Barbara Harris and Project Prevention

I was driving back from London today, and had Radio 4 on. Now, I prefer to listen to 5live, but when you're driving to London the reception is terrible, and I like to hear chat when I'm driving.

The show that was playing was called "Taking a Stand", in which Fergal Keane (whom I have never heard of) talks to people who have unusual and outrageous views. Today he spoke to Barbara Harris.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qvbj

(I'm sorry, this is a link to the programme site, and not the interview itself. I am hoping someone will find a link to you tube, for people outside the UK)

I have never heard of Barbara Harris or Project Prevention, and at first this seemed like another crazy they had dragged out of some corner, and she was going to talk about how the inner-city crime problems will get resolved if we all catch the red admiral butterflies for two hours every Tuesday.

What I did hear was a truly astonishing woman, with an outrageous set of ideas. Well, specifically one idea. Pay drug addicts to get sterilized. At first, my set of liberal values jumped up and cried, "How dare she... These people are victims of our society... They are under the influence of a terrible drug and can't be expected to make decisions for themselves... What happens when they come off drugs... sterilization can't be turned back... Isn't this close to eugenics, the idea of weeding out certain races that the nazi's so vehemently pursued"



As I continued to listen though, the answers to the tough questions about the rights of individuals, the abuse of people under the influence, the inherent racism, the right winged sponsorship, I was slowly won over by her straightforwardness.

She is a focused woman, that much is clear, and when you see the world through her eyes, you can't deny her points. Her argument is simple. Society has rights, and there are too many babies who have been dumped on the state, by single mothers who have taken no care to use birth control, and are totally incapable of caring for their offspring. These women have produced many babies. Some individuals have had over ten. All of which get swept into the adoption circuit, put into care homes and hostels, or orphanages where they often grow up with rejection issues and anger management problems and drug problems.

The women if, and when, they get themselves out of the drugs problems often express huge regret and guilt at having had the babies and not cared enough for them. The state has no choice but to take responsibility for them.

The drug addict has had a choice. The baby has not. As she expressed in the fascinating interview, she does have  empathy for these women, and often offers to keeps in touch with them, but her duty is to the society she lives in, and to the babies that would have been born into a hash careless environment had she not done her work. There are other people who will care for the drug addict.

http://www.projectprevention.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prevention

I was stunned by this interview and it instantly reminded me of "Freakonomics" by Steven Levitt. A truly remarkable book about statistics. And specifically his chapter on the effect of legalised abortion on crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

In this he discusses a very direct correlation to the fall in crime figures after the Roe vs Wade case.

The truth is, I have always believed the rights of a society should outweigh the rights of an individual. That's not to say we should ignore the rights of an individual, but for too long we have worried about these individual rights and almost forgotten how these privileges have damaged our society. You just have to look around at the protections we give our children and the way they use and abuse the system against us or the way that religious rights are used to defend racist and anti-social behaviour.

Drugs have seeped into every crack in our society, and has pushed a wave of crime further and further, tearing down our walls of social understanding and respect. We are bewildered by its impact and helpless in its aftermath. Barbara Harris is taking a stand to try to limit this tide at its source, just as Roe vs Wade did by accident in the 70's, and I for one applaud her efforts.

Roads and Highways

One of the things I most wanted to confront you yanks about was your appauling waste of resources, and flagrant disregard to our ecology.

I looked forward to tackling your arguments on global warming being a form or refraction and having little to do with CO2 emissions, of Ethanol being possibly worse for the environment than Unleaded fuel, and of natural landscapes such as alaska being descimated by scarring oil fields ripping through the beautiful landscape.

What I found though was a little unexpected, terribly complicated and very unsettling.

The US really is a different place to britain, and just because we (loosely) share a language, doesnt mean we are brothers. We have, in fact, been born on different sides of the same street, and even though we stand together and fight together, at times are as different as montagues and capulets. Never is it more apparent than with the use of oil, or specifically unleaded fuel.

Firstly, I will get on my high horse. In britain we tax all car fuels heavily so as to discourage the use of cars. We also have a car tax to help pay for the expensive upkeep of the road network. We have catalytic converters to ensure a minimal amount of CO2 emissions, and we have an MOT text annually for every car to ensure all emissions are down to a minimum. The MOT test also ensures that the car is completely up to safety levels, such as tyre tread, break efficiency, and various tests on bodywork, frames, axles and engine efficiencies. You can fail an MOT (and have your car taken off the road) for excessive rust.

We do these things because we recognise the danger that cars present, and we wish to minimise the amount of accidents we have. We also spend thousands of pounds in advertising campaigns advertising road safety encouraging slower speeds, avoiding fast breaking, encouraging watching the road etc. We have a written drivers test, involving a multiple choice questionaire and  a virtual reality hazard test.

The practical part of the examination involves an eyesight test, and a vehicle safety test, so you know where to put the oil in etc... before continuing with the actual driving test. You will be asked to prove you can complete emergency breaks, three point turns, reversing round corners, reverse parallel parking as well as showing you are a considerate and confident driver.

Its expensive, its  hard, and we often fail. Its meant to be like that so we realise the full responsibility of having what is effectively a weapon under our control.

You will lose your licence if you have no insurance, if you drive under the influence, if you speed consistantly, if you have no road tax disk, if you drive recklessly, if you are overloaded, if your vehicle is faulty in any way, and if the police stop you they are entitled to check every detail of the outside of your car, and book you for anything from faulty lights to low tyre pressure.

We have stringent laws because firstly it makes our cars easier to control and safer to drive, and secondly it makes them more efficient and less harmful to the environment.

Before I get all holier than thou, though I came to understand that in the US things are painfully different not because you dont believe in the tennets of safety and efficiency, but that you simply dont know how to go about starting.

For a start your cities are so spaced out that you need a car to get from one part to another, and boy what roads you built for the job. Giant eight to ten lane freeways taking you from the suburbs to the city centres. Built for purpose is the phrase used, and unlike the tight windey roads you find in the UK whos single lanes meander around villages and farms and rivers and woods, your roads dominate the countryside ripping through the dusty plains like nasca lines, creating a network of magnificent runways ready for the american mechanical caterpillar to take people to work and back again.

To imagine a world where cars are not the dominant species is to imagine a world of futility. The feckless tracks would be like a skeleton of some ancient dinosaur sprawled across the descolate terrain. You would be like the african tribespeople who carry baskets upon their heads just to collect your groceries from the local corner shop, or to get a chicken strip from your drive through Chick-fil-a.

Its not that Americans dont care about the environment, its just that to imagine a world with no cars is to reinvent the wheel.

As for the safety aspects us brits are used to. The US is based on a belief that everyone is responsible for their own actions. To tell an american that protection of its people is the job of the authorities is the same as to tell a lion the mobster thrown into his cage is not a suprise midnight snack. I can just see him raising an eyelid and with a stretch of his mighty claws purring the words...

"Suuuuure!"

Instead, the whole system is set up ready for litigation. You bump into me, well im gonna sue you, and if it turns out you had no tread on your tyres, well youre going to end up paying more.... Its a simple system, and it should work if it wasnt for the fact that most people cant afford to change their tyres when they need changing, or maintain their oil filters, or check their breaks or do the thousand other things needing to be done.

What starts off as being a world of choice ends up being choice for those that can pay, and risk for those that cant.

In the end it is no surprise that when petrol prices rise by 10c, the whole country goes into panic freefall. In a country that finds itself so stretched for money, be it because of doctors fees and medical bills, or munitians spending and securities taxes, every cent is hard earned and carefully spent, and change is often an unnecessary risk too far.

To see a way out of the sandstorm of problems climate change is causing the people of the US takes a minor miracle, and trying to convince them that reducing fuel emissions by using more efficient cars is like trying to convince a dog not to sniff butt. In the end, even if they do believe you, they cant do anything about it.

I learnt alot on my trip. I saw alot I didnt expect to see and heard alot I hadnt imagined people would say. Mostly though, I learnt that we are all reasonable people going through a different set of circumstances, and my hollier than thou, look down on you attitude wont help a single soul. We need solutions to tough problems, we need to listen to each other alot more, to understand each others situations and consider each others dilemas. We need patience and empathy. And we need to talk more, we need to be aware that we can be wrong, that others can do it better, and that we can learn from each other without saying, well thats okay for you, but its totally different here.

Mostly though, we need to stand up and have the grace and humility to say "I was wrong"

I was wrong.

I was wrong, but I'm learning.

Another Perplexing Problem

Another interesting dilema for you... and another philosophical staple.

Imagine you are 1 of 50 people on a lifeboat, following the sinking of a cruise liner. If you like, picture the titanic. In the sea near you are hundreds of drowning passengers in the freezing water.

The lifeboat will take 60, so you have room for 10 more, but if you return, you do run the risk of the boat being toppled, and everyone dying. What will you do? Return or stay where you are? Do you guarantee your safety or risk all to save a few more lives? Whos life would you save? The old man nearest, or the young mariner deeper in the crowd?

In case you're wondering, the lifeboat argument (and the metaphor from the movie 'Titaniic') is an old one, that relates to Foreign Policy.

To help so many countries in trouble, may mean toppling our boat, but how do we pick one countries troubles over another, especially as there seem to be so many? And they do not seem to help themselves, surely their problems are their own?

And what about protectionist government? Is it right to subsidise our farming communities say, to the detriment of other third world countries struggling to battle drought, civil war, AIDS and countless other real problems killing people today.

Perhaps you believe that we have our own problems in our own country. With the homeless, drug addiction, prostitution, poverty, we should be looking at our own first and foremost? Maybe we should be content that we got lucky in the birthplace lottery and our sympathy for others should go no further than charity.

Perhaps your feelings is that we should stop immigration too. That there are already too many people in the lifeboat?

Anyhow, that this weeks talking point. What do you think?

For my part, I am uncomfortable with the idea of risking a trip into the melee of desperate survivors, but I am equally uncomfortable doing nothing. My thoughts turn to Rwanda and more recently The Congo.

I suspect the truth is that I would accept regrettably that I cannot help them all, but I would get the lifeboat closer, and should someone make the swim towards us, I would do whatever I could to help them onboard.

My Last Chance

On the eve of the most important election in recent history, and bearing in mind that your vote affects me personally, I am trying my last attempt to persuade you.

I know you're probably sick to death of hearing views on the two candidates by now, but please take 2 minutes and just have a read. If you disagree, then fair enough. At least you did it knowing you heard the arguments.

Firstly, this election isnt about personalities, no matter what you hear. Other elections have been, but this one isnt. This isnt about who fought for their country, or how old the candidate is. This election is about REAL politics. REAL decisions will be made by the next administration, that will affect you personally.

This election has been brought to us all in soundbites. It appears from the news reports that you are either for a change or you arent. If you think the US needs to move to new ground, blaze a trail into a new world you vote Obama, if you still believe in old american family values you vote McCain.

ITS MUCH MUCH MORE.  And I'm not just talking about Iraq!

The US is facing its future right now, it has two choices, two roads to travel in, and this is the last chance to decide.

The first choice follows current US Govt thinking. Whether you like it or not, this thinking is hugely unpopular with the rest of the world, including your allies.

It is unpopular because it promotes a harsh form of freidman 'free market' economics on the rest of the world that has been proven not to work in every country its been forced on since the 70's, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Poland, Phillipines and even Russia have all struggled and their belief in the US style monetary systems have crumbled. This isnt so bad except that when they say no to free markets, they also say no to free speech, democracy, pleuralism and freedom of religion. They say yes to old communist values, fervent nationalism, religious dogma and war.  Just to clarify, Free market economics means NO GOVT INVOLVEMENT, or NOTHING IN THE WAY OF BIG BUSINESS.

If you own a small business you will know how much the opening of a new giant Wallmart affects your local stores, affects your jobs, affects your sense of community, affects local affluence. Your govt does nothing to protect your way of life. Instead it protects THEIR right, the rights of fat cats and billionaires, to take your money, to pollute your rivers, to take your jobs, to copy your ideas, to steal your land in the hope that money will trickle down to you like 17th century serfs begging at the doors of the French Palace, whilst Marie Antoinette says, "If the bread is mouldy, then let them eat cake."

You have a right to live the american dream too. You deserve a chance as much as the CEO's and major share holders.

It has been proven not to work by the current banking meltdown in which in every major country around the world has had to plough money into its banking system. To save rich people from losing a fortune.

It has proven not to work by the war in Iraq, in which we have stolen their resources to protect our own industries... I'm sorry, I know our reasons to go in were different, but since we've been there, thats all that we have done, to our shame. If you think for one second we were in there for humanitarian reasons, well ask yourself, where is the invasion of the Congo, where thousands of people have been dying every day his week.

It has proven not to work for your own people. Thousands of dispossessed people award a pathetic $6000 for their house and homes, their schools, their jobs, their lives following the tragedy of Katrina. The shame of the richest nation in the world by far, unable to help their own people because of strict unreasonable economic policy. Charity from the middle east of all places given to the US to help the survivors make a new life for themselves, only to have the money spent on a private schools system.

It hasnt worked for the hundreds of thousand american citizens currently crippled by hospital insurance burdens, unable to live the 'American Dream' you idealise so much. Whilst pharmaceutical companies make biliions of dollars worth of profits. The rich getting richer as you struggle and suffer.

It hasnt worked for the environment. Over 90% of scientists, and every single independantly funded scientist around the world is in agreement that the world is heating up. That the water supply is shifting, and that in the next 50 years many thousands of people will have to move again, to find new work where the fresh water supply is better. Big Business has done nothing to research the problem, nothing to counteract the problem. And your government, whos job it is to look at this stuff has decided to do nothing. Has broken every single agreed commitment to stop global warming because it will affect big business.

Elections aren't won, they are lost.

You have 2 choices. Some of you may not like Obama. Some of you may see his idealism, his vision as being too tax heavy, but they are still much less tax heavy than most of the G8 countries, and we all manage.

We have National Health Systems giving cheap or free prescriptions, free doctors, free operations. We hit our environmental targets, becoming world leaders in new markets such as renewable energy. We give money to people through a strong social securities network ensuring NO ONE IS LEFT BEHIND. A line stolen from your very own President Roosevelt. We look after people dispossessed, knowing that everyone needs a hand from time to time.

If you still believe that another 4 years of Republican rule will change this, then you must vote McCain. If you cant bring yourself to vote for a black man, then dont vote at all. Please though, dont vote just because you've always voted that way. Dont vote not knowing the issues.

Obama's Birth Certificate

OKAY

I just want to make this crystal clear. I have a friend, who I wont name on here, who sent me this bulitin....

On another board I frequent, someone brought up the rumours about Obama and his birth certificate. Please have a look at these links and decide for yourself.
:)

Fact Check

PolitiFact

Snopes

Fight the Smears

I just want to add some common sence into this.

If Obama was officially an indonesian or kenyan or even british, do you not think you'd be hearing about it from McCains mouth. If I were McCain, i'd be screaming it from the rooftops, if I were Hilary I'd be screaming it from the rooftops.

If however I was a republican, and didnt want to get accused of spreading unbelievable rumours that just muddy the politics and smear the campaigners, I would start an online rumour, which cant be traced, and can be copied over and over again with no question of anyone getting sued.

Guerilla campaigning in the most important US election in the last 50 years.

Ask yourself this one question, did you hear it on FOX, and if not, why not. Because FOX would blow up a democratic secret like this into a thousand TV specials.

The fact is that whilst the news from FOX and the Washington Post etc might be biased, its not totally uninformed, they are subject to law suits and therefore must have some proof behind them.

With that in mind, when you next say oh yeah Palin, she didnt do anything really... actually according to FOX and he Post, she did. Its real news, biased angle perhaps, biased conclusions definitely, but based on fact. FACT.

Everyone and his grandma has heard a conspriacy theory or two, but when you hear one person stand up in public and say 'I Believe This Happened', then start listening, and start thinking. When we talk about the Kennedy assassination, we talk about Jim Garrisson being a man who stood up in a court of law and said this is what i think, and sue me if you want! McCain, Palin and no-one from congress has EVER suggested Obama is not entitled to run for the presidency based on his nationality

A bad rumour shouldnt kill a political career, but a rumour where NO-ONE stands up and says I believe so sue me, is truly dirty and not worthy of a great nation.

Either way, however you want your politics, argue the politics for gods sake. Argue that small govt is better than big. Argue imperialism is better than civil militia. Argue abortion/anti abortion. Argue NHS against Private healthcare. Argue real issues, real politics.

This is the most important US election in 50 years, you have the worlds most powerful nation, and your decisions effect the entire world. Dont argue silly things like legal or not legal, blue or red, leave this to the technicians. The independant bodies set up to make sure the elections are fair. These are silly arguments for petty minds, dont get caught up in the trivial ramblings of blinkered fools, who want to turn this into an Us and Them election.

Think for yourselves, come to a considered decision.

If you truly believe McCains hard line will better protect the US in this delicate world, then vote McCain. If you think that Obama will pull the US out of the financial mess the world is currently in, then vote Obama.

But Please dont vote McCain or Obama cos you have always voted that way. Vote because of real issues. Please, you owe it to the rest of the world, you owe it to your country, you owe it to your forefathers, because which ever way you vote... This time, it is truly historic.

And your vote will never be more important.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster

Now this blog is probably going to do me no favours, but the my-space thing is all about me so, gotta stick my hand in my mouth and go for it.

I have been reading about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
And whilst i don't believe in the FSM, i cant deny the religious rights the FSM followers are asking for.

In case you don't know about the FSM, according to his followers, He (and I'm only saying he because i don't know what gender he is) created the universe after a night out on the booze which explains why it has so many things wrong with it.

They believe Pirates were the original pastafarians, and have made reference to the rise in global warming being directly related to the fall in pirates.

They claim all 'evidence' for evolution has been planted by the FSM, in an effort to test his followers faith.

According to the faith, there are the '8 I'd really rather you didn'ts', a set of moral guidelines given to Mosey the pirate captain on Mount Salsa

Flying Spaghetti Monster

Whilst I cannot say how devout the 'believers' of this faith are or how rediculous their 'beliefs' are, the message they pervey is one of blind faith. Can we believe in faith blindly? And what evidence is appropriate to refute.

Bertrand Russell, the British philosopher argued...

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

The argument is simple, Russell argues if God exists, then it is down to the believer to prove it, not the non believer.

British Theologian Alister McGraph wrote in his book The Dawkin's Delusion...

"Why is such a book still necessary?", describing the atheist writings of Richard Dawkins.  "... for more than a century, leading sociologists, anthropologists and psychologists have declared that their children would see the dawn of a new era in which the 'God delusion' would be left behind for good.".

The argument of why do we need a book telling us there is no god. If there is no god, then it'll be obvious as time goes on. He goes on to say that Science has neither proved or disproved God.

In my opinion he is completely right, but in my opinion, Richard Dawkins argument about No God being more probable than God (and specifically a monotheistic god such as in Christianity or Islam). He argues that all science deals with probabilities, and the more probable something is the more we can rely upon it to be true.

We have no 'conclusive' explanation for gravity, we have strong theories, but on a micro-level gravity appears not to exist at all. It is because of this and other anomalies we cannot claim we fully understand gravity. I don't know about you though, but just cos we don't understand it, doesn't mean to say I'm not going to get out of the way when i throw a rock in the air.

Maybe its because I have faith that gravity is there.

Mcgraph's premise that because people spend so much effort trying to disprove god means it may be true, is interesting. I can only point out the huge amount of hate mail collected by the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster predominantly by the christian far right must mean there is truth in there somewhere. It also suggests that the huge protests over the cartoons in Denmark about Allah, must also have some truth behind it.

One letter in particular caught my eye...

I'm a bit confused about this website, and maybe someone would kindly enlighten me… Why take so much trouble to try and dismantle fundamental Christianity if you all sincerely disbelieve it?
I wonder why this whole movement feels like they're so threatened by Jesus if he's not real.

There were many retorts, but this one seemed the smartest.

Do you believe in radical Islam - the Wahabi sect that teaches hatred to nonbelievers and spawns terrorism? No? Then why would you want to dismantle it?

Oh! Maybe because you think it's HARMFUL. Like replacing science with bullshit. This site doesn't try to dismantle Christianity; just the fanatics who want ID taught in schools. We don't need a second Dark Ages, thank you.
It is clear that the site and the religion is mostly followed by people unhappy with the confidence shown by believers of all faiths. Its clear that allowing religion to enter the arena of politics, education and law making, is detrimental to a pluralistic society.

In a free democratic society, certain lines should no be crossed. I don't care what religion the president is so long as he doesn't act according to his or her religion. I believe in religious freedom and rights, provided those rights are not considered more important than the rights of the general population and society.

I appreciate that certain zealots will argue against evolution, claiming Bush's intelligent design as an alternative theory that should be presented in schools as fact in the same way evolution is, but the evidence presented for creationism is circumstantial and unfortunately also fits in with our friends of the church of the flying spaghetti monster. Which is the whole point of course.

At some point we have to say, this is proof and this is not proof. Our whole society relies on us having a provable standard. To Richard Dawkins, proof is defined as maximum probability. Alister McGraphs argument is that maximum probability is too stringent.

My feeling is that we should teach to that provable standard and above. The issues about creationism and the flying spaghetti monster being taught in conjunction with evolution, is as simple as evidential probability. There is far more circumstantial evidence for evolution, than there is for intelligent design. Evolution passes the evidence standard, whereas the planet being 6000 years old, and Adam and Eve being the first two people on the planet, does not.

In the meantime, the parody of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a welcome diversion that argues a point in a very very silly way. And I'm buying a pirate fish mug!

In God We Trust

As the american election goes into overdrive, and I got to tell you its been the most entertaining yet. Now I'm not going to tell you who I want to win, not that it matters what I... living in the 'free world' thinks when it comes to voting for the leader of the 'free world' but...

Its kind of funny that one of the founding principles of the american revolution was no taxation without representation, and yet here we are with another american president soon to be voted on, and the rest of the world not allowed to vote, and yet having to put countelss billions into their own money markets, nationalising banks etc just cos of the monumentous cock ups of the american government and its corporatist ideals.

Not that im bitter.

But to be honest, its not the election i wanted to talk about but the dollar note, well specifically the dollar coin... The dollar coin, just recently launched is interesting in that it apparently is the first coint o have writing on the sides of the coin. Well done. Apparently it says the immortal words 'In God We Trust', Not so well done.

I have to ask a few basic and simple questions about this, and please dont get all holier than though, and all weeeelll you aint american so you are a Heathen!

But why the hell does the one dollar coin need to have 'In God We Trust', firstly which God? At least half of the population of the US doesnt believe in an all powerful god, and the half that do have trouble agreeing in which one. And if we are talking about the christian god, the bible and all, I seem to remember he wasnt that fond of money, it is easier for a cael to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to yadda yaddda.... or false icons... okay I cant remember the reference here, but im pretty sure he wasnt keen on them, something about a golden calf springs to mind, yet there you go writing those words on your currency. Am I the only person to find this attitude a little weird.

Talking about religion for a second, there are two things that occur to me recently... firstly a quote

"The person of the prophet, is revered so profoundly with a love and affection that cannot be explained in words. It goes beyond your parents, your loved ones, your children. That is part of the faith."

This kind of rhetoric, this kind of blind devotion has been said by many a believer. Im a cabbie and enjoy a decent conversation with random people, but when people tell me they love a prophet from over 2000 years ago, rather than their own family, I start to wonder whats going on. Especially when they go on to tell me that the world is only 12k old...

Now about that, There are muslims and some far right christians alike that deny the holocaust ever happened. The argue that the evidence is not conclusive. Here are some examples of their beliefs;

The Gas Chambers, were just air raid shelters, with no holes in the roof, not in the structure or in the blueprints. Therefore if they werent gas chambers, then there was no holocaust.

The Cremation Ovens would not have had the time, or the fuel to burn so many bodies in the period of time allocated.

Anne Franks diary was written in ball point pen, and was written in a hand much more mature than her hand, so therefore was a fake.

Kristalnacht never happened to the extent claimed, both Hess and Hitler were livid at the violence, and never wanted what was a simple administrative procedure to end up as it did. Not only that, but the night was exascerbated by Jewish resistance with the sole intention of ensuring violence by the german soldiers .

Now I have to tell you, If you look up any of these issues online or through newspapers, you will see a very very different account. If you talk to victims still around you will hear a very different story, if you talk to the scientists you will find scientific evidence that it happened, and yet these people still believe its not happened.

Scientific proof and eye witnesses. That is the extent of proof available to us, Eye witnesses as you know become less and less reliable as time goes on, and yet for religion we are supposed to believe eye witnesses from over 2000 years ago, and scientific proof...

The thing about scientific proof is that, if you just look at things from one angle, say fingerprints on a knife, you may come to the wrong conclusion, which is why courts require alot more than one piece of scientific evidence. They need combined scientific proof to give a best guess. A best guess, not certain knowledge... best guess. Thats the other thing about science, it doesnt have the arrogance of religion, it knows it could be wrong, it accepts that future knowledge and understanding could be different, as opposed to religions blind 'faith', belief without proof perhaps.

So when scientists say the earth is billions of years old, they dont say it because of one test done on one rock, they say it as a theory which they post in a journal, then other sceintists spend their time trying to prove or disprove it, by alternative tests or by a larger population test or by alternative methods ec. This way science has gradually been able to come to some conclusions which they call laws.

These laws are the basis of science and are proved everyday through testing. These laws are the building blocks of science, and help us to understand everything around us. So when someone tells me the earth is only 6000 years old, it is only right that the burden of Proof is on the theory, not lack of proof of others. And also when someone tells me adam and eve are the first two people on the planet, I laugh with the same incredulity as a Jew at the guy who says the Holocaust never happened.

Okay, im off subject here, but there you go.

The Problem with Poor People

I recently had a very nice american lady in my car. I was taking her home from the airport and we got into a conversation about the american dream, well actually we got into lots of conversations, but this was just one of the things she talked about that gave me food for thought.

Oh, by the way, this is going to be one of my heavy blogs, light ones start again later this week.

Anyhow, she explained in her gorgeous LA accent, how the premise of the dream was that you could be anything you want to be if you worked hard enough, and fought long enough, and that because you paid so little comparitively in taxes than some other countries, you could spend your money on you and your demands, re-invest in your business etc.

That the dream promoted success in all areas including business, and achieves an industrious committed workforce.

It's an interesting notion, and it's worthy of note that the US is the most powerful and successful nation on the planet and so therefore deserves every degree of credit.

I have a problem with it though. Surprise surprise. If you ever have read my political and economic rants before you will know I am not the biggest fan of corporatism, or the free market economy.

The thing is, I dont really want to be rich. I know, I know, it's a bit of a thing to say, but like many people in the UK, I never saw myself ending up rich. If I won millions of pounds on the lottery, I already have a plan as to how I will give most of it away.

So, the idea of working hard to achieve my goals is a bit of a misnomer. Dont get me wrong, I'm not after handouts. I like working as a rule, I just work to live, not the other way around.

My ideal future involved a pretty wife, a couple of kids, a house mostly paid for, a job thats secure enough, a little bit of savings for emergencies and a lot of time to spend with my family. I always thought the purpose of life was to enjoy it as best you can and to give my children a good and stable upbringing. I never imagined this would be without struggle or hardship, but I always believed that just like having a badly maintained car, the occasional break down can be a bit of an adventure.

After Hurricane Katrina, we all watched in shock at the pictures of a society shattered, and our hearts went out to the people of New Orleans.

What seemed so surprising about the disaster though, apart from the single biggest contributor to the relief effort being from Qatar (I believe), was that people whose lives were in ruins, who had no homes to go to, who had no income, seemed to be left predominantly to their own devices. Standard grants of $3200 were given, but thats not enough to rebuild a house, re-establish your kids schooling, re-build a business and fight a rising desperate crime wave, thats put New Orleans right near the top of the murder charts in the US.

FEMA even left people deperate for food and water in the football stadium for ages before finally getting there, even though the reporters seemed to find the place no problem.

And yet within days of the disaster, corporations a plenty were divvying up rights to knock down their schools and houses, and build more expensive, more exclusive houses. The fact that the people displaced were mostly black and the people likely to move in were white has very little to do with it. The fact that the people displaced were poor however, and the people moving in were wealthy does bother me.

Now most of the schools are private, the wealthy districts are on their way to be built, water and electricity are all back on, well in the good districts, all with tax payers $27bn (of which only about a third has actually been spent.... what can they actually be doing with the rest of it???), and as for the camps built in Texas and the surrounding areas to look after the victims, mostly paid by charity organisations with donations coming from around the world and not by the government or FEMA, they were stretched to the limit with the influx of refugees, and now have all but gone. People, well poor people in particular will have to look after themselves.

It may be the case that if I were living in New Orleans during those terrible days, I too would have stayed in the camps, my job would no longer be there, my life would have been torn apart, and my meagre savings would never support my small family. Combine that with the insurance company that is fighting to hang on to the money I had invested in insurance policies for 20 years means that, going back to the car analogy, my car would be totalled, which is most definitely NOT an adventure. The help I would get from the government would have been minimal too, but because I didn't subscribe to the american dream, people would say it was my own fault.

Maybe they are right. Maybe there is something about taking care of your own future first and foremost, but what is so wrong with wanting a simple life, and asking for simple things. I dont want to spend every waking hour worrying about work. I want to spend it enjoying watching my future kids run in the public park, that I paid for with my taxes. I want to spend it with my elderly parents who have been given a state pension and healthcare, which they paid for with their taxes.

The biggest problem to me with the american dream however is not the poor that occasionally need a helping hand, but the super rich who seem to take advantage of every situation and make more than a healthy buck out of peoples misfortune.

The biggest problem is responsibility. Whilst americans may well argue that it is everyones duty to be responsible for the safety and security of their own family, when it comes to a multi-national corporation, it's no-one's responsibility. It's all very well to say that if someone owns a river, they are responsible for it, but corporations have never been responsible. Just look at Enron or the AOL business to see how multinational corporations dont own up to their responsibility.

But who takes the blame. Therein lies the problem with the free market. Do the shareholders who have made the profits year on year take any responsibility. As a rule no, especially if they buy their shares through dummy corporations and slush funds. If you are lucky you may get a corporate MD to go to jail, but it rarely happens. And it will never compensate the millions of people who have lost money on the stock market because of the crash, or even worse the victims from the chemical manufacturers who have been spilling their waste products into rivers for decades.

We all know that corporations will do anything to save a buck, and that the guy next door doesn't matter, never matters, particularly if he's poor.

The US government has pretty much given over it's homeland security responsibilty to private enterprise, and clearly FEMA did a bang up job on getting New Orleans back on it's feet.

As corporations begin to take over the US, shouldn't you be asking who are you voting for now, a democrat, a republican, or a leading shareholder from Halliburton (Thank you Donald Rumsfeld, major shares in one of the biggest weapons firms in the world, just at the time you were advising the US president to go war with Iraq over WMD!)

The american dream has its place, for sure. The spirit of enterprise and accomplishment is an important factor to the country's success, but surely more should be done for the people at the bottom of the ladder, or perhaps just the people who were doing fine before a dirty great hurricane blew their houses away.

Perhaps not everything in life should be about the money.

The Changing Face of an Egg

My goal with myspace was to meet friends and ask questions about my own views, question my own beliefs and values and find answers to questions I have.

I have always been of the opinion that you are much better shouting your views from the rooftops no matter how ill-informed, so long as you always listen to others and are ready to change if someone comes out with a better more informed argument.

Too often we dont bother listening, because we're busy doing the shouting, and occasionally we cant be bothered to correct others because we dont want the confrontation.

Yesterday and today I have been lucky enough to find people in direct contradiction to things I have believed in. They appear at the moment to be intellegent, well researched and respectful. I hope they will listen to me as much as I intend to listen to them.

As I come to conclusions I intend to write them on here for others to argue and add.

But today, I'm writing about Sally Kern.

It's difficult to know where to begin, as there is so much you could say.

Sally Kern is an Oklahoma State Legislator (the equivilent to the oklahoma houses of parliament) and has been for 4 years.

She is one of the writers of recent oklahoma law which states

A school district shall treat a student's voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint, if any, on an otherwise permissible subject in the same manner the district treats a student's voluntary expression of a secular or other viewpoint on an otherwise permissible subject and may not discriminate against the student based on a religious viewpoint expressed by the student on an otherwise permissible subject.

In other words...

If you ask a student how old the planet is, they can say 3000 years old (adam and eve), and you have to mark them correct as it is their religious belief.

The US has a very clear protection of religious rights with it's first ammendment, so the issue as to whether the citizens of Oklahoma need this law is in doubt anyway, but the problem I have is that kids are easily influenced and quick to catch on. And if I knew I could not bother with my geography homework on the corrosion of rock because I didn't believe it. Well lets say i'd have had less homework and more A's.

Also as an adult, if I dont like what you have to say I can leave, but a student required to be at school, and therefore required to listen. So if my teacher decides not to teach me about Darwin and evolution, and instead tells me there's no such thing, I have to stay there!

Imagine in every school assembly being told there is no such thing as an ice age.

I'm talking about creationism, and in case you think it's an american problem, we have 3 creationist schools in the UK.

Sally Kern's views on homosexuality can be found on the link below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFxk7glmMbo

I found it surprising that in both texas and in oklahoma voters allowed people like this to be their representatives. I imagined they had kept their religious elitism to themselves, but unbelievably, the protests that marched against her comments were dwarfed by the crowds that gathered in her support later that same week.

SHE SAYS BEING GAY IS WORSE THAN BEING A TERRORIST!

Now i'm sorry, but I suspect if I had the choice of a son that was gay, or a son  that blows buildings up and kills people, I know which I would choose.

Have you forgotten 9/11 Sally Kern or do you just not care?

 

If you are from the US and you aren't embarrased by her, just consider this.

The rest of the world, including your closest allies are seeing your country's governments more and more like religious fanatics. And the fact that you dont appear to care is just arrogance.

In a recent comparison on yougov, expressing UK and US opinions, 40% of the UK population questioned said they believed in a god. 90% of americans believed in god. So you can imagine how comments like these based on an interpretation of religious scripture goes down.

I have tried very hard not to argue her individual points even though I believe her to be completely wrong. I think she is entitled to her opinion albeit misinformed. I object to the use of provocative words in her rhetoric, it comes very close to breach a law here about inciting public gatherings to action, a law that I dont agree with, but that we recently deported the muslim Abu Hamsa

I believe she should have a right to say whatever rubbish she chooses to, but my right is to reply on here and wherever I want. Tomorrow I'm taking a banner to the US embassy asking that Sally Kern is escorted back to the institution she escaped from.

I hope to see you there.

I'll be the one with the hat.

Speechless (Sally Kern)

I had a really funny blog lined up about a pleural society, and I was looking for a suitable quote, when I came across Sally Kern...

And now im speechless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFxk7glmMbo

Unreal!