Tony Nicklinson has suffered from locked-in syndrome since 2005. He is asking the courts to rule that any doctor who in the future assists with his clearly expressed and carefully considered wish to die will not be prosecuted. A High Court judge has today ruled that there can be a full hearing on the issue. That's all. It is a long, long way from assisted dying become legal in the UK. The judge has simply said 'let the arguments be aired'.
As a consequence, the following carefully considered and constructive comments have been posted against the article at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17336774?postId=111960902#comment_111960902
Susan: "The judge should be arrested for such an irresponsible decision"
Ayoade Oluwasanmi: "Everything now seems to ba a "right". Now we have the right to die. Whats next? The right to get get high? Be an addict? To kill?"
'Antiochean': "A sad ruling - refusing medication is allready legal - if this goes any further at the next stage, it would be taking steps that are dangerous and ethically blind."
'rainbowww82': "No one has a say whether they want to come to this world or not, similarly no one has the right to decide their death! He is not the only person in this world who is suffering, this life is a test not paradise so sufferings are to be expected. And no one lives eternally, his turn to die will come too. I strongly disagree with this kind of murder to be legalized. No excuse is good enough!"
'Balloon Rake': "This now means that anyone accused of murder can say in court "They asked me to murder them" and they will then be acquitted.
Taking another person's life is muder, no matter of the circumstances, the high court judge who passed today's ruling should never be allowed to work again."
Susan (again): "The govt will be happy. It keeps the economics of such a vile ruling in the new Little Switzerland that the UK has become. Or will it be done on the NHS?"
What each of these contributors fails to mention is that they are religious zombies intent on imposing their ludicrous, childish, ignorant beliefs on everyone else. Infantile fascists, if you will.
Monday, 12 March 2012
Thursday, 5 January 2012
... and what's more
Diane Abbott is in the news today (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16423278).
In a multi-tweet commencing quite reasonably (whether correctly or not) "ethnic communities that show more public solidarity & unity than black people do much better" she went on to say: "white people love playing 'divide & rule'. We should not play their game", highlighting "#tacticasoldascolonialism" as a relevant topic.
She's in trouble as you might expect, with at least one Tory MP saying Abbot has made a racist comment and should resign. A Tory would say that, wouldn't they, but on the other hand...
We can flip Abbott's comment, imagining it was a white person talking about black people. Would anyone doubt that would be a racist comment? Or how about "black people love playing the victim"? It's a racist generalisation, no question, so surely Aboott's comment is as well.
I think Abbott knows she is in trouble. She later tweeted: "Tweet taken out of context. Refers to nature of 19th Century European colonialism. Bit much to get into 140 characters."
But unfortunately for Abbott she originally said "love" and "their game", not "loved" and "the game of 19th century European colonialism". Despite the pitfalls of Twitter, it is hard to see how a comment intended to be exclusively about 19th century empire became "white people love". And even if it did (which seems highly unlikley), why would the past tense and a focus on certain aspects of Europe of the 19th century make it OK? "Black colonised people loved playing the victim." Is that OK?
In a multi-tweet commencing quite reasonably (whether correctly or not) "ethnic communities that show more public solidarity & unity than black people do much better" she went on to say: "white people love playing 'divide & rule'. We should not play their game", highlighting "#tacticasoldascolonialism" as a relevant topic.
She's in trouble as you might expect, with at least one Tory MP saying Abbot has made a racist comment and should resign. A Tory would say that, wouldn't they, but on the other hand...
We can flip Abbott's comment, imagining it was a white person talking about black people. Would anyone doubt that would be a racist comment? Or how about "black people love playing the victim"? It's a racist generalisation, no question, so surely Aboott's comment is as well.
I think Abbott knows she is in trouble. She later tweeted: "Tweet taken out of context. Refers to nature of 19th Century European colonialism. Bit much to get into 140 characters."
But unfortunately for Abbott she originally said "love" and "their game", not "loved" and "the game of 19th century European colonialism". Despite the pitfalls of Twitter, it is hard to see how a comment intended to be exclusively about 19th century empire became "white people love". And even if it did (which seems highly unlikley), why would the past tense and a focus on certain aspects of Europe of the 19th century make it OK? "Black colonised people loved playing the victim." Is that OK?
Tuesday, 29 November 2011
Some of my best friends
So a woman caught on camera being vile and abusive and racist has been charged.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15933829
She may or may not be pissed, but she undoubtedly deserves to have the law come after her. I'd say what is more to the point is that she shouldn't be allowed to keep the toddler she is holding in her arms throughout the rant. You just know that child is going to grow up as a burden and a threat to society.
Just a thought though: what about the black woman that replies "if we don't come here, you guys don't want to work, we have to do the work for you (sic)"? She is absolutely delightful in comparison to the woman with the child, but isn't that response in itself racist? It isn't clear what she meant by "we" and "you", and perhaps she wasn't entirely certain herself, but she was definitely differentiating between different racial or cultural groups. You might argue that she was severely provoked, but do you think that she didn't believe, at least in part, what she said? And anyway, the law applies to act not thought.
I'm being a little glib. The black woman doesn't deserve to be punished; the white woman deserves to be... well, she deserves all the public humiliation that having 2 million people gawp at your stupidity on YouTube entails. But my point is that racism is pervasive and not the preserve of 'chav scum'. We all have a little of it in us. And the best way to combat it (as we should) is to acknowledge it every time we see it. Not pretend that some racism is OK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15933829
She may or may not be pissed, but she undoubtedly deserves to have the law come after her. I'd say what is more to the point is that she shouldn't be allowed to keep the toddler she is holding in her arms throughout the rant. You just know that child is going to grow up as a burden and a threat to society.
Just a thought though: what about the black woman that replies "if we don't come here, you guys don't want to work, we have to do the work for you (sic)"? She is absolutely delightful in comparison to the woman with the child, but isn't that response in itself racist? It isn't clear what she meant by "we" and "you", and perhaps she wasn't entirely certain herself, but she was definitely differentiating between different racial or cultural groups. You might argue that she was severely provoked, but do you think that she didn't believe, at least in part, what she said? And anyway, the law applies to act not thought.
I'm being a little glib. The black woman doesn't deserve to be punished; the white woman deserves to be... well, she deserves all the public humiliation that having 2 million people gawp at your stupidity on YouTube entails. But my point is that racism is pervasive and not the preserve of 'chav scum'. We all have a little of it in us. And the best way to combat it (as we should) is to acknowledge it every time we see it. Not pretend that some racism is OK.
Monday, 28 November 2011
Sheep Dip
Green. That's the colour of the new headphones I am going to design and manufacture. Red is so 2011. White? Don't even get me started. I had white headphones when Moby was still advertising the first iPod.
It really can't go wrong. Everyone is going to want a pair. Obviously the sound quality is irrelevant, but I may hire an ageing, overweight hip hop star to advertise them, just to make sure it's a slam dunk. The Corporate Board says we should go for Biggy Smalls.
It really can't go wrong. Everyone is going to want a pair. Obviously the sound quality is irrelevant, but I may hire an ageing, overweight hip hop star to advertise them, just to make sure it's a slam dunk. The Corporate Board says we should go for Biggy Smalls.
Friday, 1 July 2011
Barrett Strong
Tax. Waste of money, right? Isn't that what we all think? Well actually I don't. However, I am aware that government is more than capable of pissing our hard earned cash down the drain. And so it was with the Edinburgh tram scheme. £375 million for a tram system to cover the city. Ridiculous, isn't it? How about £700 million for a network that is substantially smaller than was originally planned? That's what has happened, and Edinburgh residents are expected to grin and bear it. So that's an extra £325 million for a lesser service. Lets not quibble, and lets just say that it is an extra £325 million.
So assuming there are half a million tax payers in Edinburgh that is, on average, an extra £650 each, above an d beyond what they were originally paying. Imagine that. Imagine your council comes to you and says "you know that infrastructure that you've paid for, that you may or may not have had a use for? Well, we're going to take an extra £650 from you to pay for it." Half a million times.
My wife said something to me about this. She said "why isn't someone in prison for this?" Of course, the immediate answer is "incompetence isn't a criminal offence." Come to think of it, I don't think it's even a civil offence. But THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE MILLION POUNDS! Someone should be in prison. And that statement applies equally to the Ministry Of Defence, HMRC (Vodafone), etc etc.
So assuming there are half a million tax payers in Edinburgh that is, on average, an extra £650 each, above an d beyond what they were originally paying. Imagine that. Imagine your council comes to you and says "you know that infrastructure that you've paid for, that you may or may not have had a use for? Well, we're going to take an extra £650 from you to pay for it." Half a million times.
My wife said something to me about this. She said "why isn't someone in prison for this?" Of course, the immediate answer is "incompetence isn't a criminal offence." Come to think of it, I don't think it's even a civil offence. But THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE MILLION POUNDS! Someone should be in prison. And that statement applies equally to the Ministry Of Defence, HMRC (Vodafone), etc etc.
Friday, 11 February 2011
Muse Sick-n-(my) Mess Age
Beyonce (with an acute accent) to headline at Glastonbury in 2011? Well, that seals it - I'll never attend again.
There was a bit of fuss a couple of years ago when B's hubby Jay-Z headlined, but I was fine with that. Glasto is (largely) about good and/or interesting music and Hova (as I believe he sometimes styles himself) ticks those boxes. The old reactionary Noel Gallagher whined about the lack of guitars, but he missed the point as usual.
But Beyonce is a different proposition. Karaoke. Cabaret, at best.
Actually, as I write this I realise that I am a little late to the party. Kylie headlined last year and what is different about her? Well, not a lot except that she appears to be a nice person whereas Beyonce is just, well... icy corporate product. But I guess there is (for the purposes of this argument) essentially no difference. Kylie... Beyonce... Glastonbury? No.
Glastonbury, by all accounts, used to be a beautiful thing, and it was still a pretty unique experience when I first went in the late 90's. But now? You might as well save yourself for Liz's Diamond Jubilee in 2012. The journey home will be a lot easier, you won't be surrounded by wannabe hipsters or pissed undergraduates with nouveau riche daddies pretending to be poor, and you might get to see some genuine talent like Brian Wilson or Paul McCartney. Of course, you won't have the opportunity to see some of the really exciting new bands on the fringe stages, but admit it: you wouldn't have bothered anyway.
There was a bit of fuss a couple of years ago when B's hubby Jay-Z headlined, but I was fine with that. Glasto is (largely) about good and/or interesting music and Hova (as I believe he sometimes styles himself) ticks those boxes. The old reactionary Noel Gallagher whined about the lack of guitars, but he missed the point as usual.
But Beyonce is a different proposition. Karaoke. Cabaret, at best.
Actually, as I write this I realise that I am a little late to the party. Kylie headlined last year and what is different about her? Well, not a lot except that she appears to be a nice person whereas Beyonce is just, well... icy corporate product. But I guess there is (for the purposes of this argument) essentially no difference. Kylie... Beyonce... Glastonbury? No.
Glastonbury, by all accounts, used to be a beautiful thing, and it was still a pretty unique experience when I first went in the late 90's. But now? You might as well save yourself for Liz's Diamond Jubilee in 2012. The journey home will be a lot easier, you won't be surrounded by wannabe hipsters or pissed undergraduates with nouveau riche daddies pretending to be poor, and you might get to see some genuine talent like Brian Wilson or Paul McCartney. Of course, you won't have the opportunity to see some of the really exciting new bands on the fringe stages, but admit it: you wouldn't have bothered anyway.
Wednesday, 2 February 2011
BNP
Tricky things names. I bet the founders of Banque National de Paris never contemplated that their company acronym might one day be a homonym for a marginal but vocal English racist movement. And I bet the founders of Electricite de France never contemplated that their company might one day be a homonym for a marginal but vocal English racist movement. C'est la vie.
[Update 7/2/11 - I have pointed out to myself that EDF is not a homonym for the EDL. Shame.]
I just watched 'Tommy Robinson', leader of the EDL (the English Defence League, not the French power conglomorate) defending their cause. Scumbag, right? Well, maybe. But I think he made a decent hand of stating his case in a geezer'ish kind of way. He has obviously learned from the politicians and did a damn fine job of sticking to his points while largely ignoring Paxman's questions. So what are his points?
Well, most dubiously he claims to be concerned about elements of the (male) muslim community that are supposedly abusing young white girls - grooming them, raping them, pimping them. He's obviously riding on the crest of a tabloid wave, following the case of a group of men (who happened to be muslims) in Yorkshire found guilty of systematically abusing young girls. The fact is that it is probably no more of a problem amongst muslims than any other group, but 'Tommy' obviously appreciates the sentiment that it arouses and he did a great job of pointing out the differences between Paxman's sheltered middle class upbringing and the "reality" of living in deprived neighbourhoods with significant muslim populations.
But his second point, and the one that I have deep sympathy with, is his description of the Koran as (and I paraphrase) a wicked, violent, medieval work, which muslims are bound to believe in literally. Of course, this is all true, but Paxman was indignant. And this is my problem. The BBC, the media in general and all our institutions (legislature, judiciary, executive) all kowtow to nonsensical religious beliefs. Why are they so reluctant to speak the truth? Why not admit that the Koran (and the Bible) are nonsensical works of fiction, written for an entirely different historical epoch, and filled with the most vile, sexist, racist, homophobic, hatemongering shite. Incidentally, all things that are supposed to be outlawed these days.
[Update 2, 7/2/11 - a journalist in The Guardian made much the same point on 5/2/11, after I posted this. Obviously she doesn't read my blog, but I just wanted to stress that my post is not copied from her comments.]
While Paxman stressed that most muslims are law-abiding, upstanding members of the community, he failed to accept a deeper point. If those same muslims are true to their faith, then in fact it is their number one goal to convert all of us to Islam. The "Inams" (as Tommy called them) may disagree on the details (hmm, how's that considering the Koran is God's direct holy words and not subject to human interpretation?), but ultimately force is to be used if we resist. Atheists, be afraid, be very afraid. And not just of the white supremacists.
[Update 7/2/11 - I have pointed out to myself that EDF is not a homonym for the EDL. Shame.]
I just watched 'Tommy Robinson', leader of the EDL (the English Defence League, not the French power conglomorate) defending their cause. Scumbag, right? Well, maybe. But I think he made a decent hand of stating his case in a geezer'ish kind of way. He has obviously learned from the politicians and did a damn fine job of sticking to his points while largely ignoring Paxman's questions. So what are his points?
Well, most dubiously he claims to be concerned about elements of the (male) muslim community that are supposedly abusing young white girls - grooming them, raping them, pimping them. He's obviously riding on the crest of a tabloid wave, following the case of a group of men (who happened to be muslims) in Yorkshire found guilty of systematically abusing young girls. The fact is that it is probably no more of a problem amongst muslims than any other group, but 'Tommy' obviously appreciates the sentiment that it arouses and he did a great job of pointing out the differences between Paxman's sheltered middle class upbringing and the "reality" of living in deprived neighbourhoods with significant muslim populations.
But his second point, and the one that I have deep sympathy with, is his description of the Koran as (and I paraphrase) a wicked, violent, medieval work, which muslims are bound to believe in literally. Of course, this is all true, but Paxman was indignant. And this is my problem. The BBC, the media in general and all our institutions (legislature, judiciary, executive) all kowtow to nonsensical religious beliefs. Why are they so reluctant to speak the truth? Why not admit that the Koran (and the Bible) are nonsensical works of fiction, written for an entirely different historical epoch, and filled with the most vile, sexist, racist, homophobic, hatemongering shite. Incidentally, all things that are supposed to be outlawed these days.
[Update 2, 7/2/11 - a journalist in The Guardian made much the same point on 5/2/11, after I posted this. Obviously she doesn't read my blog, but I just wanted to stress that my post is not copied from her comments.]
While Paxman stressed that most muslims are law-abiding, upstanding members of the community, he failed to accept a deeper point. If those same muslims are true to their faith, then in fact it is their number one goal to convert all of us to Islam. The "Inams" (as Tommy called them) may disagree on the details (hmm, how's that considering the Koran is God's direct holy words and not subject to human interpretation?), but ultimately force is to be used if we resist. Atheists, be afraid, be very afraid. And not just of the white supremacists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)