Rant time.
I'm beginning to loathe the BBC News 'Have Your Say' page, not because there is anything wrong with the concept but because of the kind of commentators it attracts. It's rather ironic that despite the supposed and much-touted left-liberal bias of the BBC, the majority of commentators and recommenders appear to be anything but. Time and time again they whine about anti-Americanism (when anyone is critical of the US for, you know, the absolutely awful things it tends to do). And they will seize on any point to tout their conservatism in the most condescending and spiteful way possible.
So on the issue of immigration in the US (arranged for popularity), you have to go a long way to find anyone dissenting from the anti-immigration chorus, and yet they still go on about how anti-US Have Your Say is!
On US v socialised healthcare (likewise), the board is dominated by Americans mocking the idea of healthcare for those who can't afford it, with one stating "I have full medical, dental, and vision coverage; I even get legal coverage as a perk too. This is a reward for my hard work and education I paid for. I know this offends socialists but in America you have to EARN YOUR WAY." Apparently the poor deserve to die in the street from wholly treatable illnesses, because they aren't trying hard enough.
These are the prime examples at the moment, but long experience shows that it is not just domination by American conservatives which causes this. Although specifically UK debates tend to be less one-sided (see the smoking debate), I know from long experience that it still tends to be the most self-righteous and self-indulgent conservatives who manage to get recommended to the top of the pile.
But wait... It's not quite a simple as that, because I also know from experience that HYS commentators on the whole hate religion, and will use absolutely any excuse to bash it. Now I'm none too keen on religion in general myself, but these pronouncements are generally rude, unnecessary and simplistic. More importantly however, they are not really in the general conservative mould, since conservatism generally trusts old established power structures. Taking this into account, it looks less like the commentators are simply conservative, more like they are simply jaded and cynical, unwilling to think anything but the worst of anyone. To a large extent this supports the conservative agenda, but without the established structures bit, leading to a particularly dire view of humanity and an 'every man for himself' mentality which no longer seems to give a damn about anything we might call justice, only our right to be left alone.
Right, rant over. Any comments?
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Tearfund Learn To Spin
I have nothing against Tearfund, I really don't. But it is disheartening and distasteful to see them behaving like Comical Ali in drawing insanely positive conclusions from what is to them a rather dire situation.
Here is its report on its survey of church attendance in the UK, its press release and the (slightly more informative) BBC News article about it.
Some analysis:
Firstly, and most strikingly, despite the way the 53% Christian figure is put forward positively in the press release, the BBC point out that this is massively down from the "almost three-quarters" suggested by the 2001 census. My experience may be far from representative, but it suggests the Tearfund figure is probably more accurate. It could of course be that with the rise of religious extremism and the religious right in America, more people are disassociating themselves from religion, although I would be surprised if this accounted for the whole of the drop.
The figure makes it extremely disingeuous for Tearfund representatives to say things like "What is clear from this survey is that the UK is holding firmly to the Christian faith" and "This statistic alone has major implications not only for the churches but for public debate and public policy." No doubt the latter quote is suggesting that Christianity should have more influence over public policy, which is an astounding conclusion to draw from a drop of around 25%! Completely ignoring the official census turns this press release from laughable to borderline dishonest, especially given that the report itself acknowledges it and gives (possibly quite intelligent) reasons for it (page 4 of the main report).
Secondly, the much vaunted 3 million who "would attend church if only they were asked" translates to only 6 percent of the population, as admitted much later in the report. Despite this being heralded as a great thing for the church showing some kind of revival of interest, let us consider this. The 'unchurched' and 'dechurched' together come to 66%, of which 6% are still open to 'churching'. That's 1 in 11. Perhaps more strikingly, of the 53% Christian, only 25 % are 'churched', which means that the 6% will (mostly) be out of the remaining 28%. This means that just over only 1 out of 5 (21.5%) of non-churchgoing Christians (who themselves are over half of Christians) are open to the possibility of churchgoing! This still sets the absolute churchgoing limit at about 31%, which is still less than a third of the population.
Thirdly, 6% of the population are of other religions, leaving just over 40% non-religious. I am personally stunned (if pleased) that it is this high. Unfortunately there is no breakdown of Christian into denominations, but I would be willing to hazard a bet that the largest single denominations will be C of E and Roman Catholic, both of which will be significantly lower than 40%. Of course, it is ridiculous to think of the 40% as in any way a denomination, but this is something to think about.
Some random observations:
"London is not the heartless capital is it sometimes portrayed as being. It has the highest proportion of regular churchgoers (22%) of any English province." Thanks for labelling me heartless, Tearfund, along with the vast majority of other non-churchgoers. Really classy.
It will surprise no-one to learn that the young (especially under 34) are much less churched, while the old (especially over 55) are much more. Perhaps less obviously, the English tend to go to church less often and remain stubbornly unchurched, while the Welsh and Scottish are increasingly becoming dechurched, ie. stopping going. Scotland has just above average attendance, while Northern Ireland has above the average attendance (surprise surprise).
The National Secular Society of course have something to say, and I'm left wondering whether they're also being disingenuous. They claim this shows that we live in an overwhelmingly secular society. Now given that for me, secular is about the separation of religion from politics, I don't think the survey gives us that kind of information. But given that the NSS is thinking in terms of personal non-religion, I struggle to see how 40% can be overwhelming. I would usually require much more than 50% for a society to be 'overwhelmingly' one way or another. Perhaps the spokesman means that the statistic is overwhelming given previous surveys. I agree with this, but I don't think it's the natural meaning of the words. Still, at least he mentioned the actual statistic in the context to let other people make up their minds.
So Tearfund have displayed some wonderful spinning. Not only is 53% (down from 73%) a 'positive' thing with clear implications for public policy (in favour of religious influence), but the church should celebrate 25% attendance (15% at least once a month) with the possibility of an extra 6% if they threw all their effort into it. The unchurched are of course 'heartless', bowing down to the 'modern-day gods' of 'individual choice and secular consumerism'. It's unfortunate, because a little bit of humbleness and soul-searching might actually have improved people's view of such organisations. Instead, anyone subjecting the statement to the least bit of critical thinking will probably dismiss Tearfund (despite all its good work) as a propaganda body.
Here is its report on its survey of church attendance in the UK, its press release and the (slightly more informative) BBC News article about it.
Some analysis:
Firstly, and most strikingly, despite the way the 53% Christian figure is put forward positively in the press release, the BBC point out that this is massively down from the "almost three-quarters" suggested by the 2001 census. My experience may be far from representative, but it suggests the Tearfund figure is probably more accurate. It could of course be that with the rise of religious extremism and the religious right in America, more people are disassociating themselves from religion, although I would be surprised if this accounted for the whole of the drop.
The figure makes it extremely disingeuous for Tearfund representatives to say things like "What is clear from this survey is that the UK is holding firmly to the Christian faith" and "This statistic alone has major implications not only for the churches but for public debate and public policy." No doubt the latter quote is suggesting that Christianity should have more influence over public policy, which is an astounding conclusion to draw from a drop of around 25%! Completely ignoring the official census turns this press release from laughable to borderline dishonest, especially given that the report itself acknowledges it and gives (possibly quite intelligent) reasons for it (page 4 of the main report).
Secondly, the much vaunted 3 million who "would attend church if only they were asked" translates to only 6 percent of the population, as admitted much later in the report. Despite this being heralded as a great thing for the church showing some kind of revival of interest, let us consider this. The 'unchurched' and 'dechurched' together come to 66%, of which 6% are still open to 'churching'. That's 1 in 11. Perhaps more strikingly, of the 53% Christian, only 25 % are 'churched', which means that the 6% will (mostly) be out of the remaining 28%. This means that just over only 1 out of 5 (21.5%) of non-churchgoing Christians (who themselves are over half of Christians) are open to the possibility of churchgoing! This still sets the absolute churchgoing limit at about 31%, which is still less than a third of the population.
Thirdly, 6% of the population are of other religions, leaving just over 40% non-religious. I am personally stunned (if pleased) that it is this high. Unfortunately there is no breakdown of Christian into denominations, but I would be willing to hazard a bet that the largest single denominations will be C of E and Roman Catholic, both of which will be significantly lower than 40%. Of course, it is ridiculous to think of the 40% as in any way a denomination, but this is something to think about.
Some random observations:
"London is not the heartless capital is it sometimes portrayed as being. It has the highest proportion of regular churchgoers (22%) of any English province." Thanks for labelling me heartless, Tearfund, along with the vast majority of other non-churchgoers. Really classy.
It will surprise no-one to learn that the young (especially under 34) are much less churched, while the old (especially over 55) are much more. Perhaps less obviously, the English tend to go to church less often and remain stubbornly unchurched, while the Welsh and Scottish are increasingly becoming dechurched, ie. stopping going. Scotland has just above average attendance, while Northern Ireland has above the average attendance (surprise surprise).
The National Secular Society of course have something to say, and I'm left wondering whether they're also being disingenuous. They claim this shows that we live in an overwhelmingly secular society. Now given that for me, secular is about the separation of religion from politics, I don't think the survey gives us that kind of information. But given that the NSS is thinking in terms of personal non-religion, I struggle to see how 40% can be overwhelming. I would usually require much more than 50% for a society to be 'overwhelmingly' one way or another. Perhaps the spokesman means that the statistic is overwhelming given previous surveys. I agree with this, but I don't think it's the natural meaning of the words. Still, at least he mentioned the actual statistic in the context to let other people make up their minds.
So Tearfund have displayed some wonderful spinning. Not only is 53% (down from 73%) a 'positive' thing with clear implications for public policy (in favour of religious influence), but the church should celebrate 25% attendance (15% at least once a month) with the possibility of an extra 6% if they threw all their effort into it. The unchurched are of course 'heartless', bowing down to the 'modern-day gods' of 'individual choice and secular consumerism'. It's unfortunate, because a little bit of humbleness and soul-searching might actually have improved people's view of such organisations. Instead, anyone subjecting the statement to the least bit of critical thinking will probably dismiss Tearfund (despite all its good work) as a propaganda body.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Post-Grad and Forms
I've received a conditional offer for my post-graduate course! Woooo! Now I just need to meet the offer and get a First...
As soon as I'd settled down after getting the letter, I decided that I really needed to apply for funding. Therefore I dutifully went to the appropriate website and downloaded the form. After scanning through it and checking the advice at the bottom, I discovered that they expected the form to be word processed, rather than printed out and filled out manually. No big deal, I thought. Then I tried to do so...
Along with most other people, I hate long forms at the best of times. This form, however, has been put together by a muppet. A total muppet. Let me illustrate this claim with examples:
1. The instructions told me that inputting my initials and surname in the boxes provided in the header of one page would automatically copy it to all pages. That's how headers work, right? Wrong. It resolutely refuses to copy it out. Furthermore, the first of three boxes for initials refuses to let me write anything in it.
2. Although the font stays constant, the size seems to vary box to box, making the finished product look like the product of a slightly deranged mind.
3. They give tick boxes, then no way to tick them. Seriously. I presume that I am meant to print it out and then tick them, but they could have mentioned this somewhere. I've been putting capital Xs in them instead. Of course, they could just have learned how to insert tick boxes if they's wanted. Bizarrely, they manage to take this latter suggestion, *but only in the Equal Opportunities Form*!
4. No effort has been made to line up answers with the middle of the box provided, meaning that they often hug the top or bottom. Again, this looks stupid.
Would it be too much to ask that they hire someone who is either competent at writing forms in Word, or can at least be bothered to learn? Really?
On another note, I can't believe I have to write *another* personal statement...
As soon as I'd settled down after getting the letter, I decided that I really needed to apply for funding. Therefore I dutifully went to the appropriate website and downloaded the form. After scanning through it and checking the advice at the bottom, I discovered that they expected the form to be word processed, rather than printed out and filled out manually. No big deal, I thought. Then I tried to do so...
Along with most other people, I hate long forms at the best of times. This form, however, has been put together by a muppet. A total muppet. Let me illustrate this claim with examples:
1. The instructions told me that inputting my initials and surname in the boxes provided in the header of one page would automatically copy it to all pages. That's how headers work, right? Wrong. It resolutely refuses to copy it out. Furthermore, the first of three boxes for initials refuses to let me write anything in it.
2. Although the font stays constant, the size seems to vary box to box, making the finished product look like the product of a slightly deranged mind.
3. They give tick boxes, then no way to tick them. Seriously. I presume that I am meant to print it out and then tick them, but they could have mentioned this somewhere. I've been putting capital Xs in them instead. Of course, they could just have learned how to insert tick boxes if they's wanted. Bizarrely, they manage to take this latter suggestion, *but only in the Equal Opportunities Form*!
4. No effort has been made to line up answers with the middle of the box provided, meaning that they often hug the top or bottom. Again, this looks stupid.
Would it be too much to ask that they hire someone who is either competent at writing forms in Word, or can at least be bothered to learn? Really?
On another note, I can't believe I have to write *another* personal statement...
Friday, December 29, 2006
Western Values and Catholicism
I like to read the writings and opinions of those I disagree with because I think that it gives an excellent insight into why such people believe what they do. For this reason some time ago I developed the habit of reading some US conservative Catholic blogs, which tended to be more articulate and reflective that their US conservative Protestant equivalents - for example, they are much less happy about the administration's views on torture.
Nevertheless sometimes I am reminded of just how true it is that what is extreme over here can become mainstream over there. This article is one such example.
It is written by one of the bloggers I visit, who seems very popular with the conservative Catholic audience. Indeed his views are extremely common among what is known over the pond as the right wing. So it is worth taking a moment to observe quite how wrong he is.
Mr. Shea begins his attack on Western values by lamenting the lack of a proper name for 9/11. It is an incredibly weak opening gambit, and just shows how desperate he is to prove his pre-formed biases. You can interpret the lack of name in a number of ways. For me, it has always spoken of the darkness Americans connect to that day. It is something which must not be named, because to name it would be to tame it. By keeping it a date it remains a real part of our time and forces us to think about why it is important every time it is mentioned. Of course, it could just be that there is no suibtable name for it. "Twin Towers Day" sounds too twee, and "World Trade Centre Day" too long winded. Notably, Mr. Shea does not even make suggestions. It is a non-argument.
His point about the difference in attitudes towards mockery of Islam and mockery of Christianity is well-taken, yet he gives no idea as to his solution. Somehow I doubt his is the answer of Tony Blair and others, who increasingly seek to prohibit speech offensive to all religions. I also fear it would be asking too much for him to endorse the most sensible solution and allow all such mockery, responding with biting civility. After all, the Catholic Church has long promoted the view that "error has no rights"...
Then we have this wonderful titbit: "If babies are God's way of saying he thinks the world should continue, then contraception is man's way of saying it should end." Of course as a Catholic, Mr. Shea is likely to despise contraception. However to link it to a dislike of children is so stupidly simplistic one can barely help but laugh. For most it is a way of putting off children until a better time - not only a better time for ourselves (for Mr. Shea detests such selfish preferences) but a time when we are better able to care for such offspring. Some indeed do prefer not to have children, and Mr. Shea would clearly wish for them to have no choice. This is of course very interesting given that celebacy is required among Catholic priests (unless they have converted from being Protestant priests). Clearly it is okay for some to forego children, but not others.
There is not the space nor the resolve to go into his simplistic points on euthanasia and abortion in great detail. It need only be pointed out that Mr. Shea is almost incapable of imagining that anyone would support euthanasia other than "to relieve the comfortable of the burden of the most helpless". On this issue he is spectacularly uncharitable and uninformed.
He then goes on about the secularisation of Veggie Tales on TV. I agree that it is a shame that such censoring goes on, but Mr. Shea is a fool if he believes that it is politicking rather than a cynical attempt to get the most viewers interested. All this shows is a decline in interest for religious programming, at least among NBC watchers. Mixed in with this is another gem: "...the deathless secular faith in democratic capitalism's power to heal and redeem that has served us so well in Iraq". Given the fact that Bush seems to believe the Iraq invasion to have been ordered by God, a more ironic statement would be difficult to find.
And then we come to the FOX newsman who, to save his own life, converted or pretended to convert to Islam, something Mr. Shea decries as gutless (while being charitable enough to accept how difficult it would be to make the other decision). Now this is a matter of personal faith, but I think that Mr. Shea aptly shows the ugliness which lies at the heart of his beliefs. Through his actions, the man saved a father for his children and a husband for his wife. I believe that most sane people would have done the same. Instead, what Mr. Shea would have is a martyr. He cares less about life than about faith, and decries the fact that 'Western values' disagree. My apologies, Mr. Shea, for belonging to a culture which supports people staying alive. He was not forced to kill people or even harm them, only to profess a different faith (probably with his fingers crossed behind his back). By damning his for his decision, Mr. Shea shows that his stance has more in common with "the core beliefs of our mortal enemies" (charitably hoping that he means extremists and not just all Muslims) that he might be comfortable to admit.
So what are the Western Values which Mr. Shea dismisses as "a tepid commitment to My Personal Truth of the Moment"? They are primarily something he seems completely unable to comprehend - a protection of our ability to come to our own conclusions. A commitment to self-determination and freedom to think and believe what we want. A determination to prevent the self-righteous from imposing their beliefs on others. Mr. Shea seems to implicitly have a grudging admiration for the absolute beliefs of 'the other side' and thinks that anything else (like free thought) cannot possibly survive such an assault. I think history has proven, slowly and painfully but surely, that this is not true. The power of the human spirit to assert itself and its understandings is more powerful than the ability of others to suppress it. Mr. Shea may believe that error has no rights, but I rejoice in the fact that our flawed but admirable society gives rights to his errors and protects us from the narrow-mindedness he espouses.
Nevertheless sometimes I am reminded of just how true it is that what is extreme over here can become mainstream over there. This article is one such example.
It is written by one of the bloggers I visit, who seems very popular with the conservative Catholic audience. Indeed his views are extremely common among what is known over the pond as the right wing. So it is worth taking a moment to observe quite how wrong he is.
Mr. Shea begins his attack on Western values by lamenting the lack of a proper name for 9/11. It is an incredibly weak opening gambit, and just shows how desperate he is to prove his pre-formed biases. You can interpret the lack of name in a number of ways. For me, it has always spoken of the darkness Americans connect to that day. It is something which must not be named, because to name it would be to tame it. By keeping it a date it remains a real part of our time and forces us to think about why it is important every time it is mentioned. Of course, it could just be that there is no suibtable name for it. "Twin Towers Day" sounds too twee, and "World Trade Centre Day" too long winded. Notably, Mr. Shea does not even make suggestions. It is a non-argument.
His point about the difference in attitudes towards mockery of Islam and mockery of Christianity is well-taken, yet he gives no idea as to his solution. Somehow I doubt his is the answer of Tony Blair and others, who increasingly seek to prohibit speech offensive to all religions. I also fear it would be asking too much for him to endorse the most sensible solution and allow all such mockery, responding with biting civility. After all, the Catholic Church has long promoted the view that "error has no rights"...
Then we have this wonderful titbit: "If babies are God's way of saying he thinks the world should continue, then contraception is man's way of saying it should end." Of course as a Catholic, Mr. Shea is likely to despise contraception. However to link it to a dislike of children is so stupidly simplistic one can barely help but laugh. For most it is a way of putting off children until a better time - not only a better time for ourselves (for Mr. Shea detests such selfish preferences) but a time when we are better able to care for such offspring. Some indeed do prefer not to have children, and Mr. Shea would clearly wish for them to have no choice. This is of course very interesting given that celebacy is required among Catholic priests (unless they have converted from being Protestant priests). Clearly it is okay for some to forego children, but not others.
There is not the space nor the resolve to go into his simplistic points on euthanasia and abortion in great detail. It need only be pointed out that Mr. Shea is almost incapable of imagining that anyone would support euthanasia other than "to relieve the comfortable of the burden of the most helpless". On this issue he is spectacularly uncharitable and uninformed.
He then goes on about the secularisation of Veggie Tales on TV. I agree that it is a shame that such censoring goes on, but Mr. Shea is a fool if he believes that it is politicking rather than a cynical attempt to get the most viewers interested. All this shows is a decline in interest for religious programming, at least among NBC watchers. Mixed in with this is another gem: "...the deathless secular faith in democratic capitalism's power to heal and redeem that has served us so well in Iraq". Given the fact that Bush seems to believe the Iraq invasion to have been ordered by God, a more ironic statement would be difficult to find.
And then we come to the FOX newsman who, to save his own life, converted or pretended to convert to Islam, something Mr. Shea decries as gutless (while being charitable enough to accept how difficult it would be to make the other decision). Now this is a matter of personal faith, but I think that Mr. Shea aptly shows the ugliness which lies at the heart of his beliefs. Through his actions, the man saved a father for his children and a husband for his wife. I believe that most sane people would have done the same. Instead, what Mr. Shea would have is a martyr. He cares less about life than about faith, and decries the fact that 'Western values' disagree. My apologies, Mr. Shea, for belonging to a culture which supports people staying alive. He was not forced to kill people or even harm them, only to profess a different faith (probably with his fingers crossed behind his back). By damning his for his decision, Mr. Shea shows that his stance has more in common with "the core beliefs of our mortal enemies" (charitably hoping that he means extremists and not just all Muslims) that he might be comfortable to admit.
So what are the Western Values which Mr. Shea dismisses as "a tepid commitment to My Personal Truth of the Moment"? They are primarily something he seems completely unable to comprehend - a protection of our ability to come to our own conclusions. A commitment to self-determination and freedom to think and believe what we want. A determination to prevent the self-righteous from imposing their beliefs on others. Mr. Shea seems to implicitly have a grudging admiration for the absolute beliefs of 'the other side' and thinks that anything else (like free thought) cannot possibly survive such an assault. I think history has proven, slowly and painfully but surely, that this is not true. The power of the human spirit to assert itself and its understandings is more powerful than the ability of others to suppress it. Mr. Shea may believe that error has no rights, but I rejoice in the fact that our flawed but admirable society gives rights to his errors and protects us from the narrow-mindedness he espouses.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
The Dems Have Won
Now that the last Senate race has been decided I can allow a satisfied smile across my face. Ahhhh...
It really was a beautiful result to the US midterms. It was pretty clear in the run-up that the Democrats would take the House but even the liberals doubted that they could take the Senate as well. This leaves the Repubicans with pretty much no legislative power, although of course given how much power has been given to the executive I'm sure Bush will still be able to influence the course of the country until 2008.
Still, the things new House speaker Pelosi is talking about are music to the ears. A decent level minimum wage! Stronger corruption rules!
However there are certain elements which rather dampen this marvelous event:
1. While the House is won by some way, the Senate is technically 49-49-2, the 2 being Independents. The majority status is based on Lieberman's promise to vote with the Democrats. He was going to be the Democratic contender in Conneticut but was beaten in the Primary by Lamont. Rather than bowing out gracefully he stood as an Independent against Lamont and won. His allegiances are slippery, appealing as he does to both 'moderate' Democrats and some Republicans, who he often courts. He's not the person you would wish to have the deciding vote. Happily the other Independent is a Socialist, who is hardly going to vote with the Republicans on most issues. So while Lieberman could prevent legislation, he cannot give the Republicans enough power to pass legislation without some Democrat or Socialist support.
2. Bush retains a veto over any legislation, subject to a two-thirds majority which the Dems don't have in either chamber. In theory he could prevent any legislation. Luckily, this is not going to happen. Use of the veto overrides the legislature which creates a risk of losing popular support, especially if used frequently in an obstructionist way. So far Bush has used the veto incredibly rarely - only once, to prevent a Bill giving public funding to stem cell research from passing. Of course that was with a Republican legislature, but it is unlikely that he will suddenly leap to throwing vetoes around. Bush has promised not to block the minimum wage or similar measures, suggesting he will limit himself to blocking tax increases and socially liberal issues. The first is damaging as it will mean any spending increase will need to be matched by a cutback. The second is disappointing as while stem cells are a given, it could also destroy hopes of new gay rights legislation.
Nevertheless despite these issues, this could be the beginning of an exciting new era of progress in the self-titled land of the free. The message for Democrats from all who are sympathetic should be "Well done, now don't screw it up!".
It really was a beautiful result to the US midterms. It was pretty clear in the run-up that the Democrats would take the House but even the liberals doubted that they could take the Senate as well. This leaves the Repubicans with pretty much no legislative power, although of course given how much power has been given to the executive I'm sure Bush will still be able to influence the course of the country until 2008.
Still, the things new House speaker Pelosi is talking about are music to the ears. A decent level minimum wage! Stronger corruption rules!
However there are certain elements which rather dampen this marvelous event:
1. While the House is won by some way, the Senate is technically 49-49-2, the 2 being Independents. The majority status is based on Lieberman's promise to vote with the Democrats. He was going to be the Democratic contender in Conneticut but was beaten in the Primary by Lamont. Rather than bowing out gracefully he stood as an Independent against Lamont and won. His allegiances are slippery, appealing as he does to both 'moderate' Democrats and some Republicans, who he often courts. He's not the person you would wish to have the deciding vote. Happily the other Independent is a Socialist, who is hardly going to vote with the Republicans on most issues. So while Lieberman could prevent legislation, he cannot give the Republicans enough power to pass legislation without some Democrat or Socialist support.
2. Bush retains a veto over any legislation, subject to a two-thirds majority which the Dems don't have in either chamber. In theory he could prevent any legislation. Luckily, this is not going to happen. Use of the veto overrides the legislature which creates a risk of losing popular support, especially if used frequently in an obstructionist way. So far Bush has used the veto incredibly rarely - only once, to prevent a Bill giving public funding to stem cell research from passing. Of course that was with a Republican legislature, but it is unlikely that he will suddenly leap to throwing vetoes around. Bush has promised not to block the minimum wage or similar measures, suggesting he will limit himself to blocking tax increases and socially liberal issues. The first is damaging as it will mean any spending increase will need to be matched by a cutback. The second is disappointing as while stem cells are a given, it could also destroy hopes of new gay rights legislation.
Nevertheless despite these issues, this could be the beginning of an exciting new era of progress in the self-titled land of the free. The message for Democrats from all who are sympathetic should be "Well done, now don't screw it up!".
Sunday, October 08, 2006
New Blogger, New Term, Same Pejar!
My 50th post! And as a present I've been allowed to upgrade to Beta - thank you Blogger!
You see, for ages I have had to word verify to post here. Thanks to Abi, I eventually realised that the reason was because this blog was marked as potential spam (no comments about incomprehensible content please! :-p). I clicked the link to inform Blogger that this was not the case, and I got an email back saying it had checked out fine. Then about a week ago I looked and it turned out that it was marked as spam again (or had always been)! So I clicked the link again and sent an email as well, and this time it worked. Not only was I off the spam list, but I was invited to upgrade to Beta! (This pretty much confirms Abi's idea that I was being denied because of the spam thing.)
So I had a fun break from revision categorising my posts on both blogs and tweaking the templates (although in truth, we are talking minor tweakage here). It made me happy, in the midst of learning about covenants and mortgages in Land Law again. The reason this post wasn't earlier was because of my frantic attempts to look through last term's work and try to understand what it all means. Now that the collections are over though, I can relax and post about my summer. Some highlights (and a lowlight!):
* Abi's birthday. We went bowling with friends from both uni and her school and then we stayed up late watching DVDs on an OHP screen in her living room. If I remember rightly at least one person stayed awake all night, but I was certainly having none of that! Possibly most memorable moment was Gam introducing himself to one of Abi's school friends with the line "Justify your existence!" Sadly, I'm not sure it endeared him to her...
* The Northern and Southern Tours! The Northern Tour embraced Durham and Newcastle, as we stayed with Rich and his mate Dave. We saw Durham then had a night out at the (in)famous BAJA Beach Club in Newcastle, where we were...entertained by Em and Sarah. A fun (if very quick) trip. The Southern Tour was first to Abi's place in London then Em's place near Birmingham. We got guided tours through parts of both cities and tried some local cuisine (okay, Chinese from London and Pizza Hut from Burmingham, but still).
* Youth Hostelling with Andy and Gwen. We headed to Welsh Bicknor to stay for a few nights. The first was in a teepee and the other two were in a room. During the days we did activities like go round a castle, Forest of Dean's Sculpture Trail, Clearwell Caves and a cool maze. We mostly made our own food in the Youth Hostel kitchens, and it was all in all a pleasant time. It was a nice way to remember Andy and Gwen as a couple, since they have now split up :-( (hopefully not due to being driven crazy by us on holiday!).
* Centre Parcs with my family and Abi. We did the same this year as last summer, only at a different CP site. However this time we had the sense to book activities earlier, and as a result we have been able to do both high ropes and crossbow shooting! Both were on the same day and it was raining, which made walking along slippery beams with a harness seem all the more daunting. Also as part of high ropes we had to individually climb up a high wooden pole and leap to a trapeze, which was actually pretty daunting once you were up there... I'm quite proud that I managed it, although I still have no recollection of the moment of truth! Crossbows was excellent. Abi was much more accurate than me although at least I could load them without the instructor's help! :-p. Yet another wonderful holiday this summer.
* Dav's party. Although not to the extent of the massive event last year (his 21st), this one was still memorable. We went go-karting in Aylesbury, and although Abi didn't enjoy it and quietly retired quite quickly, and one of Dav's friends also pulled out to prevent the reoccurance of an old hip injury, the rest of us had fun. In Ian's words, I was "pottering along at 6 miles per hour" and I came last, but it was still fun! That evening it ended up being only me, Abi, Andy and Dav out in Park End for clubbing. Still, it was an excellent night and we all had a good laugh at the expense of Dav's t-shirt which, well, follow the link. Needless to say it brought him far more positive responses from males than females!
* Group filming. A tough one to explain to the unitiated, but I'll have a go! As I have mentioned before, I like writing satirical scripts involving people I know (I have been told by Daniel that I should really call them parody because they have no purpose other than to entertain, but I will probably still use the words interchangeably). After previous endeavours with Southman (starring teachers from my school) and The Matriculatrix (starring some students from Hertford) this summer's effort was Back To The Forum!, a Back To The Future parody involving the remaining regular posters on my school forum. Here is the original script and here is the second draft (with an extra introduction for filming purposes and more on Jimmy which I really should have thought of for the first version!). Anyway it went down well on the forum and Dav and Grum were quick to decide that we needed to get together to film it. So, to cut a long story short, we have started to do so. Dav is the director, Andy the lead photographer, Grum the sound guy and me the writer. Various among us count as producers. We have filmed most of the introduction including a scene with all nine of the principle characters except Ming (whose house we were supposed to arrive at, for which we actually used Dav's). The film may or may not ever come about, given various constraints. But it was still great fun to get all of us together for filming. Thanks guys.
* Talking of writing, I managed to write a short story I had planned for a long time. It is called The Goldens and it in the fantasy genre, like all of my serious stuff. I commenced work on my third book (in a series of five) but only got half to two-thirds of the way through it, possibly due to other projects. I finished the first entirely in a summer and the second took longer, so my feelings are mixed about my progress on it. Never mind though, I will get the series finished one day...
* As for the lowlight of the holiday, that would inevitably be the temp work I performed once again. I've written before about it, and now I can add more jobs to my wonderful temping CV:
I unloaded traffic cones from a lorry and put reflector strips on them.
I loaded leaflets into a machine for packing them in plastic.
At the place where I did labelling last year I put warning labels in safety guards and put studs in each corner.
At the same place I put filters into gas masks.
I did more work at the computer game packing factory as I had two years ago, stripping Game Boy boxes.
The last of these was the same job that I had previously decided was the worst I had ever done, and boy did I feel it. On the second day I had to do the exact same thing the entire day, in the same place, standing up and still. Seven hours, of which a total of two 15 minute breaks. It was bad, very bad. Still, I chose it over the egg packing place and I don't regret that. At least I didn't get sticky this way.
I really, desperately don't want to do this again next summer. I am going to try to make sure I find something better than that without signing away my whole summer, dammit! I just hope that this time I actually remember how bad it is...
Anyway, that's my summer summed up. Now for some fun, go see Ming's new blog entry and the whole of his blog if you haven't before (because he is the king of hilarious blogging). Also check out Weird Al's latest song, because he is as ever brilliant. Now to prepare for a whole new term of law (Labour and EC), and being Secretary of the Oxford Secular Society. The fun never stops!
You see, for ages I have had to word verify to post here. Thanks to Abi, I eventually realised that the reason was because this blog was marked as potential spam (no comments about incomprehensible content please! :-p). I clicked the link to inform Blogger that this was not the case, and I got an email back saying it had checked out fine. Then about a week ago I looked and it turned out that it was marked as spam again (or had always been)! So I clicked the link again and sent an email as well, and this time it worked. Not only was I off the spam list, but I was invited to upgrade to Beta! (This pretty much confirms Abi's idea that I was being denied because of the spam thing.)
So I had a fun break from revision categorising my posts on both blogs and tweaking the templates (although in truth, we are talking minor tweakage here). It made me happy, in the midst of learning about covenants and mortgages in Land Law again. The reason this post wasn't earlier was because of my frantic attempts to look through last term's work and try to understand what it all means. Now that the collections are over though, I can relax and post about my summer. Some highlights (and a lowlight!):
* Abi's birthday. We went bowling with friends from both uni and her school and then we stayed up late watching DVDs on an OHP screen in her living room. If I remember rightly at least one person stayed awake all night, but I was certainly having none of that! Possibly most memorable moment was Gam introducing himself to one of Abi's school friends with the line "Justify your existence!" Sadly, I'm not sure it endeared him to her...
* The Northern and Southern Tours! The Northern Tour embraced Durham and Newcastle, as we stayed with Rich and his mate Dave. We saw Durham then had a night out at the (in)famous BAJA Beach Club in Newcastle, where we were...entertained by Em and Sarah. A fun (if very quick) trip. The Southern Tour was first to Abi's place in London then Em's place near Birmingham. We got guided tours through parts of both cities and tried some local cuisine (okay, Chinese from London and Pizza Hut from Burmingham, but still).
* Youth Hostelling with Andy and Gwen. We headed to Welsh Bicknor to stay for a few nights. The first was in a teepee and the other two were in a room. During the days we did activities like go round a castle, Forest of Dean's Sculpture Trail, Clearwell Caves and a cool maze. We mostly made our own food in the Youth Hostel kitchens, and it was all in all a pleasant time. It was a nice way to remember Andy and Gwen as a couple, since they have now split up :-( (hopefully not due to being driven crazy by us on holiday!).
* Centre Parcs with my family and Abi. We did the same this year as last summer, only at a different CP site. However this time we had the sense to book activities earlier, and as a result we have been able to do both high ropes and crossbow shooting! Both were on the same day and it was raining, which made walking along slippery beams with a harness seem all the more daunting. Also as part of high ropes we had to individually climb up a high wooden pole and leap to a trapeze, which was actually pretty daunting once you were up there... I'm quite proud that I managed it, although I still have no recollection of the moment of truth! Crossbows was excellent. Abi was much more accurate than me although at least I could load them without the instructor's help! :-p. Yet another wonderful holiday this summer.
* Dav's party. Although not to the extent of the massive event last year (his 21st), this one was still memorable. We went go-karting in Aylesbury, and although Abi didn't enjoy it and quietly retired quite quickly, and one of Dav's friends also pulled out to prevent the reoccurance of an old hip injury, the rest of us had fun. In Ian's words, I was "pottering along at 6 miles per hour" and I came last, but it was still fun! That evening it ended up being only me, Abi, Andy and Dav out in Park End for clubbing. Still, it was an excellent night and we all had a good laugh at the expense of Dav's t-shirt which, well, follow the link. Needless to say it brought him far more positive responses from males than females!
* Group filming. A tough one to explain to the unitiated, but I'll have a go! As I have mentioned before, I like writing satirical scripts involving people I know (I have been told by Daniel that I should really call them parody because they have no purpose other than to entertain, but I will probably still use the words interchangeably). After previous endeavours with Southman (starring teachers from my school) and The Matriculatrix (starring some students from Hertford) this summer's effort was Back To The Forum!, a Back To The Future parody involving the remaining regular posters on my school forum. Here is the original script and here is the second draft (with an extra introduction for filming purposes and more on Jimmy which I really should have thought of for the first version!). Anyway it went down well on the forum and Dav and Grum were quick to decide that we needed to get together to film it. So, to cut a long story short, we have started to do so. Dav is the director, Andy the lead photographer, Grum the sound guy and me the writer. Various among us count as producers. We have filmed most of the introduction including a scene with all nine of the principle characters except Ming (whose house we were supposed to arrive at, for which we actually used Dav's). The film may or may not ever come about, given various constraints. But it was still great fun to get all of us together for filming. Thanks guys.
* Talking of writing, I managed to write a short story I had planned for a long time. It is called The Goldens and it in the fantasy genre, like all of my serious stuff. I commenced work on my third book (in a series of five) but only got half to two-thirds of the way through it, possibly due to other projects. I finished the first entirely in a summer and the second took longer, so my feelings are mixed about my progress on it. Never mind though, I will get the series finished one day...
* As for the lowlight of the holiday, that would inevitably be the temp work I performed once again. I've written before about it, and now I can add more jobs to my wonderful temping CV:
I unloaded traffic cones from a lorry and put reflector strips on them.
I loaded leaflets into a machine for packing them in plastic.
At the place where I did labelling last year I put warning labels in safety guards and put studs in each corner.
At the same place I put filters into gas masks.
I did more work at the computer game packing factory as I had two years ago, stripping Game Boy boxes.
The last of these was the same job that I had previously decided was the worst I had ever done, and boy did I feel it. On the second day I had to do the exact same thing the entire day, in the same place, standing up and still. Seven hours, of which a total of two 15 minute breaks. It was bad, very bad. Still, I chose it over the egg packing place and I don't regret that. At least I didn't get sticky this way.
I really, desperately don't want to do this again next summer. I am going to try to make sure I find something better than that without signing away my whole summer, dammit! I just hope that this time I actually remember how bad it is...
Anyway, that's my summer summed up. Now for some fun, go see Ming's new blog entry and the whole of his blog if you haven't before (because he is the king of hilarious blogging). Also check out Weird Al's latest song, because he is as ever brilliant. Now to prepare for a whole new term of law (Labour and EC), and being Secretary of the Oxford Secular Society. The fun never stops!
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Where Is Blogger Beta??
It's probably quite sad, but I am desperately waiting to be allowed to move my blogs to Blogger Beta. No, that's not the sad bit. The sad bit is that I am waiting so impatiently not because of all the snazzy upgrades that it will undoubtedly offer, but because it will allow me to do something that every other blogging service seems to already allow: Categorise my posts.
It probably won't make much difference to this blog, since it is a bit random and scatty. Maybe I'll sort it into Diary and Humour aspects or something, but I can't see it being major. On the other hand, I crave the ability to label my Unified View posts, as much for myself as for readers. I will probably have labels along the lines of Abortion, Animal Rights, Nature of Ethics etc, since those seem to be the main issues I deal with at the moment.
I realise that caring enough to post about this may seem odd. Still, this is after all a place for random thoughts.
Update:
Abi has been allowed to upgrade to Beta. I am quite jealous! :-p
It probably won't make much difference to this blog, since it is a bit random and scatty. Maybe I'll sort it into Diary and Humour aspects or something, but I can't see it being major. On the other hand, I crave the ability to label my Unified View posts, as much for myself as for readers. I will probably have labels along the lines of Abortion, Animal Rights, Nature of Ethics etc, since those seem to be the main issues I deal with at the moment.
I realise that caring enough to post about this may seem odd. Still, this is after all a place for random thoughts.
Update:
Abi has been allowed to upgrade to Beta. I am quite jealous! :-p
Thursday, August 17, 2006
On Gender Speech Patterns
Richard at Philosophy et cetera has a very thoughtful and accessible while good humoured consideration of how to deal with the patriarchal elements of surnames traditionally passing from father to family and masculine pronouns being used to identify generic people:
Gender, Family Names and Pronouns
I agree with most of it, but I think that merged surnames look lame more often than they do, and I tend to alternate the gender of my generics.
Well worth a quick read!
Gender, Family Names and Pronouns
I agree with most of it, but I think that merged surnames look lame more often than they do, and I tend to alternate the gender of my generics.
Well worth a quick read!
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
More Temp Work
Yesterday I spent 8 out of 9 hours either sliding leaflets into plastic sheets or using a machine to put studs in said plastic sheets. It wasn't too bad actually. I can happily live with mindless work as long as A) I get to sit down while I do it, B) there are no bloody conveyor belts and C) it doesn't involve dangerous equipment. This job almost satisfied all three.
I say almost because the studding machine did seem slightly menacing, although with a little care there were no hairy moments. There was this classic conversation when I was being shown how it worked though:
Pete: Um, how dangerous is the machine? How careful should I be?
Boss: Don't worry, if the guard won't go down all the way, the mechanism won't work. See?
[Puts pen in and pushes foot pedal. End of pen is smashed, shattering.]
Boss: [Pause.] Ah.
[Does it again. Same result.]
Boss: Hmm, that's not supposed to happen. [Pause.] Well, I'm sure you won't make any mistakes.
And I bloody didn't after that!
Probably the most annoying part of the day was that after the boss showed me where to put the leaflets, the old guy next to me came up and told me to put them in a bit further. Thinking I had misunderstood the instructions, I did as he said. Later, the boss came back and told me that was wrong, I should be putting them more out to the edge like he originally told me. Annoyed, I shot a glance at the old guy, who was watching. The boss must have noticed as later he asked me if that guy had told me otherwise, and when I confirmed it he told me that I shouldn't pay attention to him. So what, was it some kind of practical joke at the expense of the temp? If so, it was a bit rubbish. They've just now got a stack of them done wrongly. Doesn't hugley bother me. Maybe it was an honest mistake, although given how long the guy assured me he had been working there, that would be odd.
The experience wasn't bad really, and apparently I'll be going back there for a the rest of the week. Hi ho, hi ho. And all the rest.
I say almost because the studding machine did seem slightly menacing, although with a little care there were no hairy moments. There was this classic conversation when I was being shown how it worked though:
Pete: Um, how dangerous is the machine? How careful should I be?
Boss: Don't worry, if the guard won't go down all the way, the mechanism won't work. See?
[Puts pen in and pushes foot pedal. End of pen is smashed, shattering.]
Boss: [Pause.] Ah.
[Does it again. Same result.]
Boss: Hmm, that's not supposed to happen. [Pause.] Well, I'm sure you won't make any mistakes.
And I bloody didn't after that!
Probably the most annoying part of the day was that after the boss showed me where to put the leaflets, the old guy next to me came up and told me to put them in a bit further. Thinking I had misunderstood the instructions, I did as he said. Later, the boss came back and told me that was wrong, I should be putting them more out to the edge like he originally told me. Annoyed, I shot a glance at the old guy, who was watching. The boss must have noticed as later he asked me if that guy had told me otherwise, and when I confirmed it he told me that I shouldn't pay attention to him. So what, was it some kind of practical joke at the expense of the temp? If so, it was a bit rubbish. They've just now got a stack of them done wrongly. Doesn't hugley bother me. Maybe it was an honest mistake, although given how long the guy assured me he had been working there, that would be odd.
The experience wasn't bad really, and apparently I'll be going back there for a the rest of the week. Hi ho, hi ho. And all the rest.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
The Hoff
What can I really say about this, other than that it's awful and yet addictive?
Jump In My Car - David Hasselhoff
The Making of 'Jump In My Car'
Now that is cheese, pure and simple.
I wonder if it will be playing in clubs soon?
Jump In My Car - David Hasselhoff
The Making of 'Jump In My Car'
Now that is cheese, pure and simple.
I wonder if it will be playing in clubs soon?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)