Somehow over the Boxing Day hubbub, I managed to miss the news about the failed terrorist attack on a flight to Detroit. I have, however, been unable to miss all the analysis and commentary that has followed. And frankly, I'm concerned.
Britain is lauding its denial of Abdulmutallab's student visa on a technicality. He made up a college, and somehow the government noticed. Wow, looks like they can stop idiots. However, it is British to complain, and so people are complaining that smart terrorists may get into the country.
Meanwhile, in the US there is talk about security system reform, as it appears that Abdulmutallab's father called the CIA to tell him about his son's extremist views. Abdulmutallab's internet postings have also been pointed to as a sign of instability.
"How did we miss this?" they cry. "The system failed! He got on a plane! It was sheer luck no one died!"
The countless security "measures" we must take at airports have actually been proven useless. All those x-ray machines at every gate in Amsterdam's Schipol airport? Useless. Taking off your shoes? Useless. Now will we have to take off our underwear? They're talking about full body scanners that will show EVERYTHING. "That's what we need!" crow the cowed. "Except the children!!" screech the Pedofinder Generals.
I'm actually quite concerned that the government is being criticised for not listening to a warning from a parent. Now I don't know what the conversation was like, but I do not relish the idea of a person being put on a no-fly list on the say-so of a single person, parent or not. I have horrible visions of my step-son calling the Home Office in a temper tantrum and saying I want to bomb Westminster. Thank god he's not that creative. But the point still holds. Can I get my ex barred from flying by reporting him as a terrorist? He's an alcoholic, so I imagine that any sort of hassle at the airport would result in some violent display on his part, justifying a missed flight. But I shouldn't even be entertaining such ideas. One person's comment shouldn't be enough to spark any more than an investigation.
Bring back common sense!
Wednesday 30 December 2009
Monday 28 December 2009
British government seeking unlimited web censorship
Re-post from another site:
Article on Slashdot: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/12/16/1653218
The bill: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/001/10001.13-19.html#j158
What is going on here? Why has this been entered? What is meant?
Spread this around.
Article on Slashdot: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/12/16/1653218
The bill: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/001/10001.13-19.html#j158
(1) The Secretary of State may at any time by order impose a technical obligation on internet service providers if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate in view of—
(a) an assessment carried out or steps taken by OFCOM under
section 124G; or
(b) any other consideration.
(bold added)
What is going on here? Why has this been entered? What is meant?
Spread this around.
Monday 14 December 2009
Nobody does excess like Americans
They can try. In Lanarkshire a man has done up his house with some 45,000 Christmas lights in a dazzling display of insanity.
David Grant's Christmas lights in Blantyre, Lanarkshire
Most houses are quite sparse at Christms, with maybe some lights in the window, or a hokey "Merry Christmas" light in a central display. This is similar to the kind of things you'll see:
minimal Christmas lights
And even this is splashing out a bit:
But there's none of those annoying little plastic figurines that light up, like these:
Annoying plastic figurines at Christmas
They're starting to go that way, at least in the cities and town centres, but the home owners and renters just don't have it in them to spend the thousands necessary to create such a debacle as Peacock Lane:
Peacock Lane (a typical Christmas display emulated around the US)
David Grant's Christmas lights in Blantyre, LanarkshireMost houses are quite sparse at Christms, with maybe some lights in the window, or a hokey "Merry Christmas" light in a central display. This is similar to the kind of things you'll see:
minimal Christmas lights
And even this is splashing out a bit:
Glasgow Christmas LightsBut there's none of those annoying little plastic figurines that light up, like these:
Annoying plastic figurines at Christmas
They're starting to go that way, at least in the cities and town centres, but the home owners and renters just don't have it in them to spend the thousands necessary to create such a debacle as Peacock Lane:
Monday 16 November 2009
Shipping off undesirables
Britain has a long history of removing problems in very direct fashion, specifically social problems.
We are all familiar with Australia's history as a prison for Britain, mentioned in Great Expectations and innumerable history books. Americans are possibly familiar with the state of Georgia's history as an early dumping ground for debtors and criminals.
However, criminals were not the only targets of such forceful movement. The poor were also forcibly moved. The tradition of relocation continued in the 20th century with council estates. The poor are moved from some slum in an urban area to a "nicer" council estate just outside of town, which then quickly becomes another slum only with more greenspace.
Social mores were also grounds for physical relocation. It's not difficult for an American to imagine that some of the religious groups that ended up founding the US were forced onto ships at gunpoint instead of leaving of their own volition. Pregnancy among single women was also a cause for social extradition, sending women to convents when they were fashionable, and sent away to prison-like institutions as in the movie the Magdalene Sisters, which takes place in Ireland.
But I had never heard of this.
Between the early 19th century and 1967, as many as 150,000 children were taken away from their families and sent to the colonies (such as Australia). While there, they found conditions ranging from adoption with families, to languishing in orphanages, to abuse, and slave labour. The Scotsman reports that Gordon Brown is going to apologise for this travesty.
Children were told stories of "The Cruelty Man" growing up, which was in actuality the ISPCC (Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) or NSPCC (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children). Such a man would take you away from your family if you were bad.
The one theme in all of these variations of a method is that not once do they begin to consider the underlying causes of criminality, or if they happen to get far enough, poverty. The poor are merely cattle to be herded in one direction or another, and indeed need to be herded, cajoled, and forced.
Is the US any better with its enormous prison population? Is it any better with its soup kitchens? Is it any better for town mayors to bid for corporations and bribe them to provide jobs for the local populace?
We are all familiar with Australia's history as a prison for Britain, mentioned in Great Expectations and innumerable history books. Americans are possibly familiar with the state of Georgia's history as an early dumping ground for debtors and criminals. However, criminals were not the only targets of such forceful movement. The poor were also forcibly moved. The tradition of relocation continued in the 20th century with council estates. The poor are moved from some slum in an urban area to a "nicer" council estate just outside of town, which then quickly becomes another slum only with more greenspace.
Social mores were also grounds for physical relocation. It's not difficult for an American to imagine that some of the religious groups that ended up founding the US were forced onto ships at gunpoint instead of leaving of their own volition. Pregnancy among single women was also a cause for social extradition, sending women to convents when they were fashionable, and sent away to prison-like institutions as in the movie the Magdalene Sisters, which takes place in Ireland.
But I had never heard of this.
Between the early 19th century and 1967, as many as 150,000 children were taken away from their families and sent to the colonies (such as Australia). While there, they found conditions ranging from adoption with families, to languishing in orphanages, to abuse, and slave labour. The Scotsman reports that Gordon Brown is going to apologise for this travesty.
Children were told stories of "The Cruelty Man" growing up, which was in actuality the ISPCC (Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) or NSPCC (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children). Such a man would take you away from your family if you were bad.
The one theme in all of these variations of a method is that not once do they begin to consider the underlying causes of criminality, or if they happen to get far enough, poverty. The poor are merely cattle to be herded in one direction or another, and indeed need to be herded, cajoled, and forced.
Is the US any better with its enormous prison population? Is it any better with its soup kitchens? Is it any better for town mayors to bid for corporations and bribe them to provide jobs for the local populace?
Thursday 12 November 2009
What Does Chocolate Mean To You?
All of the pictures on this were cut from a "Hotel Chocolat" corporate gift catalogue that arrived in the post at work. There were three other pictures of people in the catalogue: one of a child eating an advent calendar, and two featuring Africans to show that they're responsibly helping with fairtrade or whatever.
What is it about Chocolate that necessitates a sexy women in lingerie?
Friday 6 November 2009
Underwear and Hipsters
Two things that are deficient in the UK: underwear and hipsters.
Ok, so there is lots of underwear in the UK, I really mean SEXY underwear. Lingerie. Corsets, bustiers, basques, babydolls. Thongs.
I'm getting married next week. I bought my dress a couple weeks ago, and now that some lovely Polish seamstresses altered it by bringing up the hem and fitting it about the hips, I needed something to go underneath it. Underwear. I had in mind a nice basque in white or ivory, with suspender straps for stockings, strapless top and matching panties. Is that too hard?
But no. We spent THREE DAYS -- FULL AFTERNOONS!!! -- shopping in Edinburgh.
Day 1 We went to EVERY shop on Princes Street, including Ann Summers and La Senza, and found one single basque that fit the requirements at Debenhams. Lots of black, red, purple, any colour you could want, very little available in white or ivory.
Day 2 we went to an enormous "retail park" (that's "shopping mall with retail box stores nearby" for you Americans) in Livingston, and found exactly 0 appropriate basques. (I did, however, find some nice shoes at New Look.)
Day 3 we decided to go to "specialty" shops: a sex shop, goth shops, and pricy lingerie shops. In the end, I lost all motivation to walk any further, and went into Debenhams and bought the same basque I saw two days earlier.
It appears that women prefer to wear horrible "slimming" foundation garments instead of actual lingerie.
Or, even worse, some horrible swimsuit-like contraption that would involve snaps everytime I pee. And they always come in "nude". Yeah, that's attractive.
And lingerie sections are always in the back of shops! Why is that? Women should be proud of their undergarments! Have no shame in purchasing panties!
Part Two: Hipsters.
I hate hippies. I'm not too sure about hipsters. Hipsters in the US, well, they come with a "look", don't they? There's a "hipster look", right? We don't deny that hipsters proliferate in the US. But do they exist in the UK? I don't think they necessarily exist in the same incarnation in the UK.
Stereotyped American hipster:
UK Hipster?
Ok, so there is lots of underwear in the UK, I really mean SEXY underwear. Lingerie. Corsets, bustiers, basques, babydolls. Thongs.
I'm getting married next week. I bought my dress a couple weeks ago, and now that some lovely Polish seamstresses altered it by bringing up the hem and fitting it about the hips, I needed something to go underneath it. Underwear. I had in mind a nice basque in white or ivory, with suspender straps for stockings, strapless top and matching panties. Is that too hard?
But no. We spent THREE DAYS -- FULL AFTERNOONS!!! -- shopping in Edinburgh.
Day 1 We went to EVERY shop on Princes Street, including Ann Summers and La Senza, and found one single basque that fit the requirements at Debenhams. Lots of black, red, purple, any colour you could want, very little available in white or ivory.
Day 2 we went to an enormous "retail park" (that's "shopping mall with retail box stores nearby" for you Americans) in Livingston, and found exactly 0 appropriate basques. (I did, however, find some nice shoes at New Look.)
Day 3 we decided to go to "specialty" shops: a sex shop, goth shops, and pricy lingerie shops. In the end, I lost all motivation to walk any further, and went into Debenhams and bought the same basque I saw two days earlier.
It appears that women prefer to wear horrible "slimming" foundation garments instead of actual lingerie.
Or, even worse, some horrible swimsuit-like contraption that would involve snaps everytime I pee. And they always come in "nude". Yeah, that's attractive.And lingerie sections are always in the back of shops! Why is that? Women should be proud of their undergarments! Have no shame in purchasing panties!
Part Two: Hipsters.
I hate hippies. I'm not too sure about hipsters. Hipsters in the US, well, they come with a "look", don't they? There's a "hipster look", right? We don't deny that hipsters proliferate in the US. But do they exist in the UK? I don't think they necessarily exist in the same incarnation in the UK.
Stereotyped American hipster:
UK Hipster?
Monday 26 October 2009
Watch out for Angry Mobs
Recently a man in Florida was beat up because of suspicions that he sexually assaulted a child. COME ON, USA, DON'T BE THAT GUY!!
By "that guy", I of course mean the UK. Gary Glitter, convicted pedophile, didn't want to leave Vietnam. Fair enough, the weather's great, and he obviously had access to girls. But one reason he gave for not wanting to return to Britain was that he feared for his safety.
The Angry Mob is alive and well in Britain, just look at the latest Angry Mob, the anti-facists protesting MP Nick Griffin of the BNP appearing on the BBC's show Question Time. Anti-facists, facists, I've said before that the hard-left often looks like the hard-right. To-may-to, to-mah-to
.
Of course, in the UK they're not known as "Angry Mobs". They're known as "People". Or "Protests". These "Protests" have caused serious injury to suspected pedophiles before.
It is a little worrying that these Angry Mobs are called Protests. It seems the government in the UK doesn't discriminate. Angry Mob, Protest, Domestic Extremist... To-may-to, not To-mah-to
?
But to return to the topic, come on, Americans. You're better than gross cowardly viglanteism. You love lawyers! You love the Constitution! You love "innocent until proven guilty"! Let's not be all Middle Ages Angry Mobs with pitchforks.
By "that guy", I of course mean the UK. Gary Glitter, convicted pedophile, didn't want to leave Vietnam. Fair enough, the weather's great, and he obviously had access to girls. But one reason he gave for not wanting to return to Britain was that he feared for his safety.
The Angry Mob is alive and well in Britain, just look at the latest Angry Mob, the anti-facists protesting MP Nick Griffin of the BNP appearing on the BBC's show Question Time. Anti-facists, facists, I've said before that the hard-left often looks like the hard-right. To-may-to, to-mah-to
.Of course, in the UK they're not known as "Angry Mobs". They're known as "People". Or "Protests". These "Protests" have caused serious injury to suspected pedophiles before.
It is a little worrying that these Angry Mobs are called Protests. It seems the government in the UK doesn't discriminate. Angry Mob, Protest, Domestic Extremist... To-may-to, not To-mah-to
?But to return to the topic, come on, Americans. You're better than gross cowardly viglanteism. You love lawyers! You love the Constitution! You love "innocent until proven guilty"! Let's not be all Middle Ages Angry Mobs with pitchforks.
Irony?
Imagine my surprise after reading an opinion article blasting attitudes towards women to see this lovely juxtoposition. Gee, New York Times, where's your editor?
Wednesday 21 October 2009
Stupidity of Neds
In the last few years I've been here, I've heard of -- and finally witnessed -- an odd phenomenon. Groups of young adults will set fire to something, and then when the fire engines are called in, would throw things at them and chase them off. Apparently this has been going on for far longer than I've been here. This generally increases in the fall in the lead up to Bonfire Night (Guy Faulkes Night).
During the weeks before Bonfire Night, fireworks are sold in grocery stores. The tradition is that families and friends would get together, maybe have a bonfire, and then light off some fireworks. That doesn't officially happen until November 5th, though, so all those fireworks in the supermarket get eaten up by bored teenagers and young adults on their week-long fall break.
Tonight, whilst in the middle of my yoga, I heard a commotion outside on the street. Typical Scottish yelling "FUCKING [blah blah blah] FUCKING [blah blah]", but this time it was punctuated by a clang and a dog's deep barking. I opened the curtain to peek out and saw a fire engine slowly maneuvering over the speed bumps down the street to leave the neighbourhood while being followed by three running males. They were actually chasing the fire engine. I didn't see where they went after that.
I would call the police, but what with the victims being fire fighters, the police most likely already know. And my vague description of "two or three males between 5'6" and 5'11"" wouldn't be very helpful.
I simply do not understand how this is a sport to them. I can understand throwing bricks and (what sounded like) metal at police cars, being that they may get hassled by the police regularly anyway, or even trains, being that most of them have probably never left their own street. But fire engines? These are men and women who put their lives in danger so that your fancy big screen TV won't be destroyed by your neighbour's chip pan fire! They're generally working-class people without much education, but with courage and a sense of duty. Not posh! So why attack them? There is no logical reason for it.
The only reasons I can think of is that maybe they didn't want the fire fighters to put out whatever fire they had started. Either that, or there's some historic grudge against fire fighters. Fire fighters do have a history of going on strike in this country, for example, once in 2002 and even (apparently) the other day in Yorkshire. But even then, the vast majority of the population seems to think that fire fighters shouldn't be attacked.
I sincerely hope that those hoodies die in a horrific chip pan fire.
PS Happy Bithday me.
Sunday 18 October 2009
My New Favourite Toy
Possibly one of the most useful toys I've seen: the free demo at Textwise Semantic Signatures. Apparently, this blog currently talks about:
Society/Issues/Race-Ethnic-Religious Relations
Society/Issues/Human Rights and Liberties
Society/Issues/Violence and Abuse
Society/Issues/Territorial Disputes
Regional/Europe/United Kingdom/Scotland
Neat, eh? Go ahead, try it with any article, it's pretty accurate (for the most part).
Society/Issues/Race-Ethnic-Religious Relations
Society/Issues/Human Rights and Liberties
Society/Issues/Violence and Abuse
Society/Issues/Territorial Disputes
Regional/Europe/United Kingdom/Scotland
Neat, eh? Go ahead, try it with any article, it's pretty accurate (for the most part).
Wednesday 7 October 2009
Reality, virtual or otherwise: 2
No, I can't just leave it alone.
Ok, so some messed up teenagers threw themselves off a bridge in Glasgow. Ok, fine, I respect their decision. But you know what, the whole virtual memorial thing is a bit creepy.
So one question raised in this Guardian article is whether it's a good thing that grief has moved from the private sphere to the public sphere. (They blame Diana, but I'm sure it happened looooooong before that.)
I question the actual genuineness of the emotion displayed. Can a person really have hundreds or thousands of "friends" as their social networking sites suggest? Even the cyberbullying mentioned earlier has a quote that says "you can have 60 people bullying you on the internet, but in real life there wouldn’t be 60 people beating you up". If people "friend" you for shallow or superficial reasons, or people bully you because they forget you're a human, it stands to reason that few of those internet mourners actually give a crap.
I wonder what the average ratio is, of real to virtual human interactions. What proportion of all those "friends" are really "friends"? What proportion of the people who write on websites such as Gone Too Soon or Missing You are feeling genuine care for the person they memorialise?
A cynic would say that all sadness felt at someone else's death is the rising of the fear of our own death. This doesn't detract from the reality of the fear/sadness that the shallow git is feeling, but it does detract from its validity.
Ok, so some messed up teenagers threw themselves off a bridge in Glasgow. Ok, fine, I respect their decision. But you know what, the whole virtual memorial thing is a bit creepy.
So one question raised in this Guardian article is whether it's a good thing that grief has moved from the private sphere to the public sphere. (They blame Diana, but I'm sure it happened looooooong before that.)
I question the actual genuineness of the emotion displayed. Can a person really have hundreds or thousands of "friends" as their social networking sites suggest? Even the cyberbullying mentioned earlier has a quote that says "you can have 60 people bullying you on the internet, but in real life there wouldn’t be 60 people beating you up". If people "friend" you for shallow or superficial reasons, or people bully you because they forget you're a human, it stands to reason that few of those internet mourners actually give a crap.
I wonder what the average ratio is, of real to virtual human interactions. What proportion of all those "friends" are really "friends"? What proportion of the people who write on websites such as Gone Too Soon or Missing You are feeling genuine care for the person they memorialise?
A cynic would say that all sadness felt at someone else's death is the rising of the fear of our own death. This doesn't detract from the reality of the fear/sadness that the shallow git is feeling, but it does detract from its validity.
Reality, virtual or otherwise
"Cyberbullying". There have been campaigns against it in both the UK and the US. Both are aimed at young people. The UK government's website is through the Need to Know young people site. The US website is more explicit, stating: "Once adults become involved, it is plain and simple cyber-harassment or cyberstalking. Adult cyber-harassment or cyberstalking is NEVER called cyberbullying." The strict minor-only definition of cyberbullying does not appear stand in the UK, as model Liskula Cohen used the phrase to the Independent that she was cyberbullied by a blog.
The tagline from one of my favourite websites is: "It's just a website!" meaning that people shouldn't take what is said on the forums so seriously all the time. Och, people just take things so seriously online. And yet at the same time, seem to forget that at the other end of the computer connection is another human being. Selfish selfish selfish.
But the line between libel and bullying is thin. Both the US and the UK are strongly against libel (I'm not sure which one more so). I suppose that's one upside to all this cyberbullying stuff:
Ever wanted to know the difference between a skank and a ho? Well, thanks to the New York courts, we now know.
The tagline from one of my favourite websites is: "It's just a website!" meaning that people shouldn't take what is said on the forums so seriously all the time. Och, people just take things so seriously online. And yet at the same time, seem to forget that at the other end of the computer connection is another human being. Selfish selfish selfish.
But the line between libel and bullying is thin. Both the US and the UK are strongly against libel (I'm not sure which one more so). I suppose that's one upside to all this cyberbullying stuff:
The case has helped to clarify which terms of insult are libellous, such as "ho", which are merely wounding, like "skank"....
The court sided with Cohen, citing defamation "concerning her appearance, hygiene and sexual conduct".
Ever wanted to know the difference between a skank and a ho? Well, thanks to the New York courts, we now know.
Tuesday 6 October 2009
Good news on the Freedom of Speech front
In the US, all 50 states have laws against animal cruelty. A couple of years back, in response to "crushing" fetish videos that involved women stepping on kittens (among other lesser creatures like spiders), congress banned images of animal cruelty. The Supreme Court has just ruled that such laws are unconstitutional.
Animal Cruelty and Free Speech (October 5, 2009) NYT editorial
So now it is legal in the US to possess images of illegal acts, while in the UK it is illegal to possess images of legal acts.
Hooray for common sense.
Animal Cruelty and Free Speech (October 5, 2009) NYT editorial
So now it is legal in the US to possess images of illegal acts, while in the UK it is illegal to possess images of legal acts.
Hooray for common sense.
Thursday 1 October 2009
Racism - Differences in "race" in the US and UK
It always perplexed me, that most census forms here in the UK, or Equal Opportunity forms given as part of a job application, list not just "White", "Black", "Asian" etc, but go right deep into the ethnic background of the applicant. Asian include Indian, Pakistani, but sometimes Chinese is its own group. Black include Afro-Caribbean. White includes English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh. I always choose "White: other" and handwrite "American". This is most likely because the definition of "race" in the UK includes "ethnic origin".
In fact, this sample form doesn't even use the word "race", it uses "ethnic background". Why is it that only Blacks are "British" here? This other form also uses the term "ethnic origin", but noteably combines all white people into either "British" or not-British. All of the other categories are broken down by country. Yet the form says that "Ethnic origin questions are not about nationality, place of birth or citizenship. They are about colour and
broad ethnic group. UK citizens can belong to any of the groups listed." What does that mean? Aren't all UK citizens just "UK"? (or whatever British term they choose.) I've even seen the word racism to apply to discrimination against "gingers" (people with red/ginger hair).
Part of my confusion stems from the American look at racism. Ask most Americans what the different races are in the US, and you'll hear White, Black, Hispanic, Asian and (in some places) Native American. This can be seen in the list of references on the Wikipedia article on racism: "A poll on black, hispanic and asian americans on race relations", "red, white and black", "where black and brown collide", "both white and red". Ask people for an example of racism and they'll mention black people. Ask what defines race and they'll say the colour of your skin.
It isn't strictly true that race in the US is only colour. The US Constitution's 15th Ammendment (1870) reads:
Race and color are separate items! Yet you'll often hear the phrase "racial and ethnic minorities" such as over here are the Racism Review blog. (In the same blog, the author uses the phrase "colorblind" as an opposite to racism.) In their recording of Hate Crimes (here, 2005), the FBI distinguishes between race crimes (black, white, native, asian) and ethnicity crimes (hispanic). Technically speaking, hispanic is not a race in the US. Yet crimes against hispanics can still be called racist.
Here's my conundrum: Race is biological. I am white because my parents were white, and there is nothing I can do to change that. I am American, though, because I was raised in America. While it was not a choice offered to me at birth, I do now have to choice whether or not to join another white ethnic group, such a converting to a different religion, or changing my citizenship. If I changed my religion or citizenship, I would still check same US census box. Would my British census box change? Would I call myself English, as I'm marrying an Englishman? Or would I be Scottish because I live in Scotland? Or would I still be American as I speak with an American accent?
In a sense, I suppose I'm not the only one. This blog asks people from Taiwan to write in TAIWANESE on the census forms instead of checking the Chinese box. The difference between "race", "colour" and "ethnic group" varies in other countries as well.
The law defines racial grounds as including race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins. (Equality and Human Rights Commission)
In fact, this sample form doesn't even use the word "race", it uses "ethnic background". Why is it that only Blacks are "British" here? This other form also uses the term "ethnic origin", but noteably combines all white people into either "British" or not-British. All of the other categories are broken down by country. Yet the form says that "Ethnic origin questions are not about nationality, place of birth or citizenship. They are about colour and
broad ethnic group. UK citizens can belong to any of the groups listed." What does that mean? Aren't all UK citizens just "UK"? (or whatever British term they choose.) I've even seen the word racism to apply to discrimination against "gingers" (people with red/ginger hair).
Part of my confusion stems from the American look at racism. Ask most Americans what the different races are in the US, and you'll hear White, Black, Hispanic, Asian and (in some places) Native American. This can be seen in the list of references on the Wikipedia article on racism: "A poll on black, hispanic and asian americans on race relations", "red, white and black", "where black and brown collide", "both white and red". Ask people for an example of racism and they'll mention black people. Ask what defines race and they'll say the colour of your skin.
It isn't strictly true that race in the US is only colour. The US Constitution's 15th Ammendment (1870) reads:
Amendment XV
(Ratified February 3, 1870)
Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Race and color are separate items! Yet you'll often hear the phrase "racial and ethnic minorities" such as over here are the Racism Review blog. (In the same blog, the author uses the phrase "colorblind" as an opposite to racism.) In their recording of Hate Crimes (here, 2005), the FBI distinguishes between race crimes (black, white, native, asian) and ethnicity crimes (hispanic). Technically speaking, hispanic is not a race in the US. Yet crimes against hispanics can still be called racist.
Here's my conundrum: Race is biological. I am white because my parents were white, and there is nothing I can do to change that. I am American, though, because I was raised in America. While it was not a choice offered to me at birth, I do now have to choice whether or not to join another white ethnic group, such a converting to a different religion, or changing my citizenship. If I changed my religion or citizenship, I would still check same US census box. Would my British census box change? Would I call myself English, as I'm marrying an Englishman? Or would I be Scottish because I live in Scotland? Or would I still be American as I speak with an American accent?
In a sense, I suppose I'm not the only one. This blog asks people from Taiwan to write in TAIWANESE on the census forms instead of checking the Chinese box. The difference between "race", "colour" and "ethnic group" varies in other countries as well.
Tuesday 29 September 2009
How close is your family?
The Simmons family, three generations of whom live on Bardon Road, remains defiant in the face of claims their antisocial behaviour was partly responsible for the deaths of Fiona Pilkington and her mentally disabled teenage daughter, Francecca Hardwick, after years of taunts and physical attacks.
(Independent: "They were so evil towards Francecca" 29/09/09)
Wait a minute, three generations? Three generations of one family lived on the same street?
Maybe it's just my family, but I can't understand how it is that one family - three generations! - can live on the same street. My family doesn't even live in the same state, and if that, rarely in the same town. How is it possible that people don't move?
Part of this is historical. At the Glasgow Science Centre, there was a display where you could see which counties your surname was popular in the UK in 1881 and 1998. This was reported in the BBC in 2006. You can view the National Trust Names surname GB search here.
If you put in lesser known names, you'll see that people just don't move. For example, the name "Brankin" (thanks to Rhona Brankin MSP Midlothian) was only in a handful of sparse counties in 1881: Paisley, Motherwell, Preston and Oldham. In 1998 the name had spread, but not too far from the original four counties. In particular, they really stayed in Scotland, as evidenced by the fact that there's an MSP with that surname. (An English surname, ironically enough.)
It's this way with lots of names. And I even have anecdotal evidence of a family in Glasgow where, while not all are on the same street, all pretty much live in the same suburb of Glasgow -- one that if you put that surname in, comes up as the number 1 place in the UK for that name.
There was even a newspaper article talking about one family that all lived on one street. This is not a random isolated event -- it genuinely happens!
Maybe it's a bit rich coming from an American living in Scotland, but I just don't understand how a person can live a few doors down from their parents, siblings, cousins, etc.
But then, it does explain the fear of inbreeding in this country. You have to provide a birth certificate to get married here. Why? According to the clerk down at the Edinburgh courthouse, to prove you don't have the same parents.
Monday 21 September 2009
All I want for Christmas...
Is John Kampfner's "Freedom for Sale: How we Made Money and Lost Our Liberty". Why?
(John Kampfner: Independent "Liberal values have never been more important - or less popular")
I've always said the difference between the British govenment and the Chinese government is that the Chinese government is more honest about its goals. I suppose we'll see what Mr. Kampfner thinks about it.
My new book tackles the issue head on. I look at eight countries, four notionally authoritarian – Singapore, China, Russia and the UAE – and four notionally democratic, India, Italy, the UK and the United States. My central thesis is that people around the world, whatever their different cultures or circumstances, have been willing over the past 20 years of globalised glut to trade certain freedoms in return for the promise of either prosperity or security. We have elevated private freedoms, especially the freedom to earn and spend money, over public freedoms, such as democratic participation and accountability and free expression. I call the thirst for material comfort the ultimate anaesthetic for the brain.
(John Kampfner: Independent "Liberal values have never been more important - or less popular")
I've always said the difference between the British govenment and the Chinese government is that the Chinese government is more honest about its goals. I suppose we'll see what Mr. Kampfner thinks about it.
Friday 18 September 2009
The Forgotten Child of the North
It's always confused me, British geography, especially their concepts of "north" and "south". I admit that the US, with its "Mid-west" is a little deceiving, but it's not nearly so bad as Londoners' idea of "the North". (That's how it's marked on the highways: "The North", "The South".)
Look at this map.
For those without a familiarity of British geography, the little circle in the bottom is London. The big section at the top is Scotland. Underneath Scotland is "the North of England". Just under that is "Central North England". The little moon on the Ireland-side of the country is Wales. The little bit touching Wales, Central North England and London is "Central South England". Basically anything touching London is "South".
On this other map, the area called the "Midlands" is highlighted.
This roughly corresponds with the "Central" sections above.
What these two maps have in common is that the line by which everything is North is not halfway up the country. Ok, sure, it's halfway up ENGLAND, but then we are left with Scotland (and Northern Ireland, boy, they must have it rough, being separated by water and all) as being WAY north. Scotland may as well be another country (I know there's debate on this, but please, accept it is part of the UK) for how it's treated by most British (by which I mean English - particularly the government).
People constantly forget about Scotland. Take Liberty, the UK civil liberties group.
The media just brings it home even more. When I first got to the UK, I tried to find a source for local news, both globally and nationally. I always like reading local news, especially the stuff that tells me what's going on around town. I tried the BBC, but their Scotland news sucks. I then switched to the Scotsman Newspaper for my Scottish news and the Independent and Guardian for my UK national news, but neither of those two really mention Scotland very much.
Case in point:
Independent: Is Leeds rubbish war a sign of things to come for Britain? (18 Sept 2009) Regarding the strike by bin men in Leeds.
Scotsman: Bin dispute will be long and dirty struggle (21 Aug 2009) Regarding the strike by bin men in Edinburgh.
"Sign of things to come" my ASS! Pompous twits. Yeah, because the Leeds strike was the first to happen this year in the UK. Uh-huh. Right.
Look at this map.
For those without a familiarity of British geography, the little circle in the bottom is London. The big section at the top is Scotland. Underneath Scotland is "the North of England". Just under that is "Central North England". The little moon on the Ireland-side of the country is Wales. The little bit touching Wales, Central North England and London is "Central South England". Basically anything touching London is "South".
On this other map, the area called the "Midlands" is highlighted.
This roughly corresponds with the "Central" sections above.
What these two maps have in common is that the line by which everything is North is not halfway up the country. Ok, sure, it's halfway up ENGLAND, but then we are left with Scotland (and Northern Ireland, boy, they must have it rough, being separated by water and all) as being WAY north. Scotland may as well be another country (I know there's debate on this, but please, accept it is part of the UK) for how it's treated by most British (by which I mean English - particularly the government).People constantly forget about Scotland. Take Liberty, the UK civil liberties group.
Liberty is also known as the National Council for Civil Liberties. Founded in 1934, we are a cross party, non-party membership organisation at the heart of the movement for fundamental rights and freedoms in England and Wales.In Scotland, we instead have the SACC. You can't even find a Northern Ireland civil liberties-specific group!
The media just brings it home even more. When I first got to the UK, I tried to find a source for local news, both globally and nationally. I always like reading local news, especially the stuff that tells me what's going on around town. I tried the BBC, but their Scotland news sucks. I then switched to the Scotsman Newspaper for my Scottish news and the Independent and Guardian for my UK national news, but neither of those two really mention Scotland very much.
Case in point:
Independent: Is Leeds rubbish war a sign of things to come for Britain? (18 Sept 2009) Regarding the strike by bin men in Leeds.
Scotsman: Bin dispute will be long and dirty struggle (21 Aug 2009) Regarding the strike by bin men in Edinburgh.
"Sign of things to come" my ASS! Pompous twits. Yeah, because the Leeds strike was the first to happen this year in the UK. Uh-huh. Right.
Irritating Name Mash-ups
They're not acronyms, and they're not abbreviations. Apparently it's called a Portmanteau, more of a mash-up, or an odd nickname given to celebrities by the media. (Not real people, mind you, but the media. These are cold, calculated misuses of language.) We've seen it with Brangelina, Bennifer, J-Lo, and a whole mess of other "celebs" (Ed: SHOOT ME NOW!!).
The latest victim to dicocide (murder of names) is Susan Boyle, or, as she's more familiarly known: SuBo. I noticed this in today's Metro newspaper. The on-line article uses Susan's full name in the headline, while the printed newspaper read: "SuBo wows 25m in US".
A quick look on google showed that the use of SuBo as a term peaked in roughly June 2009.
Susan Boyle debuted in April 2009, and has over 1000 articles from April, Mary and June. The number dropped significantly in July, for whatever reason. Google only lists 96 articles mentioning SuBo, but over 4000 for Susan Boyle.
Poor woman. I feel bad that the only reason she's famous is because she's old, fat and ugly. Really, that's it. She's unattractive, and the fact that she can sing shocks people so much that she is given freak-show status as an artist. I've never heard her, myself, but I know they do occasionally get some real singers on these shows, so I don't doubt her talent. It's kinda like those kids who can do math really well: FREAK!! Not that Britain isn't known for its modern-day freak shows.
But now Susan's made the rank of pet celebrities. She is no longer her own person, Susan Boyle, she is a two-syllable title given to sub-humans who are hunted by the paparazzi and then displayed in magazines as a trophy. She is no longer part of the race of human, she is an object, like so many have been before her, and like so many will be after her.
The latest victim to dicocide (murder of names) is Susan Boyle, or, as she's more familiarly known: SuBo. I noticed this in today's Metro newspaper. The on-line article uses Susan's full name in the headline, while the printed newspaper read: "SuBo wows 25m in US".
A quick look on google showed that the use of SuBo as a term peaked in roughly June 2009.
Susan Boyle debuted in April 2009, and has over 1000 articles from April, Mary and June. The number dropped significantly in July, for whatever reason. Google only lists 96 articles mentioning SuBo, but over 4000 for Susan Boyle.
Poor woman. I feel bad that the only reason she's famous is because she's old, fat and ugly. Really, that's it. She's unattractive, and the fact that she can sing shocks people so much that she is given freak-show status as an artist. I've never heard her, myself, but I know they do occasionally get some real singers on these shows, so I don't doubt her talent. It's kinda like those kids who can do math really well: FREAK!! Not that Britain isn't known for its modern-day freak shows.
But now Susan's made the rank of pet celebrities. She is no longer her own person, Susan Boyle, she is a two-syllable title given to sub-humans who are hunted by the paparazzi and then displayed in magazines as a trophy. She is no longer part of the race of human, she is an object, like so many have been before her, and like so many will be after her.
Wednesday 9 September 2009
Self-Responsibility
I'm not the only one saying it. My friend in the US complained about the nanny state; I told her "you have no idea". Americans may think that the government is a nanny state because of speed cameras, signs warning people against gridlock, and CAUTION HOT on coffee cups, but they honestly have no idea how bad it could be.
One of my old flatmates (Scottish) once told a story about a neighbour she had that would call the council for everything. Crack in the pavement? Call the council. Bag of rubbish on the curb? Call the council. Snow? Ice? Call the council. Apparently she had the best-looking sidewalk on the entire street. Shame they had to waste their time fixing every little thing for her, though.
But as Hamish McRae points out in the Independent, this difference between self-sufficiency and responsibility can even be seen in how politicians communicate. Would a modern British politician ever ask people to take more responsibility in their lives? They ask us to wash our hands to prevent swine flu, and stop smoking to prevent cancer, but a general "take responsibility!" is absent.
One of my old flatmates (Scottish) once told a story about a neighbour she had that would call the council for everything. Crack in the pavement? Call the council. Bag of rubbish on the curb? Call the council. Snow? Ice? Call the council. Apparently she had the best-looking sidewalk on the entire street. Shame they had to waste their time fixing every little thing for her, though.
But as Hamish McRae points out in the Independent, this difference between self-sufficiency and responsibility can even be seen in how politicians communicate. Would a modern British politician ever ask people to take more responsibility in their lives? They ask us to wash our hands to prevent swine flu, and stop smoking to prevent cancer, but a general "take responsibility!" is absent.
Monday 31 August 2009
Hate Crimes
Full props go to More Inches for the thought-provoking blog An Army of Lovers Cannot Loose, an account of trans- and homophobic hate violence in Scandinavia. It astonishes me, because I always thought those Scandinavian countries were more liberal, more tolerant. I suppose not.
But it did make me wonder, what are the various statistics for the UK and the US?
Hate Crime in the UK:
Hate Crime in the US:
Major differences include that the UK includes "transgender" (is this different than sexual orientation?) and the US includes ethicity/national origin (which covers more than just race).
Various statistics are available from the US' FBI publication Hate Crime Statistics. The 2004 report breaks down the hate crimes by motivation: 1197 out of 7649 incidents (15.6%)were motivated by sexual orientation. They further break down those incidents by specific type.
Transgender is not included, perhaps justifying the British addition of the term.
While the UK Home Office does count hate crimes, in their statistics, they only reveal "racially or religiously aggravated" crimes (in their England and Wales statistics).
I do not know how many sexual orientation hate crimes are carried out per year in the UK. They claim that "most homophobic offenders are aged 16-20", but information backing this data up is difficult to locate. Even Galop, a group working to stop homophobic hate crime in London, does not readily have available statistics on incidents. The entire point of groups such as Galop is to point out the difference between the crimes that happen (what Galop studies) and the crimes that are reported/convicted (what the Home Office reports). If the Home Office does not provide the statistics necessary for comparison, then Galop is basically making things up. Which doesn't do a lot of good. More work needs to be done to get these statistics out into the open in the UK.
But it did make me wonder, what are the various statistics for the UK and the US?
Hate Crime in the UK:
Hatred is a strong term that goes beyond simply causing offence or hostility. Hate crime is any criminal offence committed against a person or property that is motivated by an offender's hatred of someone because of their:
-disability
-race
-religion or belief
-sexual orientation
-transgender.
Hate crime can take many forms including:
-physical attacks – such as physical assault, damage to property, offensive graffiti, neighbour disputes and arson
-threat of attack – including offensive letters, abusive or obscene telephone calls, groups hanging around to intimidate and unfounded, malicious complaints
-verbal abuse or insults - offensive leaflets and posters, abusive gestures, dumping of rubbish outside homes or through letterboxes, and bullying at school or in the workplace.
Our definition of a hate crime:
any incident, which constitutes a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by prejudice or hate.
Hate Crime in the US:
A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.
Major differences include that the UK includes "transgender" (is this different than sexual orientation?) and the US includes ethicity/national origin (which covers more than just race).
Various statistics are available from the US' FBI publication Hate Crime Statistics. The 2004 report breaks down the hate crimes by motivation: 1197 out of 7649 incidents (15.6%)were motivated by sexual orientation. They further break down those incidents by specific type. 
Transgender is not included, perhaps justifying the British addition of the term.
While the UK Home Office does count hate crimes, in their statistics, they only reveal "racially or religiously aggravated" crimes (in their England and Wales statistics).
I do not know how many sexual orientation hate crimes are carried out per year in the UK. They claim that "most homophobic offenders are aged 16-20", but information backing this data up is difficult to locate. Even Galop, a group working to stop homophobic hate crime in London, does not readily have available statistics on incidents. The entire point of groups such as Galop is to point out the difference between the crimes that happen (what Galop studies) and the crimes that are reported/convicted (what the Home Office reports). If the Home Office does not provide the statistics necessary for comparison, then Galop is basically making things up. Which doesn't do a lot of good. More work needs to be done to get these statistics out into the open in the UK.
Saturday 29 August 2009
Unions
Perhaps that's too big a title for one blog.
I recently had a conversation with a friend about unions. She works in HR, and is against them. She argued that they're an anachronism, out of date and unnecessary with today's employment laws. It should be said that she's American, and is functioning in an American employment environment.
In Britain, back in February they predicted a "Summer of Rage", an echo of "The Winter of Discontent". News reports predicted protests across Britain of levels unseen since the winter of 1978-79 which saw corpses pile up in the streets (Note: reporting on this series of strikes may have been hampered by the various journalist and reporter strikes going on at about the same time.) These predictions of a "Summer of Rage" may have been exaggerated, but it can still be seen with the extended postal and binmen strikes seen here, following the enormous G20 protest in March.
Have these strikes and protests accomplished anything? Experience seems to teach that protests from ordinary people trying to affect the government's policies don't work. They didn't work in 2003, they seem to have accomplished fuck all since then. (In contrast to the highly successful, yet highly violent 1990 Poll Tax riots in Britiain -- the Poll Tax was changed into the Countil Tax.) Even now, there are scattered reports that Americans are boycotting Scotland because they're releasing the Lockerbie bomber. But do union strikes work?
One must remember that sometimes governments take extreme measures to end strikes. Nationwide protests in France in Jan 09 seemed to have influenced the government there to act. In that instance the entire country basically shut down for a day. But it hasn't always been that way. In the early 1980's, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher chose to end the long painful (and violent) mining strikes by closing mines across the country. Her defense for this may have been that the unions were too powerful, having completed successful strikes in the 70's.
Unions have their uses. The movie "Cradle Will Rock" is an excellent song of praise that will turn anyone into a union fan. Unions traditionally fight for better pay and working conditions of the employees, but are equally important in simple management ideas, translating the policies between the aristocratic management and the working class employees. My friend argued that unions are often corrupt, and while this may have been true, I question whether it still is. It's perhaps easier to just say "power corrupts". But do strikes work? Non-violent protest is quickly becoming a fruitless guesture, and violent protest is mocked in its desperation.
Perhaps in the future, all we'll have left is live broadcast call-in votes in our own idiocracy.
I recently had a conversation with a friend about unions. She works in HR, and is against them. She argued that they're an anachronism, out of date and unnecessary with today's employment laws. It should be said that she's American, and is functioning in an American employment environment.
In Britain, back in February they predicted a "Summer of Rage", an echo of "The Winter of Discontent". News reports predicted protests across Britain of levels unseen since the winter of 1978-79 which saw corpses pile up in the streets (Note: reporting on this series of strikes may have been hampered by the various journalist and reporter strikes going on at about the same time.) These predictions of a "Summer of Rage" may have been exaggerated, but it can still be seen with the extended postal and binmen strikes seen here, following the enormous G20 protest in March.
Have these strikes and protests accomplished anything? Experience seems to teach that protests from ordinary people trying to affect the government's policies don't work. They didn't work in 2003, they seem to have accomplished fuck all since then. (In contrast to the highly successful, yet highly violent 1990 Poll Tax riots in Britiain -- the Poll Tax was changed into the Countil Tax.) Even now, there are scattered reports that Americans are boycotting Scotland because they're releasing the Lockerbie bomber. But do union strikes work?
One must remember that sometimes governments take extreme measures to end strikes. Nationwide protests in France in Jan 09 seemed to have influenced the government there to act. In that instance the entire country basically shut down for a day. But it hasn't always been that way. In the early 1980's, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher chose to end the long painful (and violent) mining strikes by closing mines across the country. Her defense for this may have been that the unions were too powerful, having completed successful strikes in the 70's.
Unions have their uses. The movie "Cradle Will Rock" is an excellent song of praise that will turn anyone into a union fan. Unions traditionally fight for better pay and working conditions of the employees, but are equally important in simple management ideas, translating the policies between the aristocratic management and the working class employees. My friend argued that unions are often corrupt, and while this may have been true, I question whether it still is. It's perhaps easier to just say "power corrupts". But do strikes work? Non-violent protest is quickly becoming a fruitless guesture, and violent protest is mocked in its desperation.
Perhaps in the future, all we'll have left is live broadcast call-in votes in our own idiocracy.
Thursday 27 August 2009
Get a job, ya filthy bum!
I take great offense at Mary Dejevsky's assertion that Americans are mean.
And the British don't tolerate inequality, deprivation and suffering? Frankly, I don't see any noticable difference in quality of life between the US and the UK. Ok, sure, with council houses, we have fewer beggars and children living on the streets, and with national health care people don't have to worry about going bankrupt from doctors' bills, but is that really increasing the quality of life? And if so, at what cost?
What Mary Dejevsky calls "mean", I call "self-responsibility". When people see a homeless person in the US, they think a number of things, perhaps feel pity, perhaps wonder where their family is, perhaps wonder how they got there, and of course, the "get a job, ya filthy bum!" response. But an American will rarely say "it is my fault that person is homeless", and only a small minority will say "it is the government's fault that person is homeless".
In the UK, when people see a homeless person, they merely shake their heads at the council not getting that person a house quick enough. Or wonder why they don't have a council house. Rarely will they blame the individual.
In the US, I see cold-hearted calculated selfishness, focussing entirely upon the individual. If you fail, it's your fault; if you suceed, it's on your hands. While it may be a myth that hard work will get you further, it is certainly a truth that blaming others gets you nowhere.
In the UK, I see a complete lack of self-responsibility, blaming everything upon outside factors. It's the council's job to do this, so why should I? It's because of the class system or prejudices that I can't get a job/promotion. But worst of all, this belief that outside factors control one's destiny has led to resignation and acceptance instead of a desire to change things for the better.
Perhaps in the US, things don't always work out for the best, but at least there's a gambling chance that change might happen. In the UK, you almost guarentee maintenance of the status quo.
For there is a mean and merciless streak in mainstream US attitudes, which tolerates much more in the way of inequality, deprivation and suffering than is acceptable here, while incorporating a large and often sanctimonious quotient of blame.
And the British don't tolerate inequality, deprivation and suffering? Frankly, I don't see any noticable difference in quality of life between the US and the UK. Ok, sure, with council houses, we have fewer beggars and children living on the streets, and with national health care people don't have to worry about going bankrupt from doctors' bills, but is that really increasing the quality of life? And if so, at what cost?
What Mary Dejevsky calls "mean", I call "self-responsibility". When people see a homeless person in the US, they think a number of things, perhaps feel pity, perhaps wonder where their family is, perhaps wonder how they got there, and of course, the "get a job, ya filthy bum!" response. But an American will rarely say "it is my fault that person is homeless", and only a small minority will say "it is the government's fault that person is homeless".
In the UK, when people see a homeless person, they merely shake their heads at the council not getting that person a house quick enough. Or wonder why they don't have a council house. Rarely will they blame the individual.
In the US, I see cold-hearted calculated selfishness, focussing entirely upon the individual. If you fail, it's your fault; if you suceed, it's on your hands. While it may be a myth that hard work will get you further, it is certainly a truth that blaming others gets you nowhere.
In the UK, I see a complete lack of self-responsibility, blaming everything upon outside factors. It's the council's job to do this, so why should I? It's because of the class system or prejudices that I can't get a job/promotion. But worst of all, this belief that outside factors control one's destiny has led to resignation and acceptance instead of a desire to change things for the better.
Perhaps in the US, things don't always work out for the best, but at least there's a gambling chance that change might happen. In the UK, you almost guarentee maintenance of the status quo.
Tuesday 18 August 2009
Fascism and Anti-Fascism
The entire world has moved a little towards the right, in the Middle East with women's rights, in the US with the various Christian movements "healing" homosexuals or promoting abstinance over condoms. In the recent European Union Parilament election, a number of far-right groups were voted in, including the British National Party, the BNP.
On paper, the BNP opposes immigration, yet is known throughout the UK as being racist. While the BNP rejects the term racist, it has not stopped people from applying the word to them.
Britain seems to think that they have Freedom of Speech. Ask any everyday Briton if they have freedom of speech, and they'll say yes. On bulliten boards and newspaper editorial pages expect to see it brandied about like a bronze star in a room full of vets. What with state-run BBC and the proliferation of "red-top" tabloid "newspapers", this can be debated in the first. The BNP, however, brings out an entirely different side.
The BNP recently had a national conference in Derbyshire (the middle of England, symbolic as Kansas is). This made people mad. And when people get mad, apparently they protest.
"We will not be intimidated" says Red White and Blue Organisers (Belper News)
Arrests as BNP Protesters Gather (Press Association)
Handful of protesters arrested at 1,500-strong rally against annual Red, White and Blue gathering in Derbyshire village (Guardian)
Protesters arrested at BNP rally: A total of 19 people have been arrested after around 1,500 anti-fascist demonstrators joined a protest march near the site of a BNP festival. (Telegraph)
They've even stopped an American from entering the UK to join in the "festivities". They called him "extremist" and "white supremcist".
An extreme group is voted into office, and then holds a national conference exercising their "freedom of speech" which attracts a large number of violent people protesting against fascism, defined as "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship". Sounds like the General Characteristics of Fascism seem to apply to many people.
On paper, the BNP opposes immigration, yet is known throughout the UK as being racist. While the BNP rejects the term racist, it has not stopped people from applying the word to them.
Britain seems to think that they have Freedom of Speech. Ask any everyday Briton if they have freedom of speech, and they'll say yes. On bulliten boards and newspaper editorial pages expect to see it brandied about like a bronze star in a room full of vets. What with state-run BBC and the proliferation of "red-top" tabloid "newspapers", this can be debated in the first. The BNP, however, brings out an entirely different side.
The BNP recently had a national conference in Derbyshire (the middle of England, symbolic as Kansas is). This made people mad. And when people get mad, apparently they protest.
"We will not be intimidated" says Red White and Blue Organisers (Belper News)
Arrests as BNP Protesters Gather (Press Association)
Handful of protesters arrested at 1,500-strong rally against annual Red, White and Blue gathering in Derbyshire village (Guardian)
Protesters arrested at BNP rally: A total of 19 people have been arrested after around 1,500 anti-fascist demonstrators joined a protest march near the site of a BNP festival. (Telegraph)
They've even stopped an American from entering the UK to join in the "festivities". They called him "extremist" and "white supremcist".
An extreme group is voted into office, and then holds a national conference exercising their "freedom of speech" which attracts a large number of violent people protesting against fascism, defined as "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship". Sounds like the General Characteristics of Fascism seem to apply to many people.
Wednesday 12 August 2009
Pre-occupation with Class
I couldn't have said it better myself. Terence Blacker in the Independent looks very sharply at the truest and worst sterotype of the British: their snobbery. He lists a plethora of examples, which I shall not name here, and he does not address why class should be so close to the forefront of British thinking, but it is interesting.
In response to the section lower down in his article, I have not noticed "a plague of ladybirds" (ladybugs, for you Americans) in my Scottish garden. Two years ago, when our garden was a jungle, we had plenty. But since we've cleaned up the garden, re-laid the turf and started mowing the lawn on a regular basis, the ladybirds have been missing. I bought 25 online earlier this summer, May perhaps? to feast on an actual plague of aphids I had in my border. It was like putting a fat person in the middle of an all you can eat buffet. They stuck around for a while, while the aphids disappeared. Then they vanished. Lack of food? Found another source? I don't know. But I saw one yesterday on a leaf, a little red bead in the sun, so they can't have all gone.
In response to the section lower down in his article, I have not noticed "a plague of ladybirds" (ladybugs, for you Americans) in my Scottish garden. Two years ago, when our garden was a jungle, we had plenty. But since we've cleaned up the garden, re-laid the turf and started mowing the lawn on a regular basis, the ladybirds have been missing. I bought 25 online earlier this summer, May perhaps? to feast on an actual plague of aphids I had in my border. It was like putting a fat person in the middle of an all you can eat buffet. They stuck around for a while, while the aphids disappeared. Then they vanished. Lack of food? Found another source? I don't know. But I saw one yesterday on a leaf, a little red bead in the sun, so they can't have all gone.
Tuesday 11 August 2009
Adam: Differences in TransAtlantic Reactions
The movie Adam has recently hit theaters. Though I haven't seen it (and really don't plan to), this movie appears to be a standard rom-com only the male lead has Aspergers. This has, of course, led to some debate as to whether this sort of media exposure is a good thing for people with Asbergers.
For exhibit A, I present the New York Times article from August 3rd: Asperger’s Syndrome, on Screen and in Life. The overall gist of the article is that this movie raises awareness about Aspergers and is thus a good thing.
For exhibit B, I present the BBC's article from 10th August: Autistic Impressions. The overall gist of this article is that Hollywood should stop thinking autistic people are different/overly intelligent/savants, and this sort of movie is a bad thing.
So is it true that Americans are more likely to say "Adam" has noble intentions and is thus good while Britons are more likely to say "Adam" is patronising and gives false info? Let's find out.
US articles:
NPR - Director Max Mayer on 'Adam' and Aspergers (Aug 10)
Chicago Sun Times - Unusual diagnosis for a new movie romance (Aug 9)
Philadelphia Inquirer - The wong guy for 'Adam' was right, after all (Aug 9)
The Boston Globe - Asperger's community takes 'Adam' to heart (Aug 8)
Washington Times - Asperger's syndrome takes spotlight (Aug 7)
Movies and television have done little to illuminate these disorders for the public.
Summary: Most reviews very positive, praising the accuracy of the portrayal of Aspergers, and the sensitivity of the director not to make it the butt of all jokes.
UK articles:
BBC News (review by Asperger's councillor) - Asperger's on the big screen (10 Aug)
The Chester Chronicle - Interview with Adam star Hugh Dancy (Aug 10)
Telegraph - Adam, review (7 Aug)
The Sun - Sneak reveals truth about love story Adam (7 Aug)
Daily Mail (Online) - Adam: Good intentions, but a weak narrative (6 Aug)
Scotsman - Film review: Adam (7 Aug)
Summary: Little praise for having recognisable high aspirations/good intentions, except, of course, for the woman who had Aspergers and the paper that interviewed the actor.
My theories:
1) The British don't like people telling them what to care about (Aspergers! It's hard!).
2) The British saw through good intentions and saw a mediocre rom-com.
3) The British look down on both "idiots guide" education and more implicit education as both are patronising and/or condescending.
4) Americans have been subjected to so much stereotyped and bad media that they think Rainman was a good portrayal of austism, and welcome ANYTHING that isn't crass.
5) Americans are more optimistic and respect intentions in and of themselves.
6) Americans have low expectations for what releasing a movie about a topic will bring.
Take your pick.
For exhibit A, I present the New York Times article from August 3rd: Asperger’s Syndrome, on Screen and in Life. The overall gist of the article is that this movie raises awareness about Aspergers and is thus a good thing.
But all three revolve around Asperger’s syndrome, the complex and mysterious neurological disorder linked to autism. Their nearly simultaneous appearance — two open this summer, and the third is planned for next year — underscores how much Asperger’s and high-functioning autism have expanded in the public consciousness since Dustin Hoffman’s portrayal of an autistic savant in “Rain Man” 21 years ago.
For exhibit B, I present the BBC's article from 10th August: Autistic Impressions. The overall gist of this article is that Hollywood should stop thinking autistic people are different/overly intelligent/savants, and this sort of movie is a bad thing.
Hollywood movies rarely deal with disability - except for autism, when characters are typically shown as having special intelligence. Why do we like to think everyone with autism is especially gifted?
So is it true that Americans are more likely to say "Adam" has noble intentions and is thus good while Britons are more likely to say "Adam" is patronising and gives false info? Let's find out.
US articles:
NPR - Director Max Mayer on 'Adam' and Aspergers (Aug 10)
Chicago Sun Times - Unusual diagnosis for a new movie romance (Aug 9)
Philadelphia Inquirer - The wong guy for 'Adam' was right, after all (Aug 9)
Apart from his college stint in Philly, Mayer has been a lifelong New Yorker, and Adam is the kind of New York movie that feels authentic, right down to the accents.
Which is an accomplishment, given that Dancy hails from the United Kingdom, and Byrne from Australia.
"That's the most popular comment at the Q & As, after the screenings," says Byrne. " 'Oh my god I can't believe it! How do you do it?' Which is understandable.
The Boston Globe - Asperger's community takes 'Adam' to heart (Aug 8)
“Awareness is one of our missions and there’s nothing like a movie that does well for awareness,’’ said Dania Jekel, Asperger’s Association of New England’s executive director.
Washington Times - Asperger's syndrome takes spotlight (Aug 7)
Movies and television have done little to illuminate these disorders for the public.
With the exception of Dustin Hoffman's Oscar-winning turn in "Rain Man," exposure to autism and its related disorders has been limited to smaller parts, such as the seldom-seen autistic offspring of corrupt policeman Vic Mackey in the FX cop drama "The Shield."
Max Mayer's new movie, "Adam," might help change that.
Summary: Most reviews very positive, praising the accuracy of the portrayal of Aspergers, and the sensitivity of the director not to make it the butt of all jokes.
UK articles:
BBC News (review by Asperger's councillor) - Asperger's on the big screen (10 Aug)
Portrayals of people with autism are always difficult because everyone is different but I thought Hugh Dancy, who plays Adam, did a great job.
Most of all he was human and showed a spectrum of emotions, that many people stereotypically assume people with autism don't have.
To me it felt three dimensional: it was sweet…but not too much!
The Chester Chronicle - Interview with Adam star Hugh Dancy (Aug 10)
"I just really like to take roles that scare me and this scared the pants off of me."
Telegraph - Adam, review (7 Aug)
There’s something fatally glossy about this well-meant Asperger’s romance... The film has pretty snowfall and a de rigueur plinky xylophone score, but it’s not really on our planet.
The Sun - Sneak reveals truth about love story Adam (7 Aug)
Daily Mail (Online) - Adam: Good intentions, but a weak narrative (6 Aug)
Only when Peter Gallagher comes on screen as the heroine's flamboyantly feckless father does the movie spark into life, with an edge that goes some way, but not far enough, to balancing the overall impression of cutesiness.
Scotsman - Film review: Adam (7 Aug)
The problem is that given the amount of idiot's guide information worked into the script, writer-director Max Meyer clearly believes he's stumbled upon a unique topic for a film
Summary: Little praise for having recognisable high aspirations/good intentions, except, of course, for the woman who had Aspergers and the paper that interviewed the actor.
My theories:
1) The British don't like people telling them what to care about (Aspergers! It's hard!).
2) The British saw through good intentions and saw a mediocre rom-com.
3) The British look down on both "idiots guide" education and more implicit education as both are patronising and/or condescending.
4) Americans have been subjected to so much stereotyped and bad media that they think Rainman was a good portrayal of austism, and welcome ANYTHING that isn't crass.
5) Americans are more optimistic and respect intentions in and of themselves.
6) Americans have low expectations for what releasing a movie about a topic will bring.
Take your pick.
Monday 10 August 2009
The Pros and Cons of Having Teeth
We are all familiar with the British stereotype of bad teeth. But apparently one reason for this is because many people are strongly against fluoridation of the drinking water.
Oddly enough, I can't confirm his figures: This graph shows UK with 0.7 bad teeth per 12-year-old child, and the US with 1.19 bad teeth per child. (He probably got the figures from an earlier Times article on the subject.)
So basically we have a group of people denying the science that says that fluoride can prevent tooth decay - this is akin to the intelligent design fans in the US. We also have a group saying that adding fluoride to the water is a political control move as it makes people more docile - these are conspiracy theorists. Other argue that fluoride infringes upon their human rights to decide how to treat their own teeth - these people are at least honest, their argument amounts to little more than "I don't want it, so you shouldn't make me."
The oddest thing is that even though they keep trying to put fluoride in the water, it hasn't worked yet! Is this a win for civil liberties and the British thought of "my home is my castle"? Or is this a failure to educate the public and ignore the panic-spreading media? At any rate, the end result is the same: bad teeth.
Suppose you're in New York or Los Angeles reading this, and you feel like a glass of tap water. It will be fluoridated: 70% of America's water supplies – including all the big city ones – are treated thus. Thirsty down under? Australia is nearly 70% fluoridated, too – just like Ireland, where the average number of decayed or filled teeth per child is 1.3, against 2.3 in non-fluoridated Northern Ireland. But the same glass of water in Britain has only a one in 10 chance of stopping such rot.
Oddly enough, I can't confirm his figures: This graph shows UK with 0.7 bad teeth per 12-year-old child, and the US with 1.19 bad teeth per child. (He probably got the figures from an earlier Times article on the subject.)
So basically we have a group of people denying the science that says that fluoride can prevent tooth decay - this is akin to the intelligent design fans in the US. We also have a group saying that adding fluoride to the water is a political control move as it makes people more docile - these are conspiracy theorists. Other argue that fluoride infringes upon their human rights to decide how to treat their own teeth - these people are at least honest, their argument amounts to little more than "I don't want it, so you shouldn't make me."
The oddest thing is that even though they keep trying to put fluoride in the water, it hasn't worked yet! Is this a win for civil liberties and the British thought of "my home is my castle"? Or is this a failure to educate the public and ignore the panic-spreading media? At any rate, the end result is the same: bad teeth.
Gender Bias in Child Abduction?
Recent articles in both the Guardian and the Telegraph highlight a rise inparental child abuctions. A parental child abduction is when one parent makes off with the child or children without the other parent's consent. While this is most common with a parent who is unhappy with the custody arrangements after a divorce,
Other sources state that it is only an illegal kidnapping if the person taking the child does not have parental or custodial right.
I was slightly irked when I read the Guardian article, as it had a picture of a man at an airport with a child, as if to imply that the child was being kidnapped by the man (the father). It is said that in the UK mothers get custody of the children 93% of the time. This would make it highly likely that the kidnapper was the father. However, this statistic would only apply to parents taking the child AFTER the courts had awarded custody. I do not beleive they include parents who run off in the middle of the night with the children before or without a divorce.
I have directly known three people affected by child abduction. In one case, the father kidnapped the child, neglected her, and caused brain damage. I do not think the father and mother were married. The police were involved, and the child returned to the mother. In another case, the mother escaped with/abducted (depending on your perspective) the child to a foreign country that was not on the list of countries that recognise child abduction. The father followed the mother to the country. In a third case, the mother took the children to a UK location "to visit family" and never returned. He later moved to be closer to the children following the formal separation. The first case is clearly child abduction. The second perhaps, as the father in question did have mental stability issues. The third, you could just say it was a poorly planned divorce. Yet notice that the woman always retained the child in all three cases, even though in two of them the woman was the one who left without the father's knowledge.
For more information on International Child Abduction, please see Reunite.
It can occur whether or not the parents are separated or divorced and sometimes even regardless of the existence of court orders.(Channel 4)
Other sources state that it is only an illegal kidnapping if the person taking the child does not have parental or custodial right.
I was slightly irked when I read the Guardian article, as it had a picture of a man at an airport with a child, as if to imply that the child was being kidnapped by the man (the father). It is said that in the UK mothers get custody of the children 93% of the time. This would make it highly likely that the kidnapper was the father. However, this statistic would only apply to parents taking the child AFTER the courts had awarded custody. I do not beleive they include parents who run off in the middle of the night with the children before or without a divorce.
I have directly known three people affected by child abduction. In one case, the father kidnapped the child, neglected her, and caused brain damage. I do not think the father and mother were married. The police were involved, and the child returned to the mother. In another case, the mother escaped with/abducted (depending on your perspective) the child to a foreign country that was not on the list of countries that recognise child abduction. The father followed the mother to the country. In a third case, the mother took the children to a UK location "to visit family" and never returned. He later moved to be closer to the children following the formal separation. The first case is clearly child abduction. The second perhaps, as the father in question did have mental stability issues. The third, you could just say it was a poorly planned divorce. Yet notice that the woman always retained the child in all three cases, even though in two of them the woman was the one who left without the father's knowledge.
For more information on International Child Abduction, please see Reunite.
The Aristocracy is Back
The Independent newspaper online reports that debutante balls are back. Like the US equivalent, these are those extravagant dances where young socialite women are put into pretty dresses and paraded around like pure-bred hounds at the Westminster Kennel Club. They are only for the rich, and not even for the nouveau riche, this is old money; you won't find Madonna's children here.
Interestingly, the Debutante Ball seems to have followed a slightly different path in the UK than in the US. Debutante Balls have been noted in US newspapers from as early as 1899. Yet they have been going strong among the upper classes in the US, with appearances in Town and Country magazine and even appearing in recent US film and television. While quite traditional in the South (the "Southern Belle") with their wealthy plantation owners, it hasn't died with slavery and is still going strong in various parts of the country.
The UK Debutante Ball has travelled a slightly different path. The most well-known of the balls (I'm assuming there are many in the season), is the Queen Charlotte's Ball, which (as the Independent reports)
The monarchy always bows to social pressures (does anyone remember now that the Royal family is German??), and the increasing socialism, calls for more political independence and the rise of the proletariat in the UK seems to have coincided with the monarch's exit from the upper class parties. Yet, just like the rest of the country, even though the Queen may not have a presence, things still go on without her. It wasn't until 1997 that the ball died.
Yet it's back.
Here the UK sits under a Labour government, ostensibly arguing for the working class, the trade unions and the socialists, and yet the aristocracy is enjoying a re-newed level of pleasure while the rest of the country suffers from the recession brought on by millionaire bankers and business-influenced politicians. Like it or not, the aristocrat is back. Is a return to feudalism nigh?
Interestingly, the Debutante Ball seems to have followed a slightly different path in the UK than in the US. Debutante Balls have been noted in US newspapers from as early as 1899. Yet they have been going strong among the upper classes in the US, with appearances in Town and Country magazine and even appearing in recent US film and television. While quite traditional in the South (the "Southern Belle") with their wealthy plantation owners, it hasn't died with slavery and is still going strong in various parts of the country.
The UK Debutante Ball has travelled a slightly different path. The most well-known of the balls (I'm assuming there are many in the season), is the Queen Charlotte's Ball, which (as the Independent reports)
The monarchy stopped attending the ball – where girls in white wedding dresses signifying their virginity would curtsy in front of the Queen – in 1958, at a time when Britain's imperial pomp had taken a hammering with the loss of the colonies and the disastrous Suez Crisis.
But thanks largely to Peter Townend, the tireless social editor of Tatler whose memory for debutantes past and present was legendary, the ball and the season's dances, fashion shows and garden parties soldiered on with varying degrees of success.
But in 1997, the Queen Charlotte's Ball folded and once Townend died four years later, the season seemed to be little more than a pale reflection of its former glory days.
The monarchy always bows to social pressures (does anyone remember now that the Royal family is German??), and the increasing socialism, calls for more political independence and the rise of the proletariat in the UK seems to have coincided with the monarch's exit from the upper class parties. Yet, just like the rest of the country, even though the Queen may not have a presence, things still go on without her. It wasn't until 1997 that the ball died.
Yet it's back.
Here the UK sits under a Labour government, ostensibly arguing for the working class, the trade unions and the socialists, and yet the aristocracy is enjoying a re-newed level of pleasure while the rest of the country suffers from the recession brought on by millionaire bankers and business-influenced politicians. Like it or not, the aristocrat is back. Is a return to feudalism nigh?
Sunday 9 August 2009
The Bird Man of West Pilton
My part-time job finishes at 12:30pm. If I take the bus home, I usually get in around 1 or 1:15pm; if I walk, I get home around 2pm. When I arrive home, I feed the cat and then open the curtains to our patio door and then sit myself on the sofa for my afternoon of leisure. (Or, at the very least, lunch and a chance to catch up on my social networking.)
At roughly 2pm, the Bird Man of West Pilton turns up the street that runs past our patio door. I call him the Bird Man of West Pilton because I only notice him because of the noisy flock of seagulls that follow him, periodically swooping down onto the street to eat something I can't see from the sofa.
He's an older man, with long gray hair, usually wearing a denim jacket, and walks a little hunched over, as if the denim was just a bit too thin for the Scottish winds that blow over the Forth. He usually carries a bag from Lidl or that Frozen Food a few blocks away. It used to be that I could tell the time from hearing the birds.
He doesn't come by so often anymore. I've never spoken to him, so I'm not really sure why the birds follow him. I suppose he feeds them. Not many people would feed the seagulls over here - they're considered rats with wings who aggressively invade rubbish and even shoplift and have raised the anger of the local councils. Yet this fellow seems to be loved by seagulls. I suppose he's just one of the local colour.
At roughly 2pm, the Bird Man of West Pilton turns up the street that runs past our patio door. I call him the Bird Man of West Pilton because I only notice him because of the noisy flock of seagulls that follow him, periodically swooping down onto the street to eat something I can't see from the sofa.
He's an older man, with long gray hair, usually wearing a denim jacket, and walks a little hunched over, as if the denim was just a bit too thin for the Scottish winds that blow over the Forth. He usually carries a bag from Lidl or that Frozen Food a few blocks away. It used to be that I could tell the time from hearing the birds.
He doesn't come by so often anymore. I've never spoken to him, so I'm not really sure why the birds follow him. I suppose he feeds them. Not many people would feed the seagulls over here - they're considered rats with wings who aggressively invade rubbish and even shoplift and have raised the anger of the local councils. Yet this fellow seems to be loved by seagulls. I suppose he's just one of the local colour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
