greedy bastards" came out as "The special food is for special people and you all better not eat anything at all until after those special people have eaten their special food". Which I can see was not his intention. It's just he decided to write in management speak rather than actually get directly to the point. I completely agree with the Lib Dem grouping saying that this is completely unacceptable, suggesting one religious grouping has priority over another, or over no religion at all. I'm glad the council have sought to rectify that perception.
Personally I don't think special exceptions should be made for any religion at Governmental level, and before you say "But what about Easter and Christmas", I accept that some Christian, formerly Pagan holidays, have become secular holidays something I have no issue with. But if they are going to be made, please God do it properly and think things through otherwise you risk sending a whole lot of fresh members to the likes of the BNP.
Check out this news story. Read it all, and you'll see what he was trying to say... "Oi, this year keep your hands off the specially laid on Ramadan food, you greedy bastards" came out as "The special food is for special people and you all better not eat anything at all until after those special people have eaten their special food". Which I can see was not his intention. It's just he decided to write in management speak rather than actually get directly to the point. I completely agree with the Lib Dem grouping saying that this is completely unacceptable, suggesting one religious grouping has priority over another, or over no religion at all. I'm glad the council have sought to rectify that perception.
Personally I don't think special exceptions should be made for any religion at Governmental level, and before you say "But what about Easter and Christmas", I accept that some Christian, formerly Pagan holidays, have become secular holidays something I have no issue with. But if they are going to be made, please God do it properly and think things through otherwise you risk sending a whole lot of fresh members to the likes of the BNP.
A Case Of "You want me to deal with my own problems??"
A couple phoned the police to report a possible house burglary, which so concerned the couple that they promptly fell asleep. They were awoken by a text message. They were:
I am constantly amazed at the attitude of people in this country. Sure we pay taxes to help fund a police service to help keep the peace. But surely it is also our responsibility to actively assist this police service and also to deal with the shit that happens to us directly?
The police cannot possibly be expected to stop every burglary and catch every burglar in the act, if the burglar is no longer in the building then the incident is going to be a lower priority that more life threatening incidents. They can, however, be expected to, within a reasonable time period, investigate said burglary. If you want to give the burglar the idea that they can't just get away with it, you need to actively protect your home and do everything in your power to ensure the police have every bit of information required in readiness for a possible investigation later on.
But no, as usual the British just moan and bleat about the lack of police assistance without bothering to consider all the factors involved. Should the police maybe have ignored a violent incident and come to assist at this house, without even knowing if anything had actually been stolen? I don't think so. And from what I can tell in the news story, nothing was stolen at all and the burglar was scared off before entering the property. A broken padlock is not really worthy of an immediate nighttime visit by the police when their numbers are at their lowest is it?
"...totally gobsmacked and disgusted that this text was sent out an hour later to us."To text the person who calls and ask them to investigate what had been stolen, broken into and who did it is just incredible.
"It just gives burglars the idea that they can get away with it because the police aren't going to send anyone out."
Mr Bishop, 33, added: "I would've thought they should have been able to catch a man in a white T-shirt as there couldn't have been many running around the area at five in the morning."
Shocking indeed... the police shouldn't be asking people to actually get out of their bed in times of emergency and assist them. That would suggest the victims gave a damn about what had happened, and we wouldn't want to suggest that now would we? Here's the actual text message:
Lloyd. Following on from your call earlier on to the police, please can you contact us if you are able to establish what has been stolen and where from? At this time we're struggling to get the police to attend general calls for service, many thanks.So what they were actually asked was could you let us know what has been stolen and where from. Not who did it. Not to even try to apprehend the suspect. Just a simple request to let the police know what had actually been taken as they had their hands full with higher priority calls. Not exactly asking the Earth there are they?
I am constantly amazed at the attitude of people in this country. Sure we pay taxes to help fund a police service to help keep the peace. But surely it is also our responsibility to actively assist this police service and also to deal with the shit that happens to us directly?
The police cannot possibly be expected to stop every burglary and catch every burglar in the act, if the burglar is no longer in the building then the incident is going to be a lower priority that more life threatening incidents. They can, however, be expected to, within a reasonable time period, investigate said burglary. If you want to give the burglar the idea that they can't just get away with it, you need to actively protect your home and do everything in your power to ensure the police have every bit of information required in readiness for a possible investigation later on.
But no, as usual the British just moan and bleat about the lack of police assistance without bothering to consider all the factors involved. Should the police maybe have ignored a violent incident and come to assist at this house, without even knowing if anything had actually been stolen? I don't think so. And from what I can tell in the news story, nothing was stolen at all and the burglar was scared off before entering the property. A broken padlock is not really worthy of an immediate nighttime visit by the police when their numbers are at their lowest is it?
Wednesday, 27 August 2008
What A Horrid Father
Some guy on the X Factor says he doesn't know his real family, and wants to prove to them he isn't a waste of space (note to him... the X Factor cannot help you with this...). Then the Mirror runs a story saying he lied, and his father is quoted to prove it.
Now what the father says is basically he and his son have regular phone contact and he last saw him four years ago. Personally I've seen complete strangers more often than that and I thus very much doubt it contradicts what his son said. He wants to KNOW his family not just have some contact with them.
And the fact is the father almost certainly got paid for his story. What sort of father is that? A pathetic, worthless one? Yes. I just wish the newspapers would stop using greedy folks like this for stories and instead outed them as the greedy bastards they are for all the nation to see. Sometime soon I want to see a news headline:
"Heartless father uses his son's unhappiness for personal gain"
Now what the father says is basically he and his son have regular phone contact and he last saw him four years ago. Personally I've seen complete strangers more often than that and I thus very much doubt it contradicts what his son said. He wants to KNOW his family not just have some contact with them.
And the fact is the father almost certainly got paid for his story. What sort of father is that? A pathetic, worthless one? Yes. I just wish the newspapers would stop using greedy folks like this for stories and instead outed them as the greedy bastards they are for all the nation to see. Sometime soon I want to see a news headline:
"Heartless father uses his son's unhappiness for personal gain"
Monday, 25 August 2008
Why Am I A Unionist?
I've been a Unionist since at least before the 1997 election when I would have been just 13 years old. Why I am a Unionist is not something I've ever given much thought to. Well given that the country seems to be marching ever more quickly towards a break up, it's time I wrote down why I'd prefer the Union to continue and why I think nationalism is not the way. I'll do that in a series of (rather long) bullet points:
1) Let's start with a trivial reason. Personally I'd be deeply upset to wake up one day and find the country of my birth, the United Kingdom, had ceased to exist. I know, even if it may seem silly, that I would not be able to think of "England" as the country of my birth. To find myself adrift without a state would be fairly disturbing.
2) On a more serious note, the future of mankind lies not in petty bickering between so called "nations" but in ever closer cooperation. If our species is to survive we must rise above our own "national" interests and begin to work together to create a world filled with hope.
Humans are, by their very nature, prone to tribalism, violence and petty arguments. But we have evolved a rational mind, one which can be used to overcome our inherent flaws. We must give up clinging to the concept of flags, a concept of "nations". And here you say "But isn't Unionism simply clinging to a flag/nation on a larger scale?". Not in my case it's not, as I would be perfectly happy to see the Union Flag removed from public buildings were it to be replaced with a European flag. Of course, this must happen only when the institutions of the European Union are sufficiently democratic, etc. etc. And then to see that replaced by some United Nations flag. I express my belief in Unionism as a belief in unity and cooperation between different groups of people, and my Unionism is not fixed to limited borders but embraces all humanity.
3) My real issue lies in the darkness that seems to dwell at the heart of the nationalist ideology. Scottish Nationalism seems to me to be little more than clinging to long gone injustices and racist hatred of the "English". English Nationalism seems mainly to be about present perceived injustices with regards to the way some of the Home Nations are treated plus an added element of an non existent "English" culture, which remains either ill defined or worse defined by bangers and mash and other such godawful concepts of "culture". Where is the uplifting, positive spirit of progress within these narratives? Nowhere, for the politics of nationalism, as we saw at the beginning of the 20th Century across Europe, are the politics of hate, conservatism and distrust.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want a world of just one culture, one colour nor of one mind. But I take issue with someone who suggests "England" has a shared culture or history and that "Britain" does not. What culture does someone like me, Kentish through and through, share with a Yorkshireman? None, except that which we share through the history of these islands. While I have no problem living under a political system within which our cultures can unite for the common good, I couldn't reasonably be expected to live under system that automatically assumes some deeper "bloodtie" between us. Kent and Yorkshire used to be in two different countries! Just as England and Scotland used to be separate countries. And thus we find the inherent problem with nationalism, they look back but only so far. If I were to suggest we all just live in tribes and act like druids, people would give me funny looks. But that is the sort of mindset the nationalists espouse in their outlook, but only to a more recent period of time. And thus people, for some reason, take them more seriously.
4) Back to a trivial reason. The symbols and icons of English Nationalism speak volumes of the sort of people who believe the English nationalist ideology. Richard the Lionheart was not fond of England. St George never even set foot here. The English flag is dull and ugly. The English Rose is a combination of two northern families' emblems, not exactly representative.
5) Should Scotland leave the Union they will expect certain things... a share of the army, oil etc. Alas I think they shall be deeply disappointed leading to further acrimony between the nations. This I feel would lead only to instability on these islands, unnecessary and dangerous.
6) If we should fail to be able to continue to live peacefully on these islands under one Government then that is a sad indictment on all the inhabitants. Yet another ray of hope shall be extinguished as these islands roll back towards the Dark Ages.
1) Let's start with a trivial reason. Personally I'd be deeply upset to wake up one day and find the country of my birth, the United Kingdom, had ceased to exist. I know, even if it may seem silly, that I would not be able to think of "England" as the country of my birth. To find myself adrift without a state would be fairly disturbing.
2) On a more serious note, the future of mankind lies not in petty bickering between so called "nations" but in ever closer cooperation. If our species is to survive we must rise above our own "national" interests and begin to work together to create a world filled with hope.
Humans are, by their very nature, prone to tribalism, violence and petty arguments. But we have evolved a rational mind, one which can be used to overcome our inherent flaws. We must give up clinging to the concept of flags, a concept of "nations". And here you say "But isn't Unionism simply clinging to a flag/nation on a larger scale?". Not in my case it's not, as I would be perfectly happy to see the Union Flag removed from public buildings were it to be replaced with a European flag. Of course, this must happen only when the institutions of the European Union are sufficiently democratic, etc. etc. And then to see that replaced by some United Nations flag. I express my belief in Unionism as a belief in unity and cooperation between different groups of people, and my Unionism is not fixed to limited borders but embraces all humanity.
3) My real issue lies in the darkness that seems to dwell at the heart of the nationalist ideology. Scottish Nationalism seems to me to be little more than clinging to long gone injustices and racist hatred of the "English". English Nationalism seems mainly to be about present perceived injustices with regards to the way some of the Home Nations are treated plus an added element of an non existent "English" culture, which remains either ill defined or worse defined by bangers and mash and other such godawful concepts of "culture". Where is the uplifting, positive spirit of progress within these narratives? Nowhere, for the politics of nationalism, as we saw at the beginning of the 20th Century across Europe, are the politics of hate, conservatism and distrust.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want a world of just one culture, one colour nor of one mind. But I take issue with someone who suggests "England" has a shared culture or history and that "Britain" does not. What culture does someone like me, Kentish through and through, share with a Yorkshireman? None, except that which we share through the history of these islands. While I have no problem living under a political system within which our cultures can unite for the common good, I couldn't reasonably be expected to live under system that automatically assumes some deeper "bloodtie" between us. Kent and Yorkshire used to be in two different countries! Just as England and Scotland used to be separate countries. And thus we find the inherent problem with nationalism, they look back but only so far. If I were to suggest we all just live in tribes and act like druids, people would give me funny looks. But that is the sort of mindset the nationalists espouse in their outlook, but only to a more recent period of time. And thus people, for some reason, take them more seriously.
4) Back to a trivial reason. The symbols and icons of English Nationalism speak volumes of the sort of people who believe the English nationalist ideology. Richard the Lionheart was not fond of England. St George never even set foot here. The English flag is dull and ugly. The English Rose is a combination of two northern families' emblems, not exactly representative.
5) Should Scotland leave the Union they will expect certain things... a share of the army, oil etc. Alas I think they shall be deeply disappointed leading to further acrimony between the nations. This I feel would lead only to instability on these islands, unnecessary and dangerous.
6) If we should fail to be able to continue to live peacefully on these islands under one Government then that is a sad indictment on all the inhabitants. Yet another ray of hope shall be extinguished as these islands roll back towards the Dark Ages.
The Olympic Spirit Lives On!!! Or Not.
So the debate about the British Olympic 2012 Football team truly begins. Sadly, but predictably, everyone says they don't want it. Instead they'd prefer either a wholy English team representing Britain (a thought that makes me quite sick) or playoffs between the national sides.
I'm glad to see the Olympic spirit of team work and cooperation lives on in these islands.
Nationalism should be a crime.
I'm glad to see the Olympic spirit of team work and cooperation lives on in these islands.
Nationalism should be a crime.
Thursday, 21 August 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)