Musings of a free mind...

Confused 'Pro-Lifers'.

I should really stay away from myLot.  I was there again earlier when I ended up debating abortion.  Always a hot topic, huh?

This was no ordinary debate, though.  Normally you get the Pro-Lifers telling you that abortion is the most terrible sin, (these guys are usually Christian, I should add) and then you get the Pro-Choice side of the argument which, well, is self explanatory.

The strange thing about the argument this time around was that the topic of the death penalty got introduced and everything went crazy.  A vast, vast (i'll say that again, VAST) majority of the Pro-Life side of the argument were FOR the death penalty.  Does that make sense to you?  Isn't that contradictory by definition?  Yes.  Yes it is.  How can you be 'PRO' life, and in the same instance, 'PRO' death?

They argued that an aborted foetus has done nothing wrong and so deserves to live, whereas a criminal has (probably) done something horrible and thus deserves to die.  Fair point, but couldn't you also argue that the criminal is a human being who, despite their crime, has the capacity to feel, think and experience emotion.  A foetus without a central nervous system cannot experience pain and certainly cannot think and experience emotions.

If you're willing to put another feeling, thinking human being to death, regardless of who they are, you should also be willing to allow a feeling, thinking woman the right to choose how a pregnancy will affect her life.

You're missing the point...

I was browsing EntreCard earlier today, primarily to generate some advertising credits for myself, but also because it's a great way to view other blogs and see what other people are writing about.  It was during this search that I stumbled across Lime Alexander, a blog by another EntreCard user.

They had written an article yesterday complaining about a Vodafone advert on Australian TV whereby a man folds up his possessions in order for ease of transportation.  At the end of the advert he folds up his sleeping girlfriend and puts her in his pocket.

I fear that Lime Alexander may be written by yet another stern feminist lacking the area of the brain that supplies us with a sense of humour.  The author seemed genuinely upset, claiming that the advert managed to be sexist and offensive, although they did concede that Vodafone may not have intended this.  (After all, there is a small chance that the Vodafone advertising team were thinking about ADVERTISING at the time of production, rather than the need to be sexist.)  The author also says that because he folded up his girlfriend last, it implies that she was the least important of his 'possessions'.

No!  They're not being sexist.  It's called humour.  The reasons he folds up his girlfriend last is because it's a comedic device.  Y'know, you save the funny bit for the end?  It's called a punchline.

The Priority of Faith

Sarika Singh, a Sihk teenager from South Wales won her High Court fight today to overturn her suspension from school for wearing a steel bracelet, a symbol of her faith.  The school had suspended her claiming that the bracelet violated their no jewellery policy, which allowed only watches and ear studs.

I personally couldn't care less what any individual decides to wear, and I think they should be allowed to do so freely.  My concern here is that the decision to overturn her suspension was made on religious grounds.  Of course she should be allowed to wear her bracelet, but the fact that the only reason the suspension was overturned is because of faith angers me.  It's yet another case of religion getting special treatment.  Why should faith deserve more respect than any other system of belief?  It shouldn't, but it consistently receives it.

Imagine if she had argued that she needed to wear the bracelet as she was a devout supporter of the Labour party and it symbolised her faith in Gordon Brown.  (Ridiculous concept, I know.  Like anyone has faith in that guy.)  She'd have been laughed at.  But it's the same principle, so why do we so readily accept religious faith as a basis for breaking the rules?

We're never going to evolve and develop into a society of rational, thoughtful people if faith is constantly excused from rational behaviour.  Come on people, lets grow up.

He isn't God.

I ended up arguing with a Christian today.  Again.  I was commenting on a discussion on myLot so kindly titled:  "I Love GOD! i love Christians, Muslims n Jews! but i hate atheists!"  (You can instantly feel the Christian compassion.)  This time it ended up being more of a 'splitting hairs' argument, rather than an argument based around a fundamental belief.  In a nut-shell, I got annoyed at the constant references to God's apparently male gender.

I refuse to refer to God as 'Him', as all Christians seem to do (even though it's much easier to refer to it in that way) because I just don't see how gender is relevant to God.  The references to God being male are what's left over from an ancient book that was written in times when sexism was prevalent and women were considered second-class citizens.  By the reasoning of the time it was incomprehensible that God could be female.  The only other option, apparently, was male.

If God exists, isn't it far more likely that it's not gender specific?  How could an entity that has always existed have gender?  Gender is surely irrelevant.  Many Christians seem so sure that their God is male, and they continue to refer to it as so, despite the fact that it reduces God's status as a supreme being to do so.  By giving God gender you are implying (in fact, assuming) that it was created, or, that it can pro-create.  This in itself neccessitates the existence of a female God in order to justify the purpose of gender.

Not so unique now, is he?

'The Sun' defends its sister paper.

I had the misfortune of stumbling across The Sun newspaper today.  As if this wasn't bad enough I ruined my morning by actually reading some of it.  When will I ever learn my lesson?

So, The Sun has come running to defend its sister newspaper, The News of the World, over the High Court decision to award Max Mosley compensation for the violation of his privacy.  The Sun is claiming that this ruling will have a "chilling effect on free speech."  This surprised (and amused) me as the statement comes from a newspaper which promotes xenophobia and silences liberal views and opinions.  Hypocrisy?  Oh yes!

Has The Sun considered that maybe 'free speech' doesn't constitute ripping apart someone's private activities (which, I hasten to add, aren't harming any other people) and forming an accusation that basically amounts to calling that person a Nazi?

The Sun finishes by reporting that 'investigative journalism would suffer after the ruling'.  They then quote 'law expert' Mark Stephens who says:  "Mr Justice Eady has effectively said that there are no circumstances when cameras are allowed in the bedroom."  What's wrong with that?  What are The Sun supposed to be doing, reporting news or recording porn?  (Come to think of it, there'd be major improvements if they did record porn.)

For the last time:  What happens in his bedroom is between Mr Mosley and the Third Reich (JOKE), and no-one else.

The sub-headline 'THE DAY FREEDOM GOT SPANKED' was quite funny, though.  Bless 'em.

News of the Worl.....no, wait. NOT news!

Well, the verdict's in and Formula 1 top man Max Mosley has been awarded damages after the High Court ruled that the News of the World violated his privacy by publishing a story about his involvement in an orgy.

Firsty, good for him.  I'm lacking on the orgy front at the moment.

Secondly, why is this even news?  It was my understanding that news is supposed to be objective reporting of events happening in the world around us that - and correct me if I'm wrong - actually matter?  Are there really enough people out there with so little fulfillment in their lives that they're actually bothered about what Max Mosley gets up to in his spare time?

I could understand why the News of the World decided to class this as news if it had anything to do with modern fascination with celebrities, but Max Mosley simply is not a celebrity.  Rich, yes.  Famous, yes.  Celebrity appeal?  No.  Put it this way, who's going to want to look at Max Mosley orgy pictures?  Give me Jessica Alba orgy pictures and I'll pay attention.

I'm glad he won damages.  Maybe the News of the World will report on something..... wait for it........ newsworthy now?  As the late, great, Bill Hicks put it:

"What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?"

Blame the movies...

I read an article in the paper today saying that an 18 year old man from Milwaukee strangled his girlfriend after watching the film Natural Born Killers.

Clearly this is the fault of the film and has nothing at all to do with any kind of underlying mental instability the man may have.

Facebook facelift.

So, Facebook, the popular networking site, has undergone a redesign.  The makers of the site claim the improvements will make it easier to use and improve its functionality.  I'm scepticle.  You'd think they'd be happy sitting around watching their profits accumulate, but no!  Apparently it's time to mess with a system that works perfectly fine as it is.

Here's how a profile page looks now:

As you can see the main profile page now defaults to the person's wall.  The handy tabs above; 'Wall', 'Info' and 'Photos' allow you to navigate between those different aspects of the profile.

It's all very nice but I can't help feel that the whole redesign is a little bit, well, pointless.  Don't get me wrong, nothing about the new design is particularly difficult or awkward to use, but everything seems to take more effort now.  If I look at a friend's profile I want to be able to see their wall, links to their photos, their contact details and other information about them all on one page.  The old Facebook offered this.  Now you have to click between the tabs to get the information you want.

It was the little things that attracted me to Facebook; being able to see my friends' favourite quotes, music, movies and wall comments all on one page.  Now you have to go out of your way to find this information each time your friend updates it.  This quickly becomes a chore.

I fear that Facebook will lose its charm.  This could be an acceptable loss if there was improved functionality or some other useful aspect had been added but it seems to just be a redesign and, really, I can't see the point.

Yasuní. Time is running out, but can we save it?

Today I spoke to a representative of New International who brought to my attention the plight of Yasuní; an Ecuadorian province threatened by the prospect of being ruined in the name of oil.  Well, what else?  It would seem there really is nothing that the financial (and ruling) elite can't put a price on.  Not even the seemingly priceless.

Yasuní National Park is an area of the Amazon rainforest in Ecuador with outstanding biodiversity.  I was told it's biologicaly more diverse per-hectare than any other known place on Earth.  You can imagine the natural wonders to be found there and, I assume, there are natural wonders there that you simply could not imagine.

Despite this natural beauty (in every sense of the word) there are plans to drill the region for oil which would have a devastating effect on not only the wildlife, but the indigenous people of the area.  It would certainly destroy their culture.

There is hope, however.  Although, of course, hope also has a price.  The Ecuadorian government have said they are willing to preserve the area and not allow drilling, but in return for this they want to secure $350m every year for 10 years.  This, they say, is equivalent to the revenue they would receive from the oil.

So with the deadline fast approaching, how do we find that kind of money?  Normal individuals like you and I can, unfortunately, do very little in the way of financial contribution to aid this situation, however what we can do is raise awareness.  Tell your friends, tell your family.  Don't let this go unnoticed, as it will certainly be ignored by the mainstream media.  After all, why would the potential destruction of thousands of rare species make the news when we have important issues such as what's happening in the Big Brother house demanding our attention?

All we can do is make people aware and hopefully, just maybe, some of the wealthier governments and international organisations will have the heart to dig deep.

Who are New International?
New International are an independent organisation who report on many important issues regarding global justice.  Many of these issues go unnoticed in the mainstream media.  All of these issues are worthy causes.
www.newint.org