In the shanty towns of Brazil, the slums in Africa and the even in some parts of inner city America there are still rumors going round about organ harvesting.
These people believe that there are death squads of US or Japanese military that are driving round in vans, kidnapping people, stealing their organs and selling them to wealthy businessmen and women in the western world.
Personally I find this very hard to believe, but I think the rumor may be rooted in some, albeit exaggerated, truth.
The poor people in these places have a growing fear and quite rightly so, they feel that they are worth more dead than alive to the global society. they feel like less of a human being and more of a collection of spare parts for the rich.
While it is true that many of them (poor people) ‘lose’ organs when they die due to the ‘presumed consent’ law, I wonder how many of the poor actually receive organs. Especially in the shantytowns where there have been many bodies taken to the morgue and harvested of their kidneys and even corneas. Is it really surprising that these rumors are circulating? I am willing to bet that of all the organs taken from the dead in Rio’s Shantytowns, that less than one percent will go into a local transplant patient.
It literally is the poor feeding the rich, hence the title of this post, Neo-Cannibalism.
We look at organ donation as a gift of life. But something seems to be glossed over; it is also a gift of death. Somebody has to die for the recipient to live. This is morally reprehensible; you are literally waiting for somebody to die so you can have his or her organs.
The big debate at the moment is whether people should be allowed to sell their organs. I will reserve personal judgment on this because I do not think there is a correct answer. There is a quote from a woman from Brazil that sums up the zeitgeist of the shantytown population. ‘I would rather sell my body than have people take it anyway’ There is so much wrong with this and obviously there are deeper issues. She shouldn’t have to do either and the quote is reminiscent of prostitutes in societies where women are inferior.
In the US there are also some ethical issues that need to be looked at. There are three different types of living donations – Whereby the donor is alive – and these are: A direct donation to a friend or family member, A non-direct donation which just goes into the pool of organs and will probably go to people near the top of the waiting list and there is also the directed to a stranger donation.
Although there are ethical problems with the first two types, (Such as an immense pressure on the donor to give to a loved one, even if he/she doesn’t want to, or, in regards to a non-direct donation, it has to be looked at as a bit extreme. I mean, that is some radical kindness that is verging on the insane. Risking your life and health for a stranger you will never meet.) The direct donation to a stranger verges on sick. It is another classic case of rich getting one over on the poor. See, in America it is legal to advertise for an organ. People put up billboards, get on TV so people can hear their heart-wrenching tales of woe. This makes people want to donate an organ in the same, manipulative way that animal charities play somber music and show images of sad animal eyes in their adverts. Manipulating for £2 a month is one thing… But an organ?
This inevitably means that people will want to donate to the best advertiser of grief - usually rich, news-worthy people – rather than someone in greater need, such as a poor single woman with three young kids to support.
It really is no wonder that the poor feel harvested and I can understand where these, untrue, rumors have sprung. It really needs to be sorted out. I cannot put forth any suggestions because it is an ethical minefield. On the one hand, an organ market could exasperate the problem and it could make people even more paranoid, or it will allow people to sell what is theirs, Oh I don’t know. I will let you decide for yourselves.
Thursday, 15 July 2010
Tuesday, 6 July 2010
Greatness from a distance
Is there really such a thing as greatness? We marvel at our heroes all the time. During the world cup we cheer on the likes of Wayne Rooney and Lionel Messi. Even John Terry gets a few cheers. It is not just football where we have idols; people have idols that are actors, others that are scientists or psychologists. Great thinkers of the past, Nobel prize winners and even our Mothers and Fathers. What is it about these people that we idolise?
Sure they have great talents, but talent is learned. We may, in that case, be in awe of their work ethic or their perceived luck. What I can almost guarantee is that the people that are very close to them and are similar in age cannot see what all the fuss is about.
We do not know much about our idols in this age of PR companies, brand identity and kiss and tells. We only know what people want us to know or what is deemed newsworthy. Granted, the bigger star you are the more un-newsworthy things become newsworthy, anyone barring Beckham getting a haircut would not be on the front page.
Montaigne, who is fast becoming an idol of mine, best sums up this idea in his collection of essays:
‘A man may appear to the world as a marvel: yet his wife and his manservant see nothing remarkable about him. Few men have been wonders to their families’
He is basically saying that from a distance these people may seem wondourous, but ask John Terry’s wife if she sees him as a marvel I am sure she wouldn’t. Terry’s (or Gerrard’s, or even Beckham’s) wife is close enough to John Terry to see that he is not much different from other men his age. He may have an average sized penis, she will hear him on the toilet and see his nasty side once in a while.
This can also be said for beauty, something that I have touched on in a previous blog post. No matter how beautiful you think a girl is, there is somewhere, a bloke bored of fucking her. This is for the same reasons, from afar we can only see the good parts, we haven’t experienced her nagging us to do the dishes or listened to her tales of Jenny from accounts that she thinks we are interested in.
The more we get to know somebody, the less great we find him or her. This is nothing new, we have clichéd sayings like ‘Never meet your heroes, you will be disappointed’ that have stemmed from this idea.
This is where a great deal of unhappiness in our human lives stems. We know ourselves better than anyone else we know. We see others as better than us because we cannot see their true identity, only the one that they project. We should take solace in this fact and you never know, we may become a happier species.
Sure they have great talents, but talent is learned. We may, in that case, be in awe of their work ethic or their perceived luck. What I can almost guarantee is that the people that are very close to them and are similar in age cannot see what all the fuss is about.
We do not know much about our idols in this age of PR companies, brand identity and kiss and tells. We only know what people want us to know or what is deemed newsworthy. Granted, the bigger star you are the more un-newsworthy things become newsworthy, anyone barring Beckham getting a haircut would not be on the front page.
Montaigne, who is fast becoming an idol of mine, best sums up this idea in his collection of essays:
‘A man may appear to the world as a marvel: yet his wife and his manservant see nothing remarkable about him. Few men have been wonders to their families’
He is basically saying that from a distance these people may seem wondourous, but ask John Terry’s wife if she sees him as a marvel I am sure she wouldn’t. Terry’s (or Gerrard’s, or even Beckham’s) wife is close enough to John Terry to see that he is not much different from other men his age. He may have an average sized penis, she will hear him on the toilet and see his nasty side once in a while.
This can also be said for beauty, something that I have touched on in a previous blog post. No matter how beautiful you think a girl is, there is somewhere, a bloke bored of fucking her. This is for the same reasons, from afar we can only see the good parts, we haven’t experienced her nagging us to do the dishes or listened to her tales of Jenny from accounts that she thinks we are interested in.
The more we get to know somebody, the less great we find him or her. This is nothing new, we have clichéd sayings like ‘Never meet your heroes, you will be disappointed’ that have stemmed from this idea.
This is where a great deal of unhappiness in our human lives stems. We know ourselves better than anyone else we know. We see others as better than us because we cannot see their true identity, only the one that they project. We should take solace in this fact and you never know, we may become a happier species.
Thursday, 24 June 2010
Fetish
Fetishism is something I have always struggled to come to terms with. Don’t get me wrong, I understand some of them. The ones that involve sex with a person I am fine with. I can see the attraction of say, leather or mini skirts. I just cannot get my head around the inanimate object fetishes.
Fetishes stem from childhood (I would guess, and I would like to clear this up from the outset, I am not a psychologist) The reason men like breasts is because ever since we were born we rely on them for food, and without getting to Freudian about things they have always given us comfort. Some people also suggest, very reasonably, that we like them because they remind us of bums, and therefore, sex. There is an evolutionary purpose.
It makes me wonder about the bizarre, but very common, fetish of feet. The only reason I can come up with is that they are mysterious. Shoes and socks nearly always cover them. What is interesting to me is that the vast majority of people with a foot fetish are male. (97%). I think this is due to women dressing their feet up with pedicures, nail varnish, toe rings and high heels and that we are not supposed to pay attention to them in the way we do about other parts of the female body.
The brain could have another explanation. Apparently the areas that control the nerve endings in the genitals are close to the ones that control the nerve endings in ones foot.
I have to admit here, I love having my feet stroked, not in a sexual way of course but I find it very relaxing. It doesn’t turn me on in the slightest but I can see, that it maybe could turn others on.
The great thing about fetishism today is that it has become mainstream with the invention and growth of the Internet. I honestly do not know how like-minded people got together and lived out their fetish fantasies before. Nowadays you could have the most depraved, weird and unusual fetish in the world and you can guarantee there will be at least a handful of people that share your desires.
A quick search on Google, for research (wink wink) revealed some brilliant things.
Plushophilia is a fetish where you were probably around stuffed animals too much as a kid. It involves getting together and having sex with people dressed as animals (Cast of cats better be careful) while dressed as an animal yourself. This is also probably how people with consciences can get around their bestiality depravations.
Sploshing I could see this one gaining popularity a mile off. It is a pretty new fetish where you cover a woman in gunge or foodstuffs. I think that this is popular in our generation that grew up watching ‘Noels house party’ and ‘get your own back’ because all kids play with themselves (innocently of course) watching TV. It was, and still is, a comfort thing. Just look at all the rude boys nowadays, hands never out of their pants. So people will associate the gungings with the comfort they get from having the hands down the pants… Hey presto, a new fetish.
These fetishes are not hurting anyone and I like the fact that people are not alone in this anymore. Sure, most of us find their turn-ons bizarre but I would bet that in about 30 years this will be mainstream. 30 years ago blowjobs were fetishised and taboo, hookers used to charge more for a blowjob than they did for sex. The reduction in price ’10 for a hand job, 20 for a blowjob and 50 for full sex’ reflects that this is no longer seen as a depraved act.
We should be careful though, who knows what the future holds when it comes to sex. The kids today can look at what we call ‘hardcore’ freely from a very young age. And with desensitization comes a desire for more extreme pleasures.
In the future, if we are not careful, hardcore, depraved, fetish driven smut will be everyday viewing in forms of adverts. And if that is mainstream… what will be hardcore then.
Fetishes stem from childhood (I would guess, and I would like to clear this up from the outset, I am not a psychologist) The reason men like breasts is because ever since we were born we rely on them for food, and without getting to Freudian about things they have always given us comfort. Some people also suggest, very reasonably, that we like them because they remind us of bums, and therefore, sex. There is an evolutionary purpose.
It makes me wonder about the bizarre, but very common, fetish of feet. The only reason I can come up with is that they are mysterious. Shoes and socks nearly always cover them. What is interesting to me is that the vast majority of people with a foot fetish are male. (97%). I think this is due to women dressing their feet up with pedicures, nail varnish, toe rings and high heels and that we are not supposed to pay attention to them in the way we do about other parts of the female body.
The brain could have another explanation. Apparently the areas that control the nerve endings in the genitals are close to the ones that control the nerve endings in ones foot.
I have to admit here, I love having my feet stroked, not in a sexual way of course but I find it very relaxing. It doesn’t turn me on in the slightest but I can see, that it maybe could turn others on.
The great thing about fetishism today is that it has become mainstream with the invention and growth of the Internet. I honestly do not know how like-minded people got together and lived out their fetish fantasies before. Nowadays you could have the most depraved, weird and unusual fetish in the world and you can guarantee there will be at least a handful of people that share your desires.
A quick search on Google, for research (wink wink) revealed some brilliant things.
Plushophilia is a fetish where you were probably around stuffed animals too much as a kid. It involves getting together and having sex with people dressed as animals (Cast of cats better be careful) while dressed as an animal yourself. This is also probably how people with consciences can get around their bestiality depravations.
Sploshing I could see this one gaining popularity a mile off. It is a pretty new fetish where you cover a woman in gunge or foodstuffs. I think that this is popular in our generation that grew up watching ‘Noels house party’ and ‘get your own back’ because all kids play with themselves (innocently of course) watching TV. It was, and still is, a comfort thing. Just look at all the rude boys nowadays, hands never out of their pants. So people will associate the gungings with the comfort they get from having the hands down the pants… Hey presto, a new fetish.
These fetishes are not hurting anyone and I like the fact that people are not alone in this anymore. Sure, most of us find their turn-ons bizarre but I would bet that in about 30 years this will be mainstream. 30 years ago blowjobs were fetishised and taboo, hookers used to charge more for a blowjob than they did for sex. The reduction in price ’10 for a hand job, 20 for a blowjob and 50 for full sex’ reflects that this is no longer seen as a depraved act.
We should be careful though, who knows what the future holds when it comes to sex. The kids today can look at what we call ‘hardcore’ freely from a very young age. And with desensitization comes a desire for more extreme pleasures.
In the future, if we are not careful, hardcore, depraved, fetish driven smut will be everyday viewing in forms of adverts. And if that is mainstream… what will be hardcore then.
Monday, 7 June 2010
‘Filthy water cannot be washed.’ WEST AFRICAN PROVERB
Filthy water cannot be washed. This has reigned true for so long. The people of Africa still use this proverb today. They walk many miles a day to collect water for their families, the sadder part is, is that this water is not even clean and it could be killing children.
This is not (intended to be) an earnest piece asking you to think about what you have and to feel bad about it. Nor is it a heart-felt plea for you to send money to African water charities, it is mainly to highlight the huge divide between us, here in England and those suffering in Africa.
I was watching BBC news today and it was harping on about a new salt water desalination plant in London to clean up water from the Thames and the ocean that feeds it. It can basically turn salt water into drinking water by using a modification of the age-old filtering system. It pushes the water through many holes, about a nanometer (One billionth of a meter) in diameter. These smalls are too small for salt molecules to pass through and you end up with nearly pure water that is suitable for drinking. The plant will be run by using renewable biofuels such as cooking oil and waste fat to reduce CO2 omissions. All pretty good to be honest. But I have a better idea.
Instead of building the plant in London at a cost of 270million (To put that in perspective that is over 3 Cristiano Ronaldos and a Berbatov) why not build it in Africa near a place without nearly as much clean water as it needs. Hell, why not build 10 of them over there?
In 2008/9, household consumption in London amounts to 1,217 million litres per day or 71% of total consumption. A further 492 million litres per day (29%) is non-household consumption (commercial and industrial water use). However, consumption itself amounts to about 74% of the total ‘demand’, with 26% leakage.
This is shameful, 140 Million litres of water this water plant in London will pump out a day, and here is an idea… Why not fix the leaks with some duct tape? This will save at least 400 million litres of water PER DAY and we can spend the saved money by building the plant where it is needed. I really cannot get over this plant. It promotes wastage of our most vital resource. It was Benjamin Franklin that said ‘When the well is dry, we will know the worth of water’. Let me clear this up. I am not saying that we wasting water will not directly affect people dying of thirst in Africa. It is not like we can ship our wastage over there. What I am saying is that using the money we can save by not building this unnecessary plant and just fixing the leaks we could do a great thing and build the plant where it is needed. We will not be out of pocket and we will be saving lives.
I have a final point to make. In the UK, the average water usage is a whopping 161 litres per person per day. Contrast this to the USA’s usage of 550 litres per person per day (source linked here, go on, click on it, I am not making this up) and you may think we are pretty good at this water conservation lark. However, cantrast this with Haiti (20 Litres per person per day) or Mozambique (5 litres per person per day) and we have a problem.
Martin Baggs (Chief executive of Thames water) said
"That's why we're tapping into the new and limitless resource of the tidal Thames, fed by the rolling oceans beyond, so we can ensure our 8.5 million customers have enough water in future in the event of a drought."
Your 8.5 Million customers can do without hosepipes, Your 8.5 million customers can do without a bath every-night and make do with a shower. Your 8.5 Million customers could click here and buy a water flush saver. (A little water bag you put in the water tank of your toilet. It saves three litres of water per flush. It is a start, but every little helps.)
Again, I am not saying that the water you save will help thirsty people in the third world directly. But it could take away Mr. Baggs crutch when he says things like- ‘Our existing resources - from non-tidal rivers and groundwater - simply aren't enough to match predicted demand in London.’ Let us make them enough.
This is not (intended to be) an earnest piece asking you to think about what you have and to feel bad about it. Nor is it a heart-felt plea for you to send money to African water charities, it is mainly to highlight the huge divide between us, here in England and those suffering in Africa.
I was watching BBC news today and it was harping on about a new salt water desalination plant in London to clean up water from the Thames and the ocean that feeds it. It can basically turn salt water into drinking water by using a modification of the age-old filtering system. It pushes the water through many holes, about a nanometer (One billionth of a meter) in diameter. These smalls are too small for salt molecules to pass through and you end up with nearly pure water that is suitable for drinking. The plant will be run by using renewable biofuels such as cooking oil and waste fat to reduce CO2 omissions. All pretty good to be honest. But I have a better idea.
Instead of building the plant in London at a cost of 270million (To put that in perspective that is over 3 Cristiano Ronaldos and a Berbatov) why not build it in Africa near a place without nearly as much clean water as it needs. Hell, why not build 10 of them over there?
In 2008/9, household consumption in London amounts to 1,217 million litres per day or 71% of total consumption. A further 492 million litres per day (29%) is non-household consumption (commercial and industrial water use). However, consumption itself amounts to about 74% of the total ‘demand’, with 26% leakage.
This is shameful, 140 Million litres of water this water plant in London will pump out a day, and here is an idea… Why not fix the leaks with some duct tape? This will save at least 400 million litres of water PER DAY and we can spend the saved money by building the plant where it is needed. I really cannot get over this plant. It promotes wastage of our most vital resource. It was Benjamin Franklin that said ‘When the well is dry, we will know the worth of water’. Let me clear this up. I am not saying that we wasting water will not directly affect people dying of thirst in Africa. It is not like we can ship our wastage over there. What I am saying is that using the money we can save by not building this unnecessary plant and just fixing the leaks we could do a great thing and build the plant where it is needed. We will not be out of pocket and we will be saving lives.
I have a final point to make. In the UK, the average water usage is a whopping 161 litres per person per day. Contrast this to the USA’s usage of 550 litres per person per day (source linked here, go on, click on it, I am not making this up) and you may think we are pretty good at this water conservation lark. However, cantrast this with Haiti (20 Litres per person per day) or Mozambique (5 litres per person per day) and we have a problem.
Martin Baggs (Chief executive of Thames water) said
"That's why we're tapping into the new and limitless resource of the tidal Thames, fed by the rolling oceans beyond, so we can ensure our 8.5 million customers have enough water in future in the event of a drought."
Your 8.5 Million customers can do without hosepipes, Your 8.5 million customers can do without a bath every-night and make do with a shower. Your 8.5 Million customers could click here and buy a water flush saver. (A little water bag you put in the water tank of your toilet. It saves three litres of water per flush. It is a start, but every little helps.)
Again, I am not saying that the water you save will help thirsty people in the third world directly. But it could take away Mr. Baggs crutch when he says things like- ‘Our existing resources - from non-tidal rivers and groundwater - simply aren't enough to match predicted demand in London.’ Let us make them enough.
Tuesday, 25 May 2010
Vampires, Homosexuals, Race issues and a new found tolerance we should all be happy about.
It is common in any academics university education that the subject of vampires and a contextual public fear of contamination will come up at some point. For me, it was, naturally, studying Bram Stokers Dracula although from speaking to people it has also come up in psychology (Psychoanalysis) literature and media studies.
We all listened to earnest lecturers harp on about how humankind’s fascination with vampires is always highest at a time of a public fear. They will talk about the fear of black people mixing with white people at the time of Dracula’s publication. They will then back this up with films such as ‘the lost boys’ in the 80s gaining popularity when fear of AIDs was at its peak. A few of them, I am not sure as I am no longer at university, will no doubt be talking about how the current vamp culture is coinciding with illegal immigration fears or even, at a push, the fear of computer viruses infecting our home computers.
I think there may be more to it than this. I think if we look at the likes of True Blood and Twilight we may get a prettier picture of our collective attitudes to difference.
Vampires in the past have always been lustful, aggressive, exotic and dangerous. Incapable of feeling romantic love. This was always seen as a metaphor for how black slaves were seen and represented after the abolishment of the slave trade. I think it would be a correct analysis of the times. People were certainly worried about being contaminated or raped or beat up by black men, who were seen by the whites as lustful, aggressive and dangerous. (Of course this is not true, but at the time it was accepted as gospel)
I want to look at the Twilight series especially in relation to this. Edward is not your typical historical vampire. He can feel romantic love and he protects Bella from all sorts of danger. This is the kind of boy meets girl story that people are accepting in the deigesis of the film and also in the real world (we can tell this by its almost cult like popularity among the younger generation) I think that this may mean, finally, we are getting over our fears of skin deep racial difference and are generally starting to not only tolerate mixed race couples, but celebrate them. Of course some of the people in the world of twilight object to Bella and Edward being together (Interestingly from the vampire side) but they are seen as obstacles that the viewers and the protagonists want to overcome. It is a universally accepted ‘happy ending’ when they are together at the end.
More recently (when fear of AIDs was at its height) vampires have been seen as a metaphor for fear of homosexuals. The whole blood infection thing and the misguided assumptions that all gay men just want to have debauched, casual sex with as many partners as possible, and again, not being able to feel true love, only aggressive lust makes the analogy to vampires easy. Of course, this has changed, and with it, so have our vampires.
True Blood’s stratospheric popularity is testament to how the majority of the population now feels about homosexuality. It is no coincidence that True Blood was made shortly after gay marriage was made legal. True Bloods vampires, for those who haven’t had the pleasure of viewing, have made themselves known to humans and want equal rights. The metaphor deepens when, in the title credits we see how some people in the true blood parallel universe feel. We see signs from religious groups stating ‘God hates fangs’ only a one letter difference to real signs recently seen in America ‘God hates fags’. It is said over and over again in episode one that the vampires are ‘coming out’ of their coffins. My intellect cannot take this analogy much further but there has to be something in the whole popularity of true blood that we are now, on the whole, accepting of homosexuals. The fact that it was written by a gay man should really drive home this point, and further investigation into the show is warranted.
Vampire Bill is, like Edward, in love with Sookie and protects her. He feels love. He is a hero. The viewers love him. In conclusion I have to say that the whole scope of vampire literature has, thankfully, moved with the times. The vamps are no longer the feared, they are the loved. And that makes me optimistic about the world we live in.
We all listened to earnest lecturers harp on about how humankind’s fascination with vampires is always highest at a time of a public fear. They will talk about the fear of black people mixing with white people at the time of Dracula’s publication. They will then back this up with films such as ‘the lost boys’ in the 80s gaining popularity when fear of AIDs was at its peak. A few of them, I am not sure as I am no longer at university, will no doubt be talking about how the current vamp culture is coinciding with illegal immigration fears or even, at a push, the fear of computer viruses infecting our home computers.
I think there may be more to it than this. I think if we look at the likes of True Blood and Twilight we may get a prettier picture of our collective attitudes to difference.
Vampires in the past have always been lustful, aggressive, exotic and dangerous. Incapable of feeling romantic love. This was always seen as a metaphor for how black slaves were seen and represented after the abolishment of the slave trade. I think it would be a correct analysis of the times. People were certainly worried about being contaminated or raped or beat up by black men, who were seen by the whites as lustful, aggressive and dangerous. (Of course this is not true, but at the time it was accepted as gospel)
I want to look at the Twilight series especially in relation to this. Edward is not your typical historical vampire. He can feel romantic love and he protects Bella from all sorts of danger. This is the kind of boy meets girl story that people are accepting in the deigesis of the film and also in the real world (we can tell this by its almost cult like popularity among the younger generation) I think that this may mean, finally, we are getting over our fears of skin deep racial difference and are generally starting to not only tolerate mixed race couples, but celebrate them. Of course some of the people in the world of twilight object to Bella and Edward being together (Interestingly from the vampire side) but they are seen as obstacles that the viewers and the protagonists want to overcome. It is a universally accepted ‘happy ending’ when they are together at the end.
More recently (when fear of AIDs was at its height) vampires have been seen as a metaphor for fear of homosexuals. The whole blood infection thing and the misguided assumptions that all gay men just want to have debauched, casual sex with as many partners as possible, and again, not being able to feel true love, only aggressive lust makes the analogy to vampires easy. Of course, this has changed, and with it, so have our vampires.
True Blood’s stratospheric popularity is testament to how the majority of the population now feels about homosexuality. It is no coincidence that True Blood was made shortly after gay marriage was made legal. True Bloods vampires, for those who haven’t had the pleasure of viewing, have made themselves known to humans and want equal rights. The metaphor deepens when, in the title credits we see how some people in the true blood parallel universe feel. We see signs from religious groups stating ‘God hates fangs’ only a one letter difference to real signs recently seen in America ‘God hates fags’. It is said over and over again in episode one that the vampires are ‘coming out’ of their coffins. My intellect cannot take this analogy much further but there has to be something in the whole popularity of true blood that we are now, on the whole, accepting of homosexuals. The fact that it was written by a gay man should really drive home this point, and further investigation into the show is warranted.
Vampire Bill is, like Edward, in love with Sookie and protects her. He feels love. He is a hero. The viewers love him. In conclusion I have to say that the whole scope of vampire literature has, thankfully, moved with the times. The vamps are no longer the feared, they are the loved. And that makes me optimistic about the world we live in.
Wednesday, 12 May 2010
Mehdi Hasan, in the New Statesman, is very unimpressed with our new coalition. He calls the PM and his deputy "TweedleCam and TweedleClegg", and accuses the Lib Dems of "surrender". He claims Mr Clegg "has betrayed progressives across the length and breadth of Britain" and "betrayed the longer-term strategic interests of his party, for crude and short-term tactical gains".
Mehdi Hasan should get of his high horse. This is exactly the kind of cynicism and back-stabbing that this country doesn’t need. Frankly, from a top journalist at the
Statesman, a publication that influences a lot of people, it is very irresponsible.
It sounds bitter more than anything, and while many people will feel short changed. WE have to look at the good that these two men will do us.
Nick Clegg has done brilliantly. He will be able to do much of what he said he would do if he were in power. One of the reasons I was passionate about the Tories not getting into office was the inheritance tax. Which meant an extra £200,000 for the 3000 richest families in the country at the expense of the working majority. Clegg has stopped this with his deal. On the flip side, Clegg’s proposed ‘Mansion tax’ has also been abandoned as part of the compromise which, to be fair, is one that makes everyone happy.
While I admit, I can be bitter about certain things in this blog. But where my readership is in the 10s of people, the Statesman’s readership is in the 1000s.
Although it is pretty funny calling Cameron and Clegg TweedleCam and TweedleClegg it would have been more at home and less damaging if it were to be in a satirical cartoon.
Another great thing about this Con-Lib alliance is that Clegg has had to give up his bizarre ‘Trident’ policy, however Cameron has agreed to attempt to make the defense less ‘money hemorrhaging’
He will however get a referendum on the democratic process to make the whole system fairer.
All this when he only managed 57 seats. It is a masterstroke. I really hope it works. Clegg has become almost Obama-like during the last month. He insists on being listened too and he gets it, he makes people feel they are getting a good deal even though it is him that is getting his way. I can guarantee that it is not just Cameron that will want a picture opportunity with him
Anyone that is upset, or that agrees with Hasan’s jibe of Clegg ‘betrayed the longer-term strategic interests of his party, for crude and short-term tactical gain’ should look at how much Clegg has single-handedly changed the whole landscape of conservative policies. While Clegg has gained power from his deal I think, and I say this without hindsight and I very much could be wrong, I think he is a stand up guy that has the interests of the country at heart.
Clegg hasn’t surrendered Mehdi, it was this (which is a lot) or absolutely nothing. We do not have the conservatives in power. We should all be happy. Failing that, we should at least be optimistic.
Having said that, I still wish that it was Brown in power as he had proven it was for the country and not him. His farewell speech was emotional and dignified. He is a family man and the best man for the job and I am very sorry to see him go. But this is what we voted for. Let’s just hope it works and we end up like Germany, who have an allied government and have the strongest economy in Europe. And not end up like Greece.
*This is my opinion only and I have never studied politics, so take this with a huge pinch of salt.
Statesman, a publication that influences a lot of people, it is very irresponsible.
It sounds bitter more than anything, and while many people will feel short changed. WE have to look at the good that these two men will do us.
Nick Clegg has done brilliantly. He will be able to do much of what he said he would do if he were in power. One of the reasons I was passionate about the Tories not getting into office was the inheritance tax. Which meant an extra £200,000 for the 3000 richest families in the country at the expense of the working majority. Clegg has stopped this with his deal. On the flip side, Clegg’s proposed ‘Mansion tax’ has also been abandoned as part of the compromise which, to be fair, is one that makes everyone happy.
While I admit, I can be bitter about certain things in this blog. But where my readership is in the 10s of people, the Statesman’s readership is in the 1000s.
Although it is pretty funny calling Cameron and Clegg TweedleCam and TweedleClegg it would have been more at home and less damaging if it were to be in a satirical cartoon.
Another great thing about this Con-Lib alliance is that Clegg has had to give up his bizarre ‘Trident’ policy, however Cameron has agreed to attempt to make the defense less ‘money hemorrhaging’
He will however get a referendum on the democratic process to make the whole system fairer.
All this when he only managed 57 seats. It is a masterstroke. I really hope it works. Clegg has become almost Obama-like during the last month. He insists on being listened too and he gets it, he makes people feel they are getting a good deal even though it is him that is getting his way. I can guarantee that it is not just Cameron that will want a picture opportunity with him
Anyone that is upset, or that agrees with Hasan’s jibe of Clegg ‘betrayed the longer-term strategic interests of his party, for crude and short-term tactical gain’ should look at how much Clegg has single-handedly changed the whole landscape of conservative policies. While Clegg has gained power from his deal I think, and I say this without hindsight and I very much could be wrong, I think he is a stand up guy that has the interests of the country at heart.
Clegg hasn’t surrendered Mehdi, it was this (which is a lot) or absolutely nothing. We do not have the conservatives in power. We should all be happy. Failing that, we should at least be optimistic.
Having said that, I still wish that it was Brown in power as he had proven it was for the country and not him. His farewell speech was emotional and dignified. He is a family man and the best man for the job and I am very sorry to see him go. But this is what we voted for. Let’s just hope it works and we end up like Germany, who have an allied government and have the strongest economy in Europe. And not end up like Greece.
*This is my opinion only and I have never studied politics, so take this with a huge pinch of salt.
Monday, 10 May 2010
Why I am giving up smoking
I am a hypocrite in more ways than one. This is why I am giving up smoking from tomorrow (for the third time). You will have to ignore this self-indulgent post but I feel it needs to be written.
There are many good reasons to give up smoking. Cleaner breath, clothes that smell of washing powder and meadows instead of stale smoke, teeth without stains, a heavier wallet and better health. Not to mention stronger and harder erections. All these, on their own, are good enough to warrant a smoke free life.
Something dawned on me today though and it was the final nail in the coffin for my smoking days. Smoking makes me an irrational person and there is nothing I hate more than irrationality and a lack of common sense.
It is a classic case of short-term fix at the expense of long-term health. At least with other vices there are upsides. With cocaine you get a feeling of happiness and a sense of wellbeing, albeit only for the duration of the night but that is something. With alcohol it at least helps with social lubrication. With gambling it can be enjoyed as a leisure activity and you get the occasional win. Hell, even with prostitutes you at least get an hour of fun. With smoking there is absolutely no upswing but it has more drawbacks than any of the others.
I get slightly annoyed when people say they are religious as it flies in the face of common sense, I get even more annoyed with people preaching the values of homeopathy and alternative medicines. I can’t bear it when people insist on supernatural happenings. The reason I get on my high horse about these things is purely based on evidence. You can, on these matters, say that your opinion carries more weight than believers of such fallacies as it is backed up by evidence. It wouldn’t take much for me to believe in God, ghosts or psychics. Hard proof and evidence is all I would require. Alternative medicine would be simply medicine if it was proven to work.
‘Smoking is bad for you’ has a massive amount of evidence but I choose to ignore it. I have no excuse, which makes me as bad as anyone who believes a horoscope, or holocaust deniers.
I don’t want cancer more than I want a cigarette. It should be easy to give up on the single fact that smoking causes cancer.
They say the best way to give up is by telling everyone you have quit. So this is me telling you. If I ever smoke again I will also apologise for every rant I have made about other peoples irrational views on God, astronomy, ghosts, psychics, acupuncturists (although the evidence is getting stronger on the practise of acupuncture*) and any other examples of bad science and bad thinking I have picked you up on. Because, if I ever smoke again, I will be just as bad as you.
*While there is a growing case for acupuncture as being better than a placebo it is still a load of rubbish about aura and balance of chi energy in the body. Tests showed that while inserting needles into the body slightly affects nerve endings and can relieve pain, it doesn’t matter where you put the needles as There is no such thing as Chi energy or meridians
** It certainly doesn’t help with child birth though, apart from a placebo effect.
There are many good reasons to give up smoking. Cleaner breath, clothes that smell of washing powder and meadows instead of stale smoke, teeth without stains, a heavier wallet and better health. Not to mention stronger and harder erections. All these, on their own, are good enough to warrant a smoke free life.
Something dawned on me today though and it was the final nail in the coffin for my smoking days. Smoking makes me an irrational person and there is nothing I hate more than irrationality and a lack of common sense.
It is a classic case of short-term fix at the expense of long-term health. At least with other vices there are upsides. With cocaine you get a feeling of happiness and a sense of wellbeing, albeit only for the duration of the night but that is something. With alcohol it at least helps with social lubrication. With gambling it can be enjoyed as a leisure activity and you get the occasional win. Hell, even with prostitutes you at least get an hour of fun. With smoking there is absolutely no upswing but it has more drawbacks than any of the others.
I get slightly annoyed when people say they are religious as it flies in the face of common sense, I get even more annoyed with people preaching the values of homeopathy and alternative medicines. I can’t bear it when people insist on supernatural happenings. The reason I get on my high horse about these things is purely based on evidence. You can, on these matters, say that your opinion carries more weight than believers of such fallacies as it is backed up by evidence. It wouldn’t take much for me to believe in God, ghosts or psychics. Hard proof and evidence is all I would require. Alternative medicine would be simply medicine if it was proven to work.
‘Smoking is bad for you’ has a massive amount of evidence but I choose to ignore it. I have no excuse, which makes me as bad as anyone who believes a horoscope, or holocaust deniers.
I don’t want cancer more than I want a cigarette. It should be easy to give up on the single fact that smoking causes cancer.
They say the best way to give up is by telling everyone you have quit. So this is me telling you. If I ever smoke again I will also apologise for every rant I have made about other peoples irrational views on God, astronomy, ghosts, psychics, acupuncturists (although the evidence is getting stronger on the practise of acupuncture*) and any other examples of bad science and bad thinking I have picked you up on. Because, if I ever smoke again, I will be just as bad as you.
*While there is a growing case for acupuncture as being better than a placebo it is still a load of rubbish about aura and balance of chi energy in the body. Tests showed that while inserting needles into the body slightly affects nerve endings and can relieve pain, it doesn’t matter where you put the needles as There is no such thing as Chi energy or meridians
** It certainly doesn’t help with child birth though, apart from a placebo effect.
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
Oh No Mr. Brown
As you have all probably heard, Gordon Brown was in Rochdale today and he met a lady named Gillian Duffy. Mrs Duffy seemed a nice enough person, the archetypal northern old dear. After speaking with Brown, well, dictating to him for four minutes Mr. Brown made his excuses and left. Unfortunately for him his microphone was still switched on and Sky news heard the whole thing. As the car pulled away we could hear our prime minister saying to his aids that ‘that was a disaster’ when questioned further he referred to the lady as a ‘bigoted woman’. Sky news went into overdrive for the following hour, and it is probably still going on, they replayed the clip over and over again.
I feel sorry for Gordon as it was a mistake that he could not have gotten away with. It was at an unguarded moment when he thought he was safe in his car, away from the prying eyes and ears of the press. How many of us have said something like that about someone we have just met? All of us I would guess.
Sky news should have turned off the feed from Browns microphone as soon as the interview was over. If it was Cameron they probably would have, but as objective as sky news claim to be, they are still owned by a certain Australian millionaire media monopoliser who supports the Tories.
It will be very interesting to see the front pages of the tabloids tomorrow. The sun will go for something like ‘Brown in Bigot blunder’ and then dedicate the first 5 pages to the relative ‘non-story’. The Labour supporting Mirror will probably focus on his apology to the lady and get a picture of the two of them smiling for the cameras.
I have listened to the interview that Brown gave to Duffy and I have to say, she didn’t really seem bigoted and none of her comments could be deemed as bigotry but she did appear have the fear, that a lot of old people have, against the notion of ‘the other’.
What needs to be focused on is what Brown said to her in response. He also said it in the televised debates. That over a million Europeans have arrived in this country in the last couple of years, but over a million Brits have also left to go and live in Europe.
During the three campaigns we seem to have gotten too hung up on the personality of the candidates. On the gaffs and their wives. The election is, by definition, a popularity contest. But the popularity should be based on policies. Not on isolated incidents such as this one today.
I feel sorry for Gordon as it was a mistake that he could not have gotten away with. It was at an unguarded moment when he thought he was safe in his car, away from the prying eyes and ears of the press. How many of us have said something like that about someone we have just met? All of us I would guess.
Sky news should have turned off the feed from Browns microphone as soon as the interview was over. If it was Cameron they probably would have, but as objective as sky news claim to be, they are still owned by a certain Australian millionaire media monopoliser who supports the Tories.
It will be very interesting to see the front pages of the tabloids tomorrow. The sun will go for something like ‘Brown in Bigot blunder’ and then dedicate the first 5 pages to the relative ‘non-story’. The Labour supporting Mirror will probably focus on his apology to the lady and get a picture of the two of them smiling for the cameras.
I have listened to the interview that Brown gave to Duffy and I have to say, she didn’t really seem bigoted and none of her comments could be deemed as bigotry but she did appear have the fear, that a lot of old people have, against the notion of ‘the other’.
What needs to be focused on is what Brown said to her in response. He also said it in the televised debates. That over a million Europeans have arrived in this country in the last couple of years, but over a million Brits have also left to go and live in Europe.
During the three campaigns we seem to have gotten too hung up on the personality of the candidates. On the gaffs and their wives. The election is, by definition, a popularity contest. But the popularity should be based on policies. Not on isolated incidents such as this one today.
Saturday, 24 April 2010
Mr Benedict, A word!
Dear Pope Benedict XVI,
I would like to get a few things off my chest, as you are in charge of the Catholic Church until you die I have a couple of pointers for you. Maybe if you take my advice you may stop offending you followers. I want to talk to you about the outrageous cover-ups your priests and bishops have been up to regarding child abuse but I firstly want to speak about your visit to Africa last year.
Africa is fast becoming home to the biggest number of people who follow the Catholic faith, so it is no wonder that you visit a couple of the countries there. When you go and preach to a country you should be much more responsible in your choice of words. Africa, as you know, is troubled by the spread of HIV and something needs to be done about it. You have a duty of care to these people that look up to you to be their Gods representative on earth. Your words are taken without question and you have such a power over these people. It was Peter Parker's father that told him ‘with great power comes great responsibility’. I think you should take this advice.
Telling the people of Africa that HIV is ‘"a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems."
Aggravates the problem ay? Condoms, when they work block the virus spreading. It is a fact, the virus cannot penetrate the latex and while they may sometimes go wrong, the World Heath Organization say that ‘correct usage reduces the risk of infection by 90%’ It may be a sin to use contraception in your view but I have to ask what is more important, a cherry picked quote from the bible or the lives of millions of people. It seems you, Mr. Benedict, have chosen to promote Catholic Doctrine over looking after the heath of your relatively new followers. So I have to ask why? Is it because Catholicism is on the fall in most of the developed world and you want to keep your faith, and with it your power, alive. Or is it because you want donations from your massive congregation to keep you living in the Vatican? While we are on the subject of where you live, what right do you have to live in such a palace when your followers are starving? I am sure Jesus himself would be outraged at the disparity. Jesus was a man of the people, he lived among his disciples, when they were hungry, he was hungry. You would not catch him living it up while his followers suffered in poverty.
You desperately need to change what you said in Cameroon in March 2009 because it just may make things better. This is a continent where the fear of Aids is so rife that some Africans believe that having sex with a virgin exorcises the HIV virus from your body. This still leads to young girls being raped by HIV positive men. Guess what happens then. So come on man, step up and wield your power in a responsible way. Save lives, do not destroy them.
Which brings me to another point I would like to make. In 2001 when you were a cardinal, you sent out a memo to all priests to put the interests of the church before the safety of children.
‘The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.’
Times Online Article
This is ridiculous, and so so cruel. These children have been brought up and indoctrinated to believe that priests are men of God. That priests are free of sin. So when something this awful happens the child will believe it is they that are the sinners. On top of this is the physical and mental scaring of any kind of sexual abuse. It should be reported, and not reported through the church hierarchy, but to child protection services and the police.
Child abuse should not be treated as a sin. I think this is where your problem lies Mr. Benedict, if you keep calling it a sin, it conveys that you can be forgiven for it, saying a couple of hail Marys and a paid suspension or transfer to another parish (without having to tell the new parish why you were transferred by the way) is not a punishment.
Mr. Benedict. Stop calling child abuse a sin. It is a Crime.
I would like to get a few things off my chest, as you are in charge of the Catholic Church until you die I have a couple of pointers for you. Maybe if you take my advice you may stop offending you followers. I want to talk to you about the outrageous cover-ups your priests and bishops have been up to regarding child abuse but I firstly want to speak about your visit to Africa last year.
Africa is fast becoming home to the biggest number of people who follow the Catholic faith, so it is no wonder that you visit a couple of the countries there. When you go and preach to a country you should be much more responsible in your choice of words. Africa, as you know, is troubled by the spread of HIV and something needs to be done about it. You have a duty of care to these people that look up to you to be their Gods representative on earth. Your words are taken without question and you have such a power over these people. It was Peter Parker's father that told him ‘with great power comes great responsibility’. I think you should take this advice.
Telling the people of Africa that HIV is ‘"a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems."
Aggravates the problem ay? Condoms, when they work block the virus spreading. It is a fact, the virus cannot penetrate the latex and while they may sometimes go wrong, the World Heath Organization say that ‘correct usage reduces the risk of infection by 90%’ It may be a sin to use contraception in your view but I have to ask what is more important, a cherry picked quote from the bible or the lives of millions of people. It seems you, Mr. Benedict, have chosen to promote Catholic Doctrine over looking after the heath of your relatively new followers. So I have to ask why? Is it because Catholicism is on the fall in most of the developed world and you want to keep your faith, and with it your power, alive. Or is it because you want donations from your massive congregation to keep you living in the Vatican? While we are on the subject of where you live, what right do you have to live in such a palace when your followers are starving? I am sure Jesus himself would be outraged at the disparity. Jesus was a man of the people, he lived among his disciples, when they were hungry, he was hungry. You would not catch him living it up while his followers suffered in poverty.
You desperately need to change what you said in Cameroon in March 2009 because it just may make things better. This is a continent where the fear of Aids is so rife that some Africans believe that having sex with a virgin exorcises the HIV virus from your body. This still leads to young girls being raped by HIV positive men. Guess what happens then. So come on man, step up and wield your power in a responsible way. Save lives, do not destroy them.
Which brings me to another point I would like to make. In 2001 when you were a cardinal, you sent out a memo to all priests to put the interests of the church before the safety of children.
‘The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.’
Times Online Article
This is ridiculous, and so so cruel. These children have been brought up and indoctrinated to believe that priests are men of God. That priests are free of sin. So when something this awful happens the child will believe it is they that are the sinners. On top of this is the physical and mental scaring of any kind of sexual abuse. It should be reported, and not reported through the church hierarchy, but to child protection services and the police.
Child abuse should not be treated as a sin. I think this is where your problem lies Mr. Benedict, if you keep calling it a sin, it conveys that you can be forgiven for it, saying a couple of hail Marys and a paid suspension or transfer to another parish (without having to tell the new parish why you were transferred by the way) is not a punishment.
Mr. Benedict. Stop calling child abuse a sin. It is a Crime.
Thursday, 22 April 2010
A vote for novelty is best left to Cowell inc.
At first I thought that ‘Cleggmania’ was pretty endearing and it made the election temporarily exciting but I am getting increasingly concerned with his meteoric rise in the polls.
It seems that Britain has become obsessed with novelty in the last couple of years. Look at how well John and Edward did in the X-factor or how long John Sargent remained in Celebrity come dancing (or whatever it was called). It seems we enjoy the novelty act so much that Cowell is planning to add a fifth novelty category to the show next year. And Cowell knows his stuff.
What worries me is that unlike Jedward we cannot vote with our feet if Clegg and the Lib Dems get into power. If we vote them in we will be stuck with our most inexperienced government in 65 years, for a whole term.
I recently received a number of invites to a facebook group to get the Liberals into power. This in itself is fine and normally I would not bat an eyelid. However, this group has been created by the same people who got ‘Rage against the Machine’ to the 2009 Christmas number one.
The Rage group had over a million members that were all fanatically obsessed with getting RATM to number one. They had a great bonding experience and when they succeeded they all felt an almost religious sense of belonging. People were talking about it everywhere and it felt great to be a part of the ‘revolution against consumerism’. This is all fine when we are talking about our Christmas number one. The repercussions were felt only by Joe McEldrey and Simon Cowell. For a few days. Joe was Number one the week after anyway.
However, if Lib Dems get into power it will affect us all for at least four years. Something we should not take lightly.
The worry comes from the fact that the people in this group have become sheep. They want to replicate the feeling they experienced by making a difference last time. They want to repeat their success. They are addicted to the group mentality. Most people, obviously not all, in the group will jump on this bandwagon and vote Lib Dems without reading a shred of the policies they are voting for, just because they want to re-live their previous successes. It goes against common sense.
Like I have said before; vote for who you think will benefit yourself, your family and your community most. If that happens to be Lib Dems, vote for them. Do not vote for Clegg just because you bought a RATM single last December.
It seems that Britain has become obsessed with novelty in the last couple of years. Look at how well John and Edward did in the X-factor or how long John Sargent remained in Celebrity come dancing (or whatever it was called). It seems we enjoy the novelty act so much that Cowell is planning to add a fifth novelty category to the show next year. And Cowell knows his stuff.
What worries me is that unlike Jedward we cannot vote with our feet if Clegg and the Lib Dems get into power. If we vote them in we will be stuck with our most inexperienced government in 65 years, for a whole term.
I recently received a number of invites to a facebook group to get the Liberals into power. This in itself is fine and normally I would not bat an eyelid. However, this group has been created by the same people who got ‘Rage against the Machine’ to the 2009 Christmas number one.
The Rage group had over a million members that were all fanatically obsessed with getting RATM to number one. They had a great bonding experience and when they succeeded they all felt an almost religious sense of belonging. People were talking about it everywhere and it felt great to be a part of the ‘revolution against consumerism’. This is all fine when we are talking about our Christmas number one. The repercussions were felt only by Joe McEldrey and Simon Cowell. For a few days. Joe was Number one the week after anyway.
However, if Lib Dems get into power it will affect us all for at least four years. Something we should not take lightly.
The worry comes from the fact that the people in this group have become sheep. They want to replicate the feeling they experienced by making a difference last time. They want to repeat their success. They are addicted to the group mentality. Most people, obviously not all, in the group will jump on this bandwagon and vote Lib Dems without reading a shred of the policies they are voting for, just because they want to re-live their previous successes. It goes against common sense.
Like I have said before; vote for who you think will benefit yourself, your family and your community most. If that happens to be Lib Dems, vote for them. Do not vote for Clegg just because you bought a RATM single last December.
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
Mind your language
I have always wondered about language, It is a fascinating subject overall but my favourite part has to be the swearwords. Who exactly judges what constitutes a swearword and who ranks the severity of them?
Let me start at the top. The king of swearwords, the ultimate profanity, the word ‘Cunt’. What, semantically, is so bad about it? It is literally four letters in a certain order that describes the female genitalia. It has no extra denotative value than the word pussy or twat or vagina but is seen as more offensive. It must be the connotations but it puzzles me where these connotations come from. In America it is the worst thing you can call a woman and in Britain it seems to be aimed, rather impolitely at men.
Making love and fucking denote exactly the same thing but in our minds making love is much more sensual and, well, loving than fucking. Which conjures up images of reverse cowgirl and dirty talk. It is the same with other, non vulgar words. Would you rather be slim or scrawny? Confident or Cock-sure? Opinionated or Argumentative? I must add here that fuck is a much more taboo word than rape, why is this when rape is obviously more taboo than rough consensual sex. It is a puzzling thought.
I have often pondered why pretty much all swearwords in the English language have something to do with bodily fluids or sex. ‘Piss, Shit, Arse, Bloody, Fuck, Cocksucker, Prick, Twat’
I think it may have something to do with the assault on the hearer’s senses and mind when they are forced to hear the words. Take Shit as an example. When somebody says it to someone it is effectively forcing him or her to think of a steaming turd, which is obviously not pretty. I suppose in a way it is invading their personal thoughts. This is one idea I have that may have made the words taboo. Another possibility is the fact that these bodily fluids have connotations of disease. It is probably no coincidence that Shit is a worse word than Piss because feces carries more germs than urine. Fart is more acceptable than Piss as people, watersports enthusiasts excluded, would rather be farted on than pissed on. I find it interesting that we have no swearword for vomit; maybe it just hasn’t caught on. Chunder, Spew and barffed are all words we could find in a child’s Beano comic.
Have you ever thought it strange that Eskimos (or the politically correct term for them) have 12 words for snow? Well look at how many the English have for feces. Ill give you twelve right of the bat (Shit, Dung, Crap, Poo, Turd, excrement, defecation, bowel movement, scat, manure, doo-doo, number 2) and for good measure it has been estimated that we English speakers have 800 expressions for sex and 2000 for a lady of the night.
I want to get back to prominence of the ‘C-word’. You would think that, and spare me any sexist backlash, because historically it is men that swear more, that the vagina would evoke positive connotations rather than negative ones. Then again, as Steven Pinker wrote ‘you have to think what the connotations were before toilet paper, tampons, regular bathing and anti-fungal drugs’
You would never call your child, or anyone’s child a little cunt. (I hope) But on a semiotic level we call them much worse. For example I called a student of mine a little sod. Which is fine and would barely raise any eyebrows. On closer inspection the word ‘Sod’ comes from sodomise. I was basically calling a twelve year old ‘a little anal sex lover’ It is the same with other milder swearwords (Bugger-Buggery, Pillac-Prick, Scumbag- Condom)
Any thoughts on this will be appreciated as I cant get my fucking head around it.
Let me start at the top. The king of swearwords, the ultimate profanity, the word ‘Cunt’. What, semantically, is so bad about it? It is literally four letters in a certain order that describes the female genitalia. It has no extra denotative value than the word pussy or twat or vagina but is seen as more offensive. It must be the connotations but it puzzles me where these connotations come from. In America it is the worst thing you can call a woman and in Britain it seems to be aimed, rather impolitely at men.
Making love and fucking denote exactly the same thing but in our minds making love is much more sensual and, well, loving than fucking. Which conjures up images of reverse cowgirl and dirty talk. It is the same with other, non vulgar words. Would you rather be slim or scrawny? Confident or Cock-sure? Opinionated or Argumentative? I must add here that fuck is a much more taboo word than rape, why is this when rape is obviously more taboo than rough consensual sex. It is a puzzling thought.
I have often pondered why pretty much all swearwords in the English language have something to do with bodily fluids or sex. ‘Piss, Shit, Arse, Bloody, Fuck, Cocksucker, Prick, Twat’
I think it may have something to do with the assault on the hearer’s senses and mind when they are forced to hear the words. Take Shit as an example. When somebody says it to someone it is effectively forcing him or her to think of a steaming turd, which is obviously not pretty. I suppose in a way it is invading their personal thoughts. This is one idea I have that may have made the words taboo. Another possibility is the fact that these bodily fluids have connotations of disease. It is probably no coincidence that Shit is a worse word than Piss because feces carries more germs than urine. Fart is more acceptable than Piss as people, watersports enthusiasts excluded, would rather be farted on than pissed on. I find it interesting that we have no swearword for vomit; maybe it just hasn’t caught on. Chunder, Spew and barffed are all words we could find in a child’s Beano comic.
Have you ever thought it strange that Eskimos (or the politically correct term for them) have 12 words for snow? Well look at how many the English have for feces. Ill give you twelve right of the bat (Shit, Dung, Crap, Poo, Turd, excrement, defecation, bowel movement, scat, manure, doo-doo, number 2) and for good measure it has been estimated that we English speakers have 800 expressions for sex and 2000 for a lady of the night.
I want to get back to prominence of the ‘C-word’. You would think that, and spare me any sexist backlash, because historically it is men that swear more, that the vagina would evoke positive connotations rather than negative ones. Then again, as Steven Pinker wrote ‘you have to think what the connotations were before toilet paper, tampons, regular bathing and anti-fungal drugs’
You would never call your child, or anyone’s child a little cunt. (I hope) But on a semiotic level we call them much worse. For example I called a student of mine a little sod. Which is fine and would barely raise any eyebrows. On closer inspection the word ‘Sod’ comes from sodomise. I was basically calling a twelve year old ‘a little anal sex lover’ It is the same with other milder swearwords (Bugger-Buggery, Pillac-Prick, Scumbag- Condom)
Any thoughts on this will be appreciated as I cant get my fucking head around it.
Friday, 16 April 2010
Dinner party rules....NEVER discuss politics.
Let me clear this up straight away. I know nothing about politics and I am in no position to persuade anyone on who to vote for in the forthcoming elections as to be quite honest, I am not sure who I am going to vote for myself.
The reason I am writing this is that, like me, a lot of people do not know much about politics and we have to get by on two things. Number one is our gut reaction and number two is what the spin-doctors and politicians choose to tell us. Lets face it, the average everyman doesn’t have time to read through three party manifestos.
Most people, myself included will probably form their opinions based on the televised election debates and what they read in the tabloids. I think this is a good idea as what is important is that you make up your own mind about who you think will benefit you the most. To me, I think the way to look at the election is three-fold. Number one – Who will benefit you the most. Two- who will benefit your family the most and finally, who will benefit your community the most.
We must watch these electoral debates with an open mind and not fall for the charm and spin. We must ask questions about everything that the candidates say and weigh up the pros and cons.
I was surprised when I read the papers this morning about how Nick Clegg managed to get the majority vote in viewer’s polls after the debate. Sure, he was charismatic and charming and looked into the camera to say his most important lines. He mentioned the audience by name and it was interesting that he had as much camera time as his two rivals.
We British love an underdog and he knows this only too well. What I didn’t like is his veiled claims that he was an alternative to the big dogs. Just because two of the three choices were bad, it does not, by default, make the third good. He kept using the phrase ‘these two’ when it was his turn on camera, belittling the opposition before giving his own (and his party’s) views. He also mentioned that ‘the more you two go on, the more you sound the same’ which to be fair is true, but he also sounded pretty similar. He seemed to be saying that he was an alternative to the big two, but he didn’t quite say how. The biggest boost for the liberal democrats and Clegg is that he was seen on an equal footing as Brown and Cameron and given as much time as his rivals, of course that is going to win him votes. But should he have been there in the first place. As I understand it politics is based on majority. The more votes you get the more seats in parliament you gain , to make it fair Clegg should only have been given 20% of the air time. He had nothing to lose and everything to gain, and fair play to the man. Gain he did.
Correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that, with the rise of the BNP, immigration seems to be the hot topic on the public and politicians lips. To me this is a shame as we Brits are a little bit too worried about the island we call home. We hold tradition in far too much regard. My view is that we should have an open world and anyone can live where they want. I realise this is idealistic but eventually it would all even out. Nobody would want to live in a crowded Britain so people would stop coming. The Brits are very hypocritical about immigration too. We have expatriate communities in just about every country in the world. Go to Costa Del Sol and you will find a mini Britain, they will, mostly, not speak Spanish, have an English breakfast everyday and shun the siesta and then complain that shops aren’t open because ‘the lazy fucking Spaniards’ are sleeping. We do not uphold their traditions and culture so why should we be so special.
I think that just because you are born in a country it does not give you ownership of a country. Birth is incredibly random, you (and I mean, the perfect you, the you you are now) would not even be here if your parents had sex the day after they did.
Why do you think all these people want to come to Britain? Because we live in a great country, built by foreign invaders. Nobody can claim to be 100% English because we have no indigenous people. Just because our ancestors migrated here from Africa 50 million years ago does not mean that we own this country.
I have completely digressed from the point I was making. The hot-topic should surely be global climate change as this is far more harmful to all of us than a few immigrants. It did not get mentioned once last night and I will be surprised if it does in the next few debates.
It was nice to see Gordon ‘Churchill’ Brown having a bit of fun with some of his lines. The airbrush comment was, although written beforehand, delivered with expert timing and accompanied by a wry smile.
Cameron’s high point was when he asked the guy who asked the question to wave so he could speak with him directly (he was behind a camera). This made him come of as human and an expert, infallible public speaker (Obama lessons perhaps)
Clegg was easily the most charismatic and charming throughout. He also got the balance of make-up right. Cameron looked far too vain with his abundance of slap and Brown could have done with a bit more. I know this seems trivial but it is massively important to the average voter. Appearance is everything (it shouldn’t be) when Nixon debated Kennedy, Kennedy was tanned and calm and youthful while Nixon had just come out of hospital and looked pasty and sweated it out a bit. Radio listeners thought Nixon had the upper hand, TV viewers gave it to Kennedy.
I am going to stop now but my next blog article will kind of be related to this final point. Try not to be too passionate about opinions, always be ready to change your mind when faced with logic, evidence or a better opinion. It is a strength to be able to change your mind. Not a weakness. So listen to all sides and make your own opinion. But don’t stick with it if something better comes along.
The reason I am writing this is that, like me, a lot of people do not know much about politics and we have to get by on two things. Number one is our gut reaction and number two is what the spin-doctors and politicians choose to tell us. Lets face it, the average everyman doesn’t have time to read through three party manifestos.
Most people, myself included will probably form their opinions based on the televised election debates and what they read in the tabloids. I think this is a good idea as what is important is that you make up your own mind about who you think will benefit you the most. To me, I think the way to look at the election is three-fold. Number one – Who will benefit you the most. Two- who will benefit your family the most and finally, who will benefit your community the most.
We must watch these electoral debates with an open mind and not fall for the charm and spin. We must ask questions about everything that the candidates say and weigh up the pros and cons.
I was surprised when I read the papers this morning about how Nick Clegg managed to get the majority vote in viewer’s polls after the debate. Sure, he was charismatic and charming and looked into the camera to say his most important lines. He mentioned the audience by name and it was interesting that he had as much camera time as his two rivals.
We British love an underdog and he knows this only too well. What I didn’t like is his veiled claims that he was an alternative to the big dogs. Just because two of the three choices were bad, it does not, by default, make the third good. He kept using the phrase ‘these two’ when it was his turn on camera, belittling the opposition before giving his own (and his party’s) views. He also mentioned that ‘the more you two go on, the more you sound the same’ which to be fair is true, but he also sounded pretty similar. He seemed to be saying that he was an alternative to the big two, but he didn’t quite say how. The biggest boost for the liberal democrats and Clegg is that he was seen on an equal footing as Brown and Cameron and given as much time as his rivals, of course that is going to win him votes. But should he have been there in the first place. As I understand it politics is based on majority. The more votes you get the more seats in parliament you gain , to make it fair Clegg should only have been given 20% of the air time. He had nothing to lose and everything to gain, and fair play to the man. Gain he did.
Correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that, with the rise of the BNP, immigration seems to be the hot topic on the public and politicians lips. To me this is a shame as we Brits are a little bit too worried about the island we call home. We hold tradition in far too much regard. My view is that we should have an open world and anyone can live where they want. I realise this is idealistic but eventually it would all even out. Nobody would want to live in a crowded Britain so people would stop coming. The Brits are very hypocritical about immigration too. We have expatriate communities in just about every country in the world. Go to Costa Del Sol and you will find a mini Britain, they will, mostly, not speak Spanish, have an English breakfast everyday and shun the siesta and then complain that shops aren’t open because ‘the lazy fucking Spaniards’ are sleeping. We do not uphold their traditions and culture so why should we be so special.
I think that just because you are born in a country it does not give you ownership of a country. Birth is incredibly random, you (and I mean, the perfect you, the you you are now) would not even be here if your parents had sex the day after they did.
Why do you think all these people want to come to Britain? Because we live in a great country, built by foreign invaders. Nobody can claim to be 100% English because we have no indigenous people. Just because our ancestors migrated here from Africa 50 million years ago does not mean that we own this country.
I have completely digressed from the point I was making. The hot-topic should surely be global climate change as this is far more harmful to all of us than a few immigrants. It did not get mentioned once last night and I will be surprised if it does in the next few debates.
It was nice to see Gordon ‘Churchill’ Brown having a bit of fun with some of his lines. The airbrush comment was, although written beforehand, delivered with expert timing and accompanied by a wry smile.
Cameron’s high point was when he asked the guy who asked the question to wave so he could speak with him directly (he was behind a camera). This made him come of as human and an expert, infallible public speaker (Obama lessons perhaps)
Clegg was easily the most charismatic and charming throughout. He also got the balance of make-up right. Cameron looked far too vain with his abundance of slap and Brown could have done with a bit more. I know this seems trivial but it is massively important to the average voter. Appearance is everything (it shouldn’t be) when Nixon debated Kennedy, Kennedy was tanned and calm and youthful while Nixon had just come out of hospital and looked pasty and sweated it out a bit. Radio listeners thought Nixon had the upper hand, TV viewers gave it to Kennedy.
I am going to stop now but my next blog article will kind of be related to this final point. Try not to be too passionate about opinions, always be ready to change your mind when faced with logic, evidence or a better opinion. It is a strength to be able to change your mind. Not a weakness. So listen to all sides and make your own opinion. But don’t stick with it if something better comes along.
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
Its in the eye of the beholder
Love is something that has being keeping me awake at night. We all know the scientific reasons people fall for each other and how they stay loved up. A hedonistic mixture of; the lust hormones, oestrogen and testosterone, that start the attraction. Followed by the deeper attraction builders such as serotonin, dopamine and adrenaline. You then, if you are lucky, move on to the attachment chemicals of oxytocin (The cuddle hormone) and Vasopressin (released after sex that makes you feel very close to your lover)
This is how it works. But I wonder if we all feel love in the same way. When I thought I was in love I often wondered if the word ‘love’ meant the same to me as it did the girl I was in love with. If I said to her ‘picture a row of terrace houses’ I could be confident that our images in our minds would be pretty similar, albeit, not identical. Love, however I couldn’t be certain.
When you are involved in the early stages of love it seems that the two of you are superior to all other couples. That you feel this love is the real deal and only the two of you feel it, when, in reality, every other couple in the Indian restaurant feels the same way.
It isn’t just romantic love. The love parents feel for their children is the same, they feel that their love is superior to others.
So what makes us fall in love? Is it the way people look? I think that it is more how we perceive how people look. It was Proust that claimed ‘classically beautiful women should be left to men without imagination’
In Proust’s times 1871-1922 the ‘classically beautiful woman’ would be women who looked flawless, like a pristine sculpture that was beautiful from every angle, she would defiantly be rich as only the rich could afford to be clean all the time and have no grotesque features or crevices. I want to take the idea of flawless beauty into our centaury. It is no longer seen in sculptures and statues but on the cover of More magazine and Mens Heath magazine. I do not want to jump on the representation bandwagon now and nor do I want to talk about the irresponsibility of Editors putting these models up as the prize. What I do want to think about is how it is not these people we, the masses fall in love with. It seems we need a slight glitch in the make up of our crushes. We like to be able to find beauty with getting to know someone. It is crazy how somebody you once found ugly or a little frumpy can before your very eyes turn into someone you fancy. This usually happens when the personality and common interests (or the soul for any religious readers) gets projected onto the face.
We like this, and we like it if no one else can see it even more because it makes us feel important. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the beholder becomes indispensible to the beauty. Which makes us feel needed.
What I am getting at here is that we do not fall for classic beauties and I think Proust hit the nail on the head with his comment. However, I don’t think it is a lack of imagination that stops people falling for grotesque beauty (By grotesque I don’t mean ugly, I mean not classic, flawless beauty) I think it is a mere laziness that gives up before the, forgive me, soul shines through the face.
This is how it works. But I wonder if we all feel love in the same way. When I thought I was in love I often wondered if the word ‘love’ meant the same to me as it did the girl I was in love with. If I said to her ‘picture a row of terrace houses’ I could be confident that our images in our minds would be pretty similar, albeit, not identical. Love, however I couldn’t be certain.
When you are involved in the early stages of love it seems that the two of you are superior to all other couples. That you feel this love is the real deal and only the two of you feel it, when, in reality, every other couple in the Indian restaurant feels the same way.
It isn’t just romantic love. The love parents feel for their children is the same, they feel that their love is superior to others.
So what makes us fall in love? Is it the way people look? I think that it is more how we perceive how people look. It was Proust that claimed ‘classically beautiful women should be left to men without imagination’
In Proust’s times 1871-1922 the ‘classically beautiful woman’ would be women who looked flawless, like a pristine sculpture that was beautiful from every angle, she would defiantly be rich as only the rich could afford to be clean all the time and have no grotesque features or crevices. I want to take the idea of flawless beauty into our centaury. It is no longer seen in sculptures and statues but on the cover of More magazine and Mens Heath magazine. I do not want to jump on the representation bandwagon now and nor do I want to talk about the irresponsibility of Editors putting these models up as the prize. What I do want to think about is how it is not these people we, the masses fall in love with. It seems we need a slight glitch in the make up of our crushes. We like to be able to find beauty with getting to know someone. It is crazy how somebody you once found ugly or a little frumpy can before your very eyes turn into someone you fancy. This usually happens when the personality and common interests (or the soul for any religious readers) gets projected onto the face.
We like this, and we like it if no one else can see it even more because it makes us feel important. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the beholder becomes indispensible to the beauty. Which makes us feel needed.
What I am getting at here is that we do not fall for classic beauties and I think Proust hit the nail on the head with his comment. However, I don’t think it is a lack of imagination that stops people falling for grotesque beauty (By grotesque I don’t mean ugly, I mean not classic, flawless beauty) I think it is a mere laziness that gives up before the, forgive me, soul shines through the face.
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
M-Cat and Moral Panics
I feel the need to add my comments on the great M-Cat debate that is plastered all over the front pages of the tabloid rags at the moment and want to put a few things in perspective. Something it seems the red tops of England cannot seem to do in their reckless scaremongering of parents, teachers and the paper buying public.
First and foremost I do not want to attack the journalists that are writing these stories as we all know how much stress they are under for stories and the pressure heaped upon them to sell papers. I just want to put these outlandish stories into a statistical analysis.
In the same story about the two boys that tragically died there was also a paragraph highlighting that scores of young people were taking the drug. A direct quote ‘I don’t know anyone that hasn’t taken it’ A 16 year old boy. This suggests that it is massively widespread. Also take into account the News of the world’s story about Mr M-Cat that sells it to distributors by the kilo.
England, no doubt, is flooded with the stuff and most people I personally know have also taken it.
This is a massively high number, and I personally estimate that maybe 1 million people take it on a given weekend. (This number has not been given much thought so it is certainly up for debate) But even if 100,000 people a weekend take it I am still within an order of magnitude.
Using the much more modest number of 100,000 people a week to illustrate my point this makes it a million over the course of 10 weeks. M-Cat has been around for nearly 2 years so, for the mathematically handicapped blogger, lets call it 100 weeks. This is 10 Million instances where somebody could die on a given night when taking M-Cat.
Statistically, you would expect that on these 10 million nights some would die just randomly, just up and die. It does happen, it is rare, but no where near as rare as 1:10,000,000. Or, if we are being pedantic 3:10,000,000 (as three people have died whilst taking the substance) This is still well under what you would expect from random, unexplained drop deads.
It is extremely feasible that M-Cat had absolutely nothing to do with the deaths.
This is made even worse by the fact that it wasn’t just M-Cat that the people that died took. They also were on the heroin substitute methadone to bring them down fro the high. This means that if anything, it was a dodgy batch of, almost certainly non-prescribed methadone from the black market because they died after taking that the next day. Not from the M-Cat on the night they took it.
Still with me? Good.
Now, it isn’t even the death story that I have a problem with. It isn’t even moral panics in general. (Although look at the millennium bug scare – millions of public money spent because the press ran away with themselves and caused mass panic which then pressured the government to invest in preventative measures. Before you start arguing with me, saying that it was exactly these measures that made the ‘bug’ ineffective. I draw your attention to the more sensible countries that took no steps whatsoever and also, like us, didn’t come to a standstill)
We need to look at what is going to come of this scaremongering and media and public pressure on the government if it bans M-Cat (which it inevitably will in the next 6 months. For that, we need to look at a brief history of heroin)
Heroin
Heroin was once legal and could be obtained on prescription. Then, in the 1960’s a few doctors were caught selling it to patients. There was media uproar and then it was outlawed. The addicts (not many of them, hundreds rather than thousands) started to find new suppliers for their habits and a black market started to form on the simple theory of ‘supply and demand’.
By the 80’s people were still on it, but this number had risen as people were selling it to mates to fund their own habit, the demand grew.
There was then a huge government crackdown and more media scaremongering, the licenced psychiatrist sellers were made illegal and were given methadone as a substitute. Methadone is not popular with smackheads so the price of black market heroin grew.
There was now over 300,000 users addicted to heroin and they were robbing people for their fix, turning to prostitution and contracting diseases like HIV by sharing needles.
So let’s look at the costs – Police money to crack down on the addicts
- NHS money to deal with all the sickness from needles
- NHS money to deal with addicts who have had bad-trips
- The social price of all the burglaries and muggings to fund their habit
- A huge rise of addicts
This is all due to a media fallacy. Heroin is not even a poison. Before you get up in arms I say it is not a poison in it’s pure form.
You may hit back with telling me about all the crime associated with addicts, but this is not a cause of the drug directly, it is because they are addicted and need to get the money to buy the drug. Heroin doesn’t make them thin, it is the money they spend on heroin rather than food that makes them thin.
I will say, that due to the fact it is extremely addictive is reason enough to not do heroin no matter how pure it is. And the same may go for M-Cat. But also to nicotine and alcohol and even coffee.
Back to M-Cat
So, the controversy around M-Cat is pretty similar to the heroin history lesson I and Mr. Davis have just relayed. And what has happened in history is a usually good indicator of what may happen in the future.
I would say that the government has no choice but to make M-Cat illegal now and I do not even blame them. It is the media that unscrupulously made a mountain out of a mole hill to sell papers which will cost society dearly when M-Cat does get outlawed.
As we know, people are taking it and they are not going to stop if it becomes illegal. The papers are also even advertising it as many youngsters wouldn’t know about the drug or where to get it if it wasn’t for the redtops. It is irresponsible, lazy and greedy for the papers to publish this at all. Even worse, this ploy top sell papers is veiled under a faux desire to protect this countries residents from something that has never been directly linked to a single death.
I could go on but I hope you get the message. Please post your views underneat
First and foremost I do not want to attack the journalists that are writing these stories as we all know how much stress they are under for stories and the pressure heaped upon them to sell papers. I just want to put these outlandish stories into a statistical analysis.
In the same story about the two boys that tragically died there was also a paragraph highlighting that scores of young people were taking the drug. A direct quote ‘I don’t know anyone that hasn’t taken it’ A 16 year old boy. This suggests that it is massively widespread. Also take into account the News of the world’s story about Mr M-Cat that sells it to distributors by the kilo.
England, no doubt, is flooded with the stuff and most people I personally know have also taken it.
This is a massively high number, and I personally estimate that maybe 1 million people take it on a given weekend. (This number has not been given much thought so it is certainly up for debate) But even if 100,000 people a weekend take it I am still within an order of magnitude.
Using the much more modest number of 100,000 people a week to illustrate my point this makes it a million over the course of 10 weeks. M-Cat has been around for nearly 2 years so, for the mathematically handicapped blogger, lets call it 100 weeks. This is 10 Million instances where somebody could die on a given night when taking M-Cat.
Statistically, you would expect that on these 10 million nights some would die just randomly, just up and die. It does happen, it is rare, but no where near as rare as 1:10,000,000. Or, if we are being pedantic 3:10,000,000 (as three people have died whilst taking the substance) This is still well under what you would expect from random, unexplained drop deads.
It is extremely feasible that M-Cat had absolutely nothing to do with the deaths.
This is made even worse by the fact that it wasn’t just M-Cat that the people that died took. They also were on the heroin substitute methadone to bring them down fro the high. This means that if anything, it was a dodgy batch of, almost certainly non-prescribed methadone from the black market because they died after taking that the next day. Not from the M-Cat on the night they took it.
Still with me? Good.
Now, it isn’t even the death story that I have a problem with. It isn’t even moral panics in general. (Although look at the millennium bug scare – millions of public money spent because the press ran away with themselves and caused mass panic which then pressured the government to invest in preventative measures. Before you start arguing with me, saying that it was exactly these measures that made the ‘bug’ ineffective. I draw your attention to the more sensible countries that took no steps whatsoever and also, like us, didn’t come to a standstill)
We need to look at what is going to come of this scaremongering and media and public pressure on the government if it bans M-Cat (which it inevitably will in the next 6 months. For that, we need to look at a brief history of heroin)
Heroin
Heroin was once legal and could be obtained on prescription. Then, in the 1960’s a few doctors were caught selling it to patients. There was media uproar and then it was outlawed. The addicts (not many of them, hundreds rather than thousands) started to find new suppliers for their habits and a black market started to form on the simple theory of ‘supply and demand’.
By the 80’s people were still on it, but this number had risen as people were selling it to mates to fund their own habit, the demand grew.
There was then a huge government crackdown and more media scaremongering, the licenced psychiatrist sellers were made illegal and were given methadone as a substitute. Methadone is not popular with smackheads so the price of black market heroin grew.
There was now over 300,000 users addicted to heroin and they were robbing people for their fix, turning to prostitution and contracting diseases like HIV by sharing needles.
So let’s look at the costs – Police money to crack down on the addicts
- NHS money to deal with all the sickness from needles
- NHS money to deal with addicts who have had bad-trips
- The social price of all the burglaries and muggings to fund their habit
- A huge rise of addicts
This is all due to a media fallacy. Heroin is not even a poison. Before you get up in arms I say it is not a poison in it’s pure form.
‘conturary to popular belief it is difficult to kill yourself with (pure) heroin…The difference between a therapeutic dose and a fatal one is less than that of paracetamol – it’s most notable side effect on the physical, mental and moral condition of its users is constipation. The truth is that all the illnesses and misery and death that are associated with heroin are the result on, not the drug itself, but of the greedy black market criminals it is sold through as a result of the war on drugs’(Nick Davis 2008)
You may hit back with telling me about all the crime associated with addicts, but this is not a cause of the drug directly, it is because they are addicted and need to get the money to buy the drug. Heroin doesn’t make them thin, it is the money they spend on heroin rather than food that makes them thin.
I will say, that due to the fact it is extremely addictive is reason enough to not do heroin no matter how pure it is. And the same may go for M-Cat. But also to nicotine and alcohol and even coffee.
Back to M-Cat
So, the controversy around M-Cat is pretty similar to the heroin history lesson I and Mr. Davis have just relayed. And what has happened in history is a usually good indicator of what may happen in the future.
I would say that the government has no choice but to make M-Cat illegal now and I do not even blame them. It is the media that unscrupulously made a mountain out of a mole hill to sell papers which will cost society dearly when M-Cat does get outlawed.
As we know, people are taking it and they are not going to stop if it becomes illegal. The papers are also even advertising it as many youngsters wouldn’t know about the drug or where to get it if it wasn’t for the redtops. It is irresponsible, lazy and greedy for the papers to publish this at all. Even worse, this ploy top sell papers is veiled under a faux desire to protect this countries residents from something that has never been directly linked to a single death.
I could go on but I hope you get the message. Please post your views underneat
Wednesday, 17 March 2010
A love letter to evolution
Lobbyists in America and Faith schools in the UK are still banging on about ‘teaching both sides of the evolution and creationism (Intelligent Design) debate. Let me explain, logically, how absurd this really is.
If Gordon Brown said the earth was flat the newspaper wouldn’t say ‘Opinions on the shape of the earth differ’ There would not be camps on each side fighting it out. Brown would be described as nothing more than a nut-job, he would be kicked out of office and made out to be a laughing stock. Why is this? Because we know the earth is round because of an abundance of proof. Observational proof.
So why do we give all this ridiculous and unnecessary credence to so-called alternatives to Evolution by natural selection? Why are we taking the claims of whack-job creationists seriously? Even worse, intelligent design is to the theory of evolution as what astrology is to astronomy or what Alchemy is to Chemistry. We don’t have to teach both of them in school. What makes creationism more scientific than magic? We don’t teach magic alongside physics.
The theory of evolution has just as much proof as the theory that the earth is round. True, when it was first thought up and published by Darwin a hell of a lot of scientists argued against him. But that was then`, now, every single branch of science from genetics to molecular biology to paleontology (Ross from ‘friends’) backs up Darwin’s theory of evolution. Hell, we can even observe it and have in bacterium in metal containers. Anyone can observe it as the test, although I won’t go into specific details now, is completely reproducible and more importantly falsifiable.
I only wish that the public would open its heart to biology as they did to the moon landings. The picture of the spherical earth is concrete proof that the earth is not flat. The bacterium in a number of flasks is concrete proof in the same way. It just didn’t get the publicity.
The battle of evolution vs. creationism has been won everywhere except in the religious public mind.
Not only that… I can show you the proof.
Tuesday, 16 March 2010
Curiosity
There are not many genuinely unambiguously positive traits in western society any more. This is not a problem usually and it becomes an issue of contexts. It does however become a problem when words that really shouldn’t have negative connotations inherit them from people in supposed authority.
Creativity is one of the aforementioned 100% positive traits. Anyone is happy if they get called creative and it cannot be an insult. Teachers and parents praise creativity endlessly and I think this is how it should be. It is an unambiguously positive trait.
Curiosity is certainly not. This is my gripe.
Curiosity, in our culture has somehow become a negative trait. This is bizarre, but true. What is the first thing that comes into your mind when you hear the word ‘curiosity’. I’ll bet it is the old saying ‘curiosity killed the cat’ This was around when we were young and it is still around today. To stifle curiosity is a crime. Especially in young people that are constantly enquiring about the way the world works. Picture the familiar scene where a young child is asking intelligent questions about something and the mother/father/teacher/priests responding. The child tries to get a deeper understanding by asking ‘why’ ‘why’ and ‘why’ again. Eventually the adult will answer ‘because that is just the way it is’ in a mildly frustrated tone that telegraphs to the child not to ask questions.
Now it is not necessarily the adults fault, how could they know the answers if they have never looked into the topic? We must remember that as a child they would probably have asked the same questions only to be fobbed off with a ‘it just is’ kind of answer. This is where we need to change things. If a child, be it a son/daughter/younger sibling/student or niece, asks you a question you don’t know the answer too. Say you don’t know and look it up together. This will interest the child in a number of ways that I don’t want to write about here as it will tangent off the point off the article. (I get the hypocrisy of what I just said, but look up the reasons if you are curious ☺ )
The main thing is that curiosity should be nurtured with at least the same vigor as creativity and we, as a society, should do away with harmful phrases such as ‘curiosity killed the cat’ because if anything ‘Ignorance killed the cat’
Creativity is one of the aforementioned 100% positive traits. Anyone is happy if they get called creative and it cannot be an insult. Teachers and parents praise creativity endlessly and I think this is how it should be. It is an unambiguously positive trait.
Curiosity is certainly not. This is my gripe.
Curiosity, in our culture has somehow become a negative trait. This is bizarre, but true. What is the first thing that comes into your mind when you hear the word ‘curiosity’. I’ll bet it is the old saying ‘curiosity killed the cat’ This was around when we were young and it is still around today. To stifle curiosity is a crime. Especially in young people that are constantly enquiring about the way the world works. Picture the familiar scene where a young child is asking intelligent questions about something and the mother/father/teacher/priests responding. The child tries to get a deeper understanding by asking ‘why’ ‘why’ and ‘why’ again. Eventually the adult will answer ‘because that is just the way it is’ in a mildly frustrated tone that telegraphs to the child not to ask questions.
Now it is not necessarily the adults fault, how could they know the answers if they have never looked into the topic? We must remember that as a child they would probably have asked the same questions only to be fobbed off with a ‘it just is’ kind of answer. This is where we need to change things. If a child, be it a son/daughter/younger sibling/student or niece, asks you a question you don’t know the answer too. Say you don’t know and look it up together. This will interest the child in a number of ways that I don’t want to write about here as it will tangent off the point off the article. (I get the hypocrisy of what I just said, but look up the reasons if you are curious ☺ )
The main thing is that curiosity should be nurtured with at least the same vigor as creativity and we, as a society, should do away with harmful phrases such as ‘curiosity killed the cat’ because if anything ‘Ignorance killed the cat’
Tuesday, 9 March 2010
Who the Fuck is Alice?
Firstly, the good stuff. The British voice talent is class. Stephen Fry is pitch perfect as the Cheshire cat and Alan Rickman voices a caterpillar whose name escapes me. Tweedledum and Tweedledee are a highlight reel on their own (Matt Lucas) but the hare steals the show and is worth the entrance ticket alone. (Voiced by Paul Whitehouse of Fast Show fame)
It really is a treat for the eyes as wonderland is seen to be bright, vibrant and colourful as well as a dark and derelict place. The 3D is spectacular, though not as breathtaking as Avatar, and is the main good point about this film. The story is not great but it really doesn’t matter when there is such eye candy on show.
I never thought I would say this, but Johnny Depp is starting to look a bit of a one trick pony, as is Tim Burton. However, at least Burtons trick is good.
I think that this would be a good time to break the holy trinity of Burton, Depp and Carter as the formula seems tired at best. Sweeney Todd was average and Willy Wonka didn’t even measure up to Gene Wilder standard. I was hoping for better with Alice.
As soon as Depp’s mad hatter appears on screen it feels a bit same old. It also reeks of good old-fashioned Hollywood nepotism. I bet Burton didn’t even audition other actors for the part of hatter when there would have been others that would have brought more to the role than Depp doing his Willy Wonka impression. I would have given the role to Jim Carey.
Don’t get me wrong; Depp is a fine actor (Public Enemies, Pirates of the Caribbean) but his gothic, dark madman act is wearing thin.
Carter almost ruins the film as the Red Queen. She is awful and it seems her husband is to under-the-thumb to direct her properly. There is a scene at the end of the film involving Carter (I wont ruin it) that reminded me of what I picture Burtons and Carters relationship to be like.
The other disappointment was Alice herself, I am glad they chose an unknown actor for the role as it makes it easier to suspend disbelief. However they should have found a better unknown than a female Keanu Reeves. Wooden.
If you get a chance to see this beauty at the cinema do it. Just don’t expect your heart and mind to be as engaged as your bespectacled eyes.
It really is a treat for the eyes as wonderland is seen to be bright, vibrant and colourful as well as a dark and derelict place. The 3D is spectacular, though not as breathtaking as Avatar, and is the main good point about this film. The story is not great but it really doesn’t matter when there is such eye candy on show.
I never thought I would say this, but Johnny Depp is starting to look a bit of a one trick pony, as is Tim Burton. However, at least Burtons trick is good.
I think that this would be a good time to break the holy trinity of Burton, Depp and Carter as the formula seems tired at best. Sweeney Todd was average and Willy Wonka didn’t even measure up to Gene Wilder standard. I was hoping for better with Alice.
As soon as Depp’s mad hatter appears on screen it feels a bit same old. It also reeks of good old-fashioned Hollywood nepotism. I bet Burton didn’t even audition other actors for the part of hatter when there would have been others that would have brought more to the role than Depp doing his Willy Wonka impression. I would have given the role to Jim Carey.
Don’t get me wrong; Depp is a fine actor (Public Enemies, Pirates of the Caribbean) but his gothic, dark madman act is wearing thin.
Carter almost ruins the film as the Red Queen. She is awful and it seems her husband is to under-the-thumb to direct her properly. There is a scene at the end of the film involving Carter (I wont ruin it) that reminded me of what I picture Burtons and Carters relationship to be like.
The other disappointment was Alice herself, I am glad they chose an unknown actor for the role as it makes it easier to suspend disbelief. However they should have found a better unknown than a female Keanu Reeves. Wooden.
If you get a chance to see this beauty at the cinema do it. Just don’t expect your heart and mind to be as engaged as your bespectacled eyes.
Monday, 8 March 2010
The pursuit of sexyness
The meaning of life is often referred to as the pursuit of happiness. (In the Will Smith film ‘happyness’) This is something I agree with in a sense but I think, for men especially, there is a higher pursuit. The pursuit of sex.
What makes people happy? Good frequent sex will be in the top 3 of most peoples list. On mine, and if we really think about it, all men’s lists it will be number one. If you are getting good sex you will be happy.
I have a theory, which I can only confirm with myself, that everything we do in life is in the pursuit of sex. We are kidding ourselves if we think otherwise.
This epiphany came to me cycling home from work today. I often give myself daft thought experiments to pass the time and this one gave me an insight into my own psyche. I pondered to myself ‘would I rather die or have my cock and balls cut off (painlessly, under anesthetic). Take a second to think about that… Done? Ok. On first thought I decided to get the Frank and beans cut off, I could still lead a happy life; learning, traveling, helping the less fortunate, going on adventures and party the night away in nightclubs.
Then I thought a little longer and made the, I think, 100% rational decision to chose the death option.
You see, the only reason I want to do any of the above mentioned things now is to get laid. When I fantasise about traveling I do not think of all the breath-taking sights, the ancient ruins or the fascinating other cultures. First thing is the opportunity to be the exotic, comparatively rich, English man charming the pants off the natives and other travelers. Admittedly we will want to see the sights and cultures to but they are an afterthought and the main reason we want to see them is so we can be perceived as well-traveled, intelligent and a ‘free spirit’ (whatever that means) when we return home. Why do we want this? Sex.
‘Women want an intelligent man’ This is what glossy magazines, dating websites and TV shows have been forcing down our necks for years. I don’t know if it is even true, possibly in looking for a life partner but not for single nights of passion eh girls?
This is the reason people read intelligent books. Granted, they are interesting in their own right. The main reason I read books is so I can have conversations about a variety of things with women (and men in a non-sexual way, although being seen to be having a serious conversation with mates will probably enhance your attraction meter a little too) and come off as intelligent and informed about current events.
People go on diets, why? To attract the opposite sex and get some loving.
Even going out drinking is a route on the pursuit of sexyness. We drink beer to help with our social lubrication and to meet women. Even if we drink it at home with our friends with no girls in sight we usually end up talking about sex and getting invaluable tips from our plastered friends.
We give to the homeless and the needy to come off as generous – a route to sex.
This may paint a bleak portrait of the human race but sexual reproduction is the only way that our species will survive. We are evolutionary hardwired to want sex. As we are the only animal in the world that cannot rape to reproduce, we have to earn our mutual orgasms by bettering ourselves. We men are peacocks, the better our proverbial tail-feathers, the better our chance of sex.
What makes people happy? Good frequent sex will be in the top 3 of most peoples list. On mine, and if we really think about it, all men’s lists it will be number one. If you are getting good sex you will be happy.
I have a theory, which I can only confirm with myself, that everything we do in life is in the pursuit of sex. We are kidding ourselves if we think otherwise.
This epiphany came to me cycling home from work today. I often give myself daft thought experiments to pass the time and this one gave me an insight into my own psyche. I pondered to myself ‘would I rather die or have my cock and balls cut off (painlessly, under anesthetic). Take a second to think about that… Done? Ok. On first thought I decided to get the Frank and beans cut off, I could still lead a happy life; learning, traveling, helping the less fortunate, going on adventures and party the night away in nightclubs.
Then I thought a little longer and made the, I think, 100% rational decision to chose the death option.
You see, the only reason I want to do any of the above mentioned things now is to get laid. When I fantasise about traveling I do not think of all the breath-taking sights, the ancient ruins or the fascinating other cultures. First thing is the opportunity to be the exotic, comparatively rich, English man charming the pants off the natives and other travelers. Admittedly we will want to see the sights and cultures to but they are an afterthought and the main reason we want to see them is so we can be perceived as well-traveled, intelligent and a ‘free spirit’ (whatever that means) when we return home. Why do we want this? Sex.
‘Women want an intelligent man’ This is what glossy magazines, dating websites and TV shows have been forcing down our necks for years. I don’t know if it is even true, possibly in looking for a life partner but not for single nights of passion eh girls?
This is the reason people read intelligent books. Granted, they are interesting in their own right. The main reason I read books is so I can have conversations about a variety of things with women (and men in a non-sexual way, although being seen to be having a serious conversation with mates will probably enhance your attraction meter a little too) and come off as intelligent and informed about current events.
People go on diets, why? To attract the opposite sex and get some loving.
Even going out drinking is a route on the pursuit of sexyness. We drink beer to help with our social lubrication and to meet women. Even if we drink it at home with our friends with no girls in sight we usually end up talking about sex and getting invaluable tips from our plastered friends.
We give to the homeless and the needy to come off as generous – a route to sex.
This may paint a bleak portrait of the human race but sexual reproduction is the only way that our species will survive. We are evolutionary hardwired to want sex. As we are the only animal in the world that cannot rape to reproduce, we have to earn our mutual orgasms by bettering ourselves. We men are peacocks, the better our proverbial tail-feathers, the better our chance of sex.
Monday, 1 March 2010
If you do not have children, work in a school or are interested in academic writing - skip the post after this one
Below is a shortened version of my dissertation. It received a first. (Bragging is fun)
It is basically about homework and when or how it should or shouldn't be give to young people in schools. It is up here only as an example of my academic, fact based writing and to give diversity to my portfolio.
I will not be writing academically any more so do not worry.
It is basically about homework and when or how it should or shouldn't be give to young people in schools. It is up here only as an example of my academic, fact based writing and to give diversity to my portfolio.
I will not be writing academically any more so do not worry.
Is Homework Beneficial to Students at Kingsmead School?
Homework has always been a fact of life for secondary school students. We all remember the teacher announcing homework time in class, followed by a collective groan of the whole class. There goes my afternoon of bike riding.
As a teacher there is nothing worse than finishing the school day after staying behind after the bell to mark a third draft of an eager year 10’s coursework, only to realise you have a stack of year 7 posters to mark.
As students and teachers we have always assumed accepted that doing and setting homework is beneficial to academic attainment. It may be, but academic attainment is essentially a statistic. I will be looking at; previous studies that are showing that homework maybe is not such a good thing, schools that have changed the way they have set homework and how students at Kingsmead School could benefit from a change to their homework policy.
A Critical Overview of some relevant issues
Review of current initiatives
Kino School
Kino school in Tucson, Arizona have abolished traditional homework in favour of more enrichment activities such as sport or music. ‘What Kino does not do is assign homework that is of no interest to students, does not enrich their interests or fuel their passions, or consists of hours of drill and practice.’ (Cera, 2009) In further correspondence with Kino School I found that, not only are students happier in there school life, they are doing more work at home than when homework was compulsory. I asked why they had gone against the grain and banned homework. They informed me that ‘Work done at home that extends a child’s interest or excitement in learning would never be discourage, let alone “banned”.’(Cera, 2009). The head teacher then went on to tell me, however, that the traditional homework model ‘shows no positive correlation to academic success or love of learning. It interferes in family life as arguments and threats become part of the “homework routine’’.’(Cera, 2009)
East Nottingham Academy
Closer to home there are also schools that are abandoning traditional homework. One that has been in the press recently is the East Nottingham Academy. The proposed academy has not yet been built but the head teacher, Barry Day OBE, has told reporters that the new school will not have traditional homework and it will be replaced with an extra lesson of enrichment at school. He told a national newspaper “If you ask most heads what detentions are for, they will inform you that it is for non-completion of homework. It causes enormous home conflict. It is often set because there is an expectation that it should be set. It does not help (with education) at all.” (Day, 2008)
Tiffin school for boys
Tiffin school for boys is one of the UK’s top grammar schools. It has recently slashed homework from four hours a night to one, 40-minute assignment and 20 minute independent study per night. Head teacher Sean Heslop said that the reason for the cut is because ‘Large amounts of homework have become mechanical and repetitive’ (Heslop, 2008). Pupils are becoming disillusioned with homework and the deputy head was quoted as saying it was ‘Depressing’ to students. He went on to tell The Daily Mirror that ‘Something's not right when a boy can't sit down and watch a nature documentary on TV because he's too busy doing maths.’ (James, 2008).
I contacted Tiffin school and asked for their homework policy, it saddened me to hear that the head teacher will no longer be in post from September and there is every possibility that homework will revert back to how it used to be. They did however send me their policy on homework (Appendix 2)
Discussion of reading about relevant theory
In her book, ‘Homework: The Evidence’ Hallam comes to the conclusion that recent research on homework ‘Suggests a curvilinear relationship [between homework and attainment] (Hallam, 2004). Meaning that practicing homework, be it solving maths problems or learning the rules of grammar, has no benefits after a certain point. She also suggests that homework, while having a positive effect on academic attainment, only accounts for a very small amount of the variance. ‘Most of the variance is explained by pupil’s prior knowledge’
Parents and teachers always argue that homework develops a sense of responsibility in pupils. I have also heard that it increases time management skills and organisation in young people. Hallam argues that there is insufficient evidence to support this.
Hallam found that generally, students believe that homework is important to help them do well in school. However the students feel that homework is ‘boring’ and ‘not always related to school work’ Pupils see no point in doing homework if ‘the don’t get written formative feedback from their teacher’ Hallam then goes on to state that other, non-school based activities may be ‘equally beneficial to students cognitive and emotional development’ and advises schools to make sure work set is of ‘real value in raising attainment’ (Hallam, 2004)
Alfie Kohn, author of The homework Myth, argues about ‘changing the default setting’ of setting homework on a set basis. He argues that teachers and policy makers are not thinking ‘Oh, it may be useful to do this project at home’ but rather the thought process is more like ‘We’ve decided ahead of time that children will have to do something every night. Later on we’ll figure out what to make them do’ (Kohn, 2006) This kind of thinking is surely unhelpful to students and teachers alike. The teachers have to mark homework which takes up a lot of their free time and the students have to actually do it even when the teacher doesn’t think it is valuable to them.
So why do teachers set homework? Kohn states that it could be for a number of reasons. It could be due to pressure from administrators, possibly even parents and in extreme cases, students themselves.
An account of the issue in relation to my experience at Kingsmead School
It was an event that happened to me personally during my placement at Kingsmead that ignited my interest in homework. The students were coming to the end of a really good lesson where they had, uncharacteristically, worked extremely well. The class teacher approached me quietly and reminded me that it was their homework day. I had not prepared any homework as I had used my homework task in the lesson as an extension piece. I asked if I could set some homework in the next lesson instead but the teacher declined, quoting the school homework policy. I asked for advice on what to set and the class teacher decided on a poster.
I told the class and they were in dismay, ‘But sir, we have worked hard today’. Upon reflection I had realised how mean it was to set homework just for the sake of it. I’m not sure that making a poster will help their English skills any more than not making a poster.
This was not the end of it, as the poster was set at the end of the lesson with me in a rush, 70% of the class had not completed the task by the deadline. They were kept in at break time as punishment. More free time lost.
I am not against homework. Done properly I think it will be beneficial to young people. If I had more time to think about the homework task I would have made it something verbal e.g. explain to your parents the importance of…
The mere fact that Kingsmead has a homework timetable is, in my opinion, a frank admission that homework is not suggested by a given lesson.
Another problem with a homework schedule is that it is subjecting the students to a one-size-fits-all model which contradicts individualised and personalised learning (also a policy at the school)
Outline and justification of the methodology used.
I decided to make use of my time in school by handing out questionnaires and running focus groups. I also managed to look at the schools homework policy and some student planners.
This section deals with the ethical issues that may arise from my research and how data collected may be compromised in terms of validity.
Ethical issues in using children as subjects in educational research
Koocher, in comparing educational research with biomedical research, argues that even though children don’t go through any physical pain in educational research, they could still experience, albeit ‘less significant’, emotional pain.
In using children as subjects in any research the researcher needs to consider emotional pain on a similar level to physical pain. This is because studies show that ‘emotional pain is as real as physical pain, can last much longer and is more easily relived’ (Irvine, 2008).
We also need to consider the very real possibility of damage to the child subjects such as ‘fear of failure, a lowering of self-esteem and (social) embarrassment.’ (Koocher, 1990) This can be achieved by establishing a safe environment for the young people. As I will be working with students that I have not previously worked with, I will ensure that an adult is present that the children know and trust (such as a teacher or teaching assistant). This will soothe any concerns about disruption of routines.
Ethical Issues in focus group discussion
There has not been much written on the ethics regarding the focus group research method. The biggest ethical concern with talking to students about their home life is the ‘potential of over-disclosure’ (Smith, 1995). As the researcher, and the ‘responsible adult’ in the group it is my duty and professional obligation to make sure the students are safeguarded from harm. This can be done by moderating the questions. I had to omit one question from my focus group due to concerns that it had the potential of over-disclosure. The question was ‘Do you ever argue with your parents/carers over homework?’ I was worried that, due to the open nature of a focus group discussion, that conversation may lead to young people talking about areas of family life that would need reporting.
Ethical Issues in questionnaires
Questionnaires, in the majority, ‘have absolutely no reason to ask for a name’ (Rundblad, 2005). I will certainly not be asking students filling out my questionnaire to put their names on their responses so I will number the questionnaires before giving them out.
It is also important to ensure that the questionnaires do not ask any deliberately leading questions that invite personal information about the child or its family. It is the law that researchers be granted consent by the school to use the students as a sample group so I have contacted the school and showed the teachers the questionnaire for approval before giving it to the students.
Problems with the validity of data from young people
It is possible that I will run into problems with young people that may not yield accurate results. In my experience, young people have a tendency to tell the researcher what they think he/she wants to hear (either that or the opposite). Given the controversy of homework, especially with young people that experience it on a day to day basis, it is possible that they will take it seriously. However this throws up another consideration I need to have as a researcher. The majority of young people, I speculate, will want to abolish homework from their lives and may have an ulterior motive in answering questions and giving views. This will have to be taken into account when analysing the results.
One further reason is that ‘Children’s moods (e.g. silliness, anxiety, or shyness around strangers) and their often limited attention spans can affect data quality’ (Koosher, 1990). The young people, when doing focus groups and questionnaires will be in a relatively unfamiliar terrain and will also be with friends. This could lead to collusion, deliberate sabotage and general silly answers.
Problems with researcher’s possible confirmation bias
Confirmation bias is where researchers systematically seek only evidence that confirms their hypotheses (Wason, 1968). As I set out to investigate the negative effects of homework I need to be careful to not present a biased argument by only asking questions that I, consciously or otherwise, believe will support my prior beliefs. This needs to be addressed when conducting interviews and analysing the results.
Pilot Questionnaire and Focus Group
A pilot study is a good way to gauge how well the actual study will go. It will ‘identify logistical problems which might occur using (my) proposed methods’
(Van Teijlingen, 2001) and it is also a benefit to the study to gather preliminary data. The pilot questionnaire I will be using will tell me if the questions that I will be using are all useful and valid for my purpose. It will also help to prevent and show up any previously mentioned ethical or validity problems and I will be able to modify questions to get the best results.
Justifications of Focus Groups and Questionnaires.
Questionnaires will be used as they are less intrusive than face to face interviews and they are easier to analyse as they are tick box orientated. Students like filling in questionnaires because they are un-rushed and they can complete the questions in their own time, most significantly, they can answer anonymously. This means I will be able to get the opinions of the whole of my sample, rather than just the students who volunteer for focus groups. As I will gain quantitative data from my questionnaire results, I will use focus groups to get qualitative data.
The Focus group was chosen because, unlike questionnaires, the researcher can interact with subjects. The researcher will also benefit because he/she will be able to monitor body language of the subjects, ask follow-up questions and will also get a quick response.
Presentation and analysis of findings
Focus Group Findings and analysis
The focus group gave me the best insight into student perceptions on homework. They spoke at length about many issues, including when they do their homework. The transcript including step by step analysis can be found here (Appendix…..)
The main findings were that students generally do their homework when they get in from school (as per school policy) at the expense of playing football with friends. This also means that students are spending the daylight hours of their free time doing homework and the evening watching TV or playing Playstation.
When asked if the students ever fell out with parents over homework, all three of the boys said that it had caused arguments in the past. The female member of the focus group said that her Mum used to check her homework but she never does anymore because ‘She trusts me now’. One parent even takes the power lead from his games console until he shows her that he has completed all his homework for the next day. He has resorted to not writing his homework in his planner to avoid this nightly confrontation.
Another startling revelation was that one of the students said that he was punished with a 75 minute detention for not doing a piece of I.T. homework that was meant to take 15 minutes. This lead to a discussion about what happens when students don’t do their homework. There was a general consensus among the group that teachers didn’t even check most of the time if they had completed work, and when they marked it they just got a tick and a well done rather than any formative feedback. Another student mentioned that if his homework was not done, he would get an extension, which the teacher subsequently forgot about.
The biggest surprise from my focus group session came when I asked if the students thought that optional homework would be a good idea. One girl told me that nobody would do it, when pressed she told me she only did homework not to avoid getting into trouble. Not to further her understanding or to help herself achieve academic success.
Questionnaire findings and analysis
59 students were asked to fill out a questionnaire with a range of questions. The results were put into graphs and analysed. Gender had a large influence on how the students felt about homework. When asked if it should be kept, abolished or made optional, the majority of girls and boys both thought it should be made optional. However, only 4 girls wanted it abolished compared to 8 boys and where only 2 boys wanted to keep homework, 7 girls wanted it kept.
I found that boys enjoyed doing maths and ICT homework and girls preferred Art and Humanities homework. 16 out of 33 boys didn’t enjoy any homework compared to just 6 out of 26 girls. The reasons for not enjoying any homework were varied, for ‘I have places to go in my free time’ to ‘I find it boring going over stuff I have already learnt in school’.
When asked why they do their homework I got a range of responses ranging from ‘I like to re-enforce my learning’ to ‘I don’t want to get a detention or be shouted at’
Critical discussion of findings including where flaws that were anticipated in methodology came true
The results I have reported and shown in my appendices, although conclusive, are extremely flawed. The sample was far too small and given more time I would like to get the questionnaire to hundreds of students. As I was in a school I had to explain what I was doing to the students in a brief talk before handing out the questionnaire. This undoubtedly influenced the student’s answers in the questionnaire because I had given them an ulterior motive to answer questions to reflect in my analysis to make homework banned. As I was walking around the classroom I was repeatedly asked ‘Is homework getting banned sir?’ and ‘Are you getting rid of homework?’
The focus group was dominated by a couple of rowdy lads that showed me that peer groups can influence decisions and opinions. The focus group only alerted me to the things students said, and there is no guarantee that what they said is genuinely what they think.
In spite of the flaws in the methodology, the results give the impression that students are missing out on social activities such as playing sport or even just ‘hanging around’ with friends because of homework demands. It seems teachers are not giving formative feedback on all homework and sometimes just give a tick on work that may have taken a long time.
The school policy states that only one piece of homework has to be formatively assessed per half term, this would be fine if students were only given one piece of homework per half term. The reality is that they get set homework once a week for each subject. This means that only 1 in 6 pieces are marked which clearly disillusions the students.
Conclusions
Evaluation of research methods
The research I carried out, although flawed, gave decisive results. Given more time I would have liked to carry out a longer study with a much larger representative sample. The focus group worked best because it gave me insight into the student’s beliefs. Although there is no way of proving that what the young people were saying were their true beliefs, I am confident that their views were genuine and represented a large proportion of the student body. I made sure that I had a mixed sample, some that have a good record of doing homework and some that never do it. Even at these polar opposites they agreed on the fact that whether or not homework was good for attainment, they would rather be doing other things with their time.
The questionnaires did give me access to a larger sample of students (59) I am glad I used a pilot questionnaire on a smaller sample because there were many flaws in my first attempt. This practice allowed me to modify my questionnaire to optimise the data collected from the students.
Recommendations for the school
Kingsmead could benefit from this study of homework in three ways. The first thing I propose is to abolish the homework timetables. Homework timetables subject the students to a one-size-fits-all model that is contradictory to the personalised learning policy. It also puts pressure on teachers to set homework on a particular day even if the lesson does not require homework. The homework timetable is an admission that homework is not required on the basis of the lesson and it is set purely because policy dictates it should be set. This leads to students using up their free time that could be spent hanging out with family or friends. Homework should not be abolished in Kingsmead but homework should be set when the teacher is confident that it is essential to learning and will benefit the young person more so than free time would.
The second movement Kingsmead School could make is to set homework that is not all about writing and school work. It could be to read for pleasure a book of their choice at a pace that they want, or simply to talk to parents / carers about what they have learnt at school that day. Maybe even ‘teach’ their parents what they have learnt. It could even be a programme where they have to keep track of all diet and exercise that they do and then to analyse, in class, if they are healthy or not.
Finally, students should not be punished for not completing homework, certainly not by taking away even more free time such as break or lunch times. Any homework that is set should be entirely optional. Work done at home should be marked formatively every time it is done and high praise should be showered on any student that chooses to complete the work.
These measures will lead to a more positive attitude to learning. It will also take vast amounts of pressure of students (and teachers) and will allow them time to pursue other interests and enrichment activities outside of school. It will also free up more time to be spent with families which can only be beneficial to students.
Bibliography
Books
Daily Mirror Reporter. (2008). Top grammar school slashes homework burden because pupils find it 'depressing'. Available: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1059621/Top-grammar-school-slashes-homework-burden-pupils-depressing.html. Last accessed 10 June 2005.
Driscoll, D.Y. (2008). Ethical Considerations in Primary Research. Available: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/559/02/. Last accessed 07 June 2009.
Grodin, M,A. & Glantz, L,H, eds. (1994) Children as research subjects: Science, Ethics, and Law. Chapter entitled Scientific issues in psychosocial and educational research. pp. 47-80. Koocher, G,P & Keith-Spiegel, 1990. Oxford. Oxford university press.
Hallam, H. (2004) Homework: The Evidence. London. Institute of Education, University of London.
Irvine, C. (2008). Emotional pain hurts more than physical pain researchers say. Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2639959/Emotional-pain-hurts-more-than-physical-pain-researchers-say.html. Last accessed 09 June 2009.
Kohn, A. (2006) The Homework Myth: Why our kids get too much of a bad thing. Da Capo Press. USA.
Mauthner, M. Birch, M. Jessop, J & Miller, T. Ed., 2002. Ethics in Qualitative Research. London, Sage Publications Ltd.
Rundblad, G. (2006). Ethics is essential. Available: http://www.appliedlinguistics.org.uk/pdfs/ethics.pdf. Last accessed 06 June 2009.
Smith, M.W. (1995). Ethics in Focus Groups: A Few Concerns. Qualitative Health Research. 5 (4), 478-486.
Tony. (2008). Britain’s Nottingham East academy plans to scrap homework. Available: http://www.inthenewstoday.co.uk/britain%E2%80%99s-nottingham-east-academy-plans-to-scrap-homework-591.html. Last accessed 10 June 2005.
Van Teijlingen, E.R. & Hundley.V. (2001). The importance of pilot studies. Available: http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU35.html. Last accessed 10 June 2009.
Wason, P.C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 20, 273-281.
E-Mails
Cera, M.J. info@kinoschool.org. RE: Homework Policy at Kino School. 3rd June 2009.
Edwards, H. HEdwards@tiffin.kingston.sch.uk. Tiffin School's homework policy. 4th June 2005.
As a teacher there is nothing worse than finishing the school day after staying behind after the bell to mark a third draft of an eager year 10’s coursework, only to realise you have a stack of year 7 posters to mark.
As students and teachers we have always assumed accepted that doing and setting homework is beneficial to academic attainment. It may be, but academic attainment is essentially a statistic. I will be looking at; previous studies that are showing that homework maybe is not such a good thing, schools that have changed the way they have set homework and how students at Kingsmead School could benefit from a change to their homework policy.
A Critical Overview of some relevant issues
Review of current initiatives
Kino School
Kino school in Tucson, Arizona have abolished traditional homework in favour of more enrichment activities such as sport or music. ‘What Kino does not do is assign homework that is of no interest to students, does not enrich their interests or fuel their passions, or consists of hours of drill and practice.’ (Cera, 2009) In further correspondence with Kino School I found that, not only are students happier in there school life, they are doing more work at home than when homework was compulsory. I asked why they had gone against the grain and banned homework. They informed me that ‘Work done at home that extends a child’s interest or excitement in learning would never be discourage, let alone “banned”.’(Cera, 2009). The head teacher then went on to tell me, however, that the traditional homework model ‘shows no positive correlation to academic success or love of learning. It interferes in family life as arguments and threats become part of the “homework routine’’.’(Cera, 2009)
East Nottingham Academy
Closer to home there are also schools that are abandoning traditional homework. One that has been in the press recently is the East Nottingham Academy. The proposed academy has not yet been built but the head teacher, Barry Day OBE, has told reporters that the new school will not have traditional homework and it will be replaced with an extra lesson of enrichment at school. He told a national newspaper “If you ask most heads what detentions are for, they will inform you that it is for non-completion of homework. It causes enormous home conflict. It is often set because there is an expectation that it should be set. It does not help (with education) at all.” (Day, 2008)
Tiffin school for boys
Tiffin school for boys is one of the UK’s top grammar schools. It has recently slashed homework from four hours a night to one, 40-minute assignment and 20 minute independent study per night. Head teacher Sean Heslop said that the reason for the cut is because ‘Large amounts of homework have become mechanical and repetitive’ (Heslop, 2008). Pupils are becoming disillusioned with homework and the deputy head was quoted as saying it was ‘Depressing’ to students. He went on to tell The Daily Mirror that ‘Something's not right when a boy can't sit down and watch a nature documentary on TV because he's too busy doing maths.’ (James, 2008).
I contacted Tiffin school and asked for their homework policy, it saddened me to hear that the head teacher will no longer be in post from September and there is every possibility that homework will revert back to how it used to be. They did however send me their policy on homework (Appendix 2)
Discussion of reading about relevant theory
In her book, ‘Homework: The Evidence’ Hallam comes to the conclusion that recent research on homework ‘Suggests a curvilinear relationship [between homework and attainment] (Hallam, 2004). Meaning that practicing homework, be it solving maths problems or learning the rules of grammar, has no benefits after a certain point. She also suggests that homework, while having a positive effect on academic attainment, only accounts for a very small amount of the variance. ‘Most of the variance is explained by pupil’s prior knowledge’
Parents and teachers always argue that homework develops a sense of responsibility in pupils. I have also heard that it increases time management skills and organisation in young people. Hallam argues that there is insufficient evidence to support this.
‘The question that schools and teachers need to constantly ask themselves is: what is the purpose of this homework?(Hallam, 2004)
Hallam found that generally, students believe that homework is important to help them do well in school. However the students feel that homework is ‘boring’ and ‘not always related to school work’ Pupils see no point in doing homework if ‘the don’t get written formative feedback from their teacher’ Hallam then goes on to state that other, non-school based activities may be ‘equally beneficial to students cognitive and emotional development’ and advises schools to make sure work set is of ‘real value in raising attainment’ (Hallam, 2004)
Alfie Kohn, author of The homework Myth, argues about ‘changing the default setting’ of setting homework on a set basis. He argues that teachers and policy makers are not thinking ‘Oh, it may be useful to do this project at home’ but rather the thought process is more like ‘We’ve decided ahead of time that children will have to do something every night. Later on we’ll figure out what to make them do’ (Kohn, 2006) This kind of thinking is surely unhelpful to students and teachers alike. The teachers have to mark homework which takes up a lot of their free time and the students have to actually do it even when the teacher doesn’t think it is valuable to them.
So why do teachers set homework? Kohn states that it could be for a number of reasons. It could be due to pressure from administrators, possibly even parents and in extreme cases, students themselves.
An account of the issue in relation to my experience at Kingsmead School
It was an event that happened to me personally during my placement at Kingsmead that ignited my interest in homework. The students were coming to the end of a really good lesson where they had, uncharacteristically, worked extremely well. The class teacher approached me quietly and reminded me that it was their homework day. I had not prepared any homework as I had used my homework task in the lesson as an extension piece. I asked if I could set some homework in the next lesson instead but the teacher declined, quoting the school homework policy. I asked for advice on what to set and the class teacher decided on a poster.
I told the class and they were in dismay, ‘But sir, we have worked hard today’. Upon reflection I had realised how mean it was to set homework just for the sake of it. I’m not sure that making a poster will help their English skills any more than not making a poster.
This was not the end of it, as the poster was set at the end of the lesson with me in a rush, 70% of the class had not completed the task by the deadline. They were kept in at break time as punishment. More free time lost.
I am not against homework. Done properly I think it will be beneficial to young people. If I had more time to think about the homework task I would have made it something verbal e.g. explain to your parents the importance of…
The mere fact that Kingsmead has a homework timetable is, in my opinion, a frank admission that homework is not suggested by a given lesson.
‘To decide in advance that homework in certain subjects will be assigned on certain days is to sacrifice thoughtful instruction on the altar of predictability’(Kohn, 2006)
Another problem with a homework schedule is that it is subjecting the students to a one-size-fits-all model which contradicts individualised and personalised learning (also a policy at the school)
Outline and justification of the methodology used.
I decided to make use of my time in school by handing out questionnaires and running focus groups. I also managed to look at the schools homework policy and some student planners.
This section deals with the ethical issues that may arise from my research and how data collected may be compromised in terms of validity.
Ethical issues in using children as subjects in educational research
‘…educational research does not typically present the more serious consequences to participants, such as pain…, that can arise in biomedical research… less significant risks to children… are tedium, boredom, confusion, anxiety due to the presence of strangers and disruption of normal routine’(Koocher, 1990)
Koocher, in comparing educational research with biomedical research, argues that even though children don’t go through any physical pain in educational research, they could still experience, albeit ‘less significant’, emotional pain.
In using children as subjects in any research the researcher needs to consider emotional pain on a similar level to physical pain. This is because studies show that ‘emotional pain is as real as physical pain, can last much longer and is more easily relived’ (Irvine, 2008).
We also need to consider the very real possibility of damage to the child subjects such as ‘fear of failure, a lowering of self-esteem and (social) embarrassment.’ (Koocher, 1990) This can be achieved by establishing a safe environment for the young people. As I will be working with students that I have not previously worked with, I will ensure that an adult is present that the children know and trust (such as a teacher or teaching assistant). This will soothe any concerns about disruption of routines.
Ethical Issues in focus group discussion
There has not been much written on the ethics regarding the focus group research method. The biggest ethical concern with talking to students about their home life is the ‘potential of over-disclosure’ (Smith, 1995). As the researcher, and the ‘responsible adult’ in the group it is my duty and professional obligation to make sure the students are safeguarded from harm. This can be done by moderating the questions. I had to omit one question from my focus group due to concerns that it had the potential of over-disclosure. The question was ‘Do you ever argue with your parents/carers over homework?’ I was worried that, due to the open nature of a focus group discussion, that conversation may lead to young people talking about areas of family life that would need reporting.
Ethical Issues in questionnaires
Questionnaires, in the majority, ‘have absolutely no reason to ask for a name’ (Rundblad, 2005). I will certainly not be asking students filling out my questionnaire to put their names on their responses so I will number the questionnaires before giving them out.
It is also important to ensure that the questionnaires do not ask any deliberately leading questions that invite personal information about the child or its family. It is the law that researchers be granted consent by the school to use the students as a sample group so I have contacted the school and showed the teachers the questionnaire for approval before giving it to the students.
Problems with the validity of data from young people
It is possible that I will run into problems with young people that may not yield accurate results. In my experience, young people have a tendency to tell the researcher what they think he/she wants to hear (either that or the opposite). Given the controversy of homework, especially with young people that experience it on a day to day basis, it is possible that they will take it seriously. However this throws up another consideration I need to have as a researcher. The majority of young people, I speculate, will want to abolish homework from their lives and may have an ulterior motive in answering questions and giving views. This will have to be taken into account when analysing the results.
One further reason is that ‘Children’s moods (e.g. silliness, anxiety, or shyness around strangers) and their often limited attention spans can affect data quality’ (Koosher, 1990). The young people, when doing focus groups and questionnaires will be in a relatively unfamiliar terrain and will also be with friends. This could lead to collusion, deliberate sabotage and general silly answers.
Problems with researcher’s possible confirmation bias
Confirmation bias is where researchers systematically seek only evidence that confirms their hypotheses (Wason, 1968). As I set out to investigate the negative effects of homework I need to be careful to not present a biased argument by only asking questions that I, consciously or otherwise, believe will support my prior beliefs. This needs to be addressed when conducting interviews and analysing the results.
Pilot Questionnaire and Focus Group
A pilot study is a good way to gauge how well the actual study will go. It will ‘identify logistical problems which might occur using (my) proposed methods’
(Van Teijlingen, 2001) and it is also a benefit to the study to gather preliminary data. The pilot questionnaire I will be using will tell me if the questions that I will be using are all useful and valid for my purpose. It will also help to prevent and show up any previously mentioned ethical or validity problems and I will be able to modify questions to get the best results.
Justifications of Focus Groups and Questionnaires.
Questionnaires will be used as they are less intrusive than face to face interviews and they are easier to analyse as they are tick box orientated. Students like filling in questionnaires because they are un-rushed and they can complete the questions in their own time, most significantly, they can answer anonymously. This means I will be able to get the opinions of the whole of my sample, rather than just the students who volunteer for focus groups. As I will gain quantitative data from my questionnaire results, I will use focus groups to get qualitative data.
The Focus group was chosen because, unlike questionnaires, the researcher can interact with subjects. The researcher will also benefit because he/she will be able to monitor body language of the subjects, ask follow-up questions and will also get a quick response.
Presentation and analysis of findings
Focus Group Findings and analysis
The focus group gave me the best insight into student perceptions on homework. They spoke at length about many issues, including when they do their homework. The transcript including step by step analysis can be found here (Appendix…..)
The main findings were that students generally do their homework when they get in from school (as per school policy) at the expense of playing football with friends. This also means that students are spending the daylight hours of their free time doing homework and the evening watching TV or playing Playstation.
When asked if the students ever fell out with parents over homework, all three of the boys said that it had caused arguments in the past. The female member of the focus group said that her Mum used to check her homework but she never does anymore because ‘She trusts me now’. One parent even takes the power lead from his games console until he shows her that he has completed all his homework for the next day. He has resorted to not writing his homework in his planner to avoid this nightly confrontation.
Another startling revelation was that one of the students said that he was punished with a 75 minute detention for not doing a piece of I.T. homework that was meant to take 15 minutes. This lead to a discussion about what happens when students don’t do their homework. There was a general consensus among the group that teachers didn’t even check most of the time if they had completed work, and when they marked it they just got a tick and a well done rather than any formative feedback. Another student mentioned that if his homework was not done, he would get an extension, which the teacher subsequently forgot about.
The biggest surprise from my focus group session came when I asked if the students thought that optional homework would be a good idea. One girl told me that nobody would do it, when pressed she told me she only did homework not to avoid getting into trouble. Not to further her understanding or to help herself achieve academic success.
Questionnaire findings and analysis
59 students were asked to fill out a questionnaire with a range of questions. The results were put into graphs and analysed. Gender had a large influence on how the students felt about homework. When asked if it should be kept, abolished or made optional, the majority of girls and boys both thought it should be made optional. However, only 4 girls wanted it abolished compared to 8 boys and where only 2 boys wanted to keep homework, 7 girls wanted it kept.
I found that boys enjoyed doing maths and ICT homework and girls preferred Art and Humanities homework. 16 out of 33 boys didn’t enjoy any homework compared to just 6 out of 26 girls. The reasons for not enjoying any homework were varied, for ‘I have places to go in my free time’ to ‘I find it boring going over stuff I have already learnt in school’.
When asked why they do their homework I got a range of responses ranging from ‘I like to re-enforce my learning’ to ‘I don’t want to get a detention or be shouted at’
Critical discussion of findings including where flaws that were anticipated in methodology came true
The results I have reported and shown in my appendices, although conclusive, are extremely flawed. The sample was far too small and given more time I would like to get the questionnaire to hundreds of students. As I was in a school I had to explain what I was doing to the students in a brief talk before handing out the questionnaire. This undoubtedly influenced the student’s answers in the questionnaire because I had given them an ulterior motive to answer questions to reflect in my analysis to make homework banned. As I was walking around the classroom I was repeatedly asked ‘Is homework getting banned sir?’ and ‘Are you getting rid of homework?’
The focus group was dominated by a couple of rowdy lads that showed me that peer groups can influence decisions and opinions. The focus group only alerted me to the things students said, and there is no guarantee that what they said is genuinely what they think.
In spite of the flaws in the methodology, the results give the impression that students are missing out on social activities such as playing sport or even just ‘hanging around’ with friends because of homework demands. It seems teachers are not giving formative feedback on all homework and sometimes just give a tick on work that may have taken a long time.
The school policy states that only one piece of homework has to be formatively assessed per half term, this would be fine if students were only given one piece of homework per half term. The reality is that they get set homework once a week for each subject. This means that only 1 in 6 pieces are marked which clearly disillusions the students.
Conclusions
Evaluation of research methods
The research I carried out, although flawed, gave decisive results. Given more time I would have liked to carry out a longer study with a much larger representative sample. The focus group worked best because it gave me insight into the student’s beliefs. Although there is no way of proving that what the young people were saying were their true beliefs, I am confident that their views were genuine and represented a large proportion of the student body. I made sure that I had a mixed sample, some that have a good record of doing homework and some that never do it. Even at these polar opposites they agreed on the fact that whether or not homework was good for attainment, they would rather be doing other things with their time.
The questionnaires did give me access to a larger sample of students (59) I am glad I used a pilot questionnaire on a smaller sample because there were many flaws in my first attempt. This practice allowed me to modify my questionnaire to optimise the data collected from the students.
Recommendations for the school
Kingsmead could benefit from this study of homework in three ways. The first thing I propose is to abolish the homework timetables. Homework timetables subject the students to a one-size-fits-all model that is contradictory to the personalised learning policy. It also puts pressure on teachers to set homework on a particular day even if the lesson does not require homework. The homework timetable is an admission that homework is not required on the basis of the lesson and it is set purely because policy dictates it should be set. This leads to students using up their free time that could be spent hanging out with family or friends. Homework should not be abolished in Kingsmead but homework should be set when the teacher is confident that it is essential to learning and will benefit the young person more so than free time would.
The second movement Kingsmead School could make is to set homework that is not all about writing and school work. It could be to read for pleasure a book of their choice at a pace that they want, or simply to talk to parents / carers about what they have learnt at school that day. Maybe even ‘teach’ their parents what they have learnt. It could even be a programme where they have to keep track of all diet and exercise that they do and then to analyse, in class, if they are healthy or not.
Finally, students should not be punished for not completing homework, certainly not by taking away even more free time such as break or lunch times. Any homework that is set should be entirely optional. Work done at home should be marked formatively every time it is done and high praise should be showered on any student that chooses to complete the work.
These measures will lead to a more positive attitude to learning. It will also take vast amounts of pressure of students (and teachers) and will allow them time to pursue other interests and enrichment activities outside of school. It will also free up more time to be spent with families which can only be beneficial to students.
Bibliography
Books
Daily Mirror Reporter. (2008). Top grammar school slashes homework burden because pupils find it 'depressing'. Available: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1059621/Top-grammar-school-slashes-homework-burden-pupils-depressing.html. Last accessed 10 June 2005.
Driscoll, D.Y. (2008). Ethical Considerations in Primary Research. Available: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/559/02/. Last accessed 07 June 2009.
Grodin, M,A. & Glantz, L,H, eds. (1994) Children as research subjects: Science, Ethics, and Law. Chapter entitled Scientific issues in psychosocial and educational research. pp. 47-80. Koocher, G,P & Keith-Spiegel, 1990. Oxford. Oxford university press.
Hallam, H. (2004) Homework: The Evidence. London. Institute of Education, University of London.
Irvine, C. (2008). Emotional pain hurts more than physical pain researchers say. Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2639959/Emotional-pain-hurts-more-than-physical-pain-researchers-say.html. Last accessed 09 June 2009.
Kohn, A. (2006) The Homework Myth: Why our kids get too much of a bad thing. Da Capo Press. USA.
Mauthner, M. Birch, M. Jessop, J & Miller, T. Ed., 2002. Ethics in Qualitative Research. London, Sage Publications Ltd.
Rundblad, G. (2006). Ethics is essential. Available: http://www.appliedlinguistics.org.uk/pdfs/ethics.pdf. Last accessed 06 June 2009.
Smith, M.W. (1995). Ethics in Focus Groups: A Few Concerns. Qualitative Health Research. 5 (4), 478-486.
Tony. (2008). Britain’s Nottingham East academy plans to scrap homework. Available: http://www.inthenewstoday.co.uk/britain%E2%80%99s-nottingham-east-academy-plans-to-scrap-homework-591.html. Last accessed 10 June 2005.
Van Teijlingen, E.R. & Hundley.V. (2001). The importance of pilot studies. Available: http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU35.html. Last accessed 10 June 2009.
Wason, P.C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 20, 273-281.
E-Mails
Cera, M.J. info@kinoschool.org. RE: Homework Policy at Kino School. 3rd June 2009.
Edwards, H. HEdwards@tiffin.kingston.sch.uk. Tiffin School's homework policy. 4th June 2005.
Tuesday, 23 February 2010
Let's talk shit (and homeopathy)
Homeopathy
Homeopathy has been, finally, talked about in the house of commons and the science and technology committee has advised us the government to stop funding homeopathic treatments. This is a step in the right direction, I just hope the government take note and stop bloody inflating Prince Charles ego.
Homeopathy, for those that do not already know is a complimentary medicine (or alternative medicine if you prefer) that takes a substance (Tiger tooth, Dragonfly wings, eye of a newt, scratchings from stonehenge - Guess which one is the 'non-made-up-one') and dissolves it in a huge vat of water. They then take that large vat of water and take a tiny vial of water from it. Following this, that small vial of water is emptied into another, fresh, vat of water and mixed up. This is then repeated a few times until there is absolutely no remnants of the original substance left. You are left with a vial of water with a fancy label. I am actually serious - The homeopath fanciers claim that water has a 'memory' of what was in it and that memory helps cure or alleviate a range of diseases including coughs, colds and even broken bones, bad breath and erectile dysfunction. There is evidence that homeopathy works - but only as a placebo effect.
Well? If it works let people use it. It doesn't matter how it works if it does.
I have a few problems with this- It is ripping people off.
The other problem is that people may be put off going to their doctor - even worse - put off taking their youngsters to a doctor as they believe homeopathy can cure them. This is child abuse and a violation of human rights.
My personal favourite claim by the Medicines and Health care Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is that...
is worried about upholding traditions, since when has medicine been about tradition
I mean, it is pretty much saying, by licensing homeopaths (They do. Frequently), that homeopathy is as good as conventional medicines at curing disease.
Homeopathic remedies are touted as water with memories of past dilutions- They are so staggeringly diluted that there are no traces of any of the original substance, usually in the scientific world they do double blind tests against placebos to test weather they work (Double blind means that the patients plus the scientists don't know who has been given the placebo until after the results are in) With homeopathic remedies the placebo will be atomically the same as the 'real' treatment so it is impossible for it to work.
I will leave you with one last comment.
If water has such a good memory, even when diluted hundreds of times. What about all the shit that has been in it at some point?
P.S. The real substance was scratchings from Stonehenge. Seriously
Homeopathy has been, finally, talked about in the house of commons and the science and technology committee has advised us the government to stop funding homeopathic treatments. This is a step in the right direction, I just hope the government take note and stop bloody inflating Prince Charles ego.
Homeopathy, for those that do not already know is a complimentary medicine (or alternative medicine if you prefer) that takes a substance (Tiger tooth, Dragonfly wings, eye of a newt, scratchings from stonehenge - Guess which one is the 'non-made-up-one') and dissolves it in a huge vat of water. They then take that large vat of water and take a tiny vial of water from it. Following this, that small vial of water is emptied into another, fresh, vat of water and mixed up. This is then repeated a few times until there is absolutely no remnants of the original substance left. You are left with a vial of water with a fancy label. I am actually serious - The homeopath fanciers claim that water has a 'memory' of what was in it and that memory helps cure or alleviate a range of diseases including coughs, colds and even broken bones, bad breath and erectile dysfunction. There is evidence that homeopathy works - but only as a placebo effect.
Well? If it works let people use it. It doesn't matter how it works if it does.
I have a few problems with this- It is ripping people off.
the UK-based Society of Homeopaths said that the NHS spends £4 million annually. This does not include the running costs of the homeopathic hospitals and the £20 million spent on refurbishing the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital between 2002 and 2005.This, part of the report shown to the house of lords is proof that sugar pills are costing the government dearly. Not to mention the companies that are pushing this 'water with a fancy label' over the internet for a helluva lot of money. Coca Cola must be fuming they didn't market their Dasani water as homeopathic. (It got taken of the shelves after being exposed as tap-water)
The other problem is that people may be put off going to their doctor - even worse - put off taking their youngsters to a doctor as they believe homeopathy can cure them. This is child abuse and a violation of human rights.
My personal favourite claim by the Medicines and Health care Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is that...
that there is an "important homeopathic tradition" to uphold.First of all, this is the agency that regulates our medicine and healthcare and they are worried about upholding traditions. This is pure medieval (Speaking of which, Black magic, witchcraft and hanging were all traditions at one point too - should we bring them back?) It seriously worries me when the MHRA, a government agency with this line as their first line of the 'about us' section of the website reads 'is responsible for ensuring that medicines and medical devices work, and are acceptably safe.'
is worried about upholding traditions, since when has medicine been about tradition
I mean, it is pretty much saying, by licensing homeopaths (They do. Frequently), that homeopathy is as good as conventional medicines at curing disease.
Homeopathic remedies are touted as water with memories of past dilutions- They are so staggeringly diluted that there are no traces of any of the original substance, usually in the scientific world they do double blind tests against placebos to test weather they work (Double blind means that the patients plus the scientists don't know who has been given the placebo until after the results are in) With homeopathic remedies the placebo will be atomically the same as the 'real' treatment so it is impossible for it to work.
I will leave you with one last comment.
If water has such a good memory, even when diluted hundreds of times. What about all the shit that has been in it at some point?
P.S. The real substance was scratchings from Stonehenge. Seriously
Thursday, 18 February 2010
Disney Documentary
I have just finished watching a documentary by Disney called Earth. It is brilliant, I laughed pretty much all the way through it. It had new born chicks jumping out of trees and attempting their maiden flights (and failing miserably) and a bird called the 'bird of paradise' showing of its mating dance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gAxbxxmYZ8 Watch it, its brilliant. 'it is hard not to feel deflated when even your best is not good enough' Class.
Seriously, I cannot recommend this beautifully shot, nature documentary highly enough. Think March of the penguins but a million times better.
I have only one problem with it and it is small but worth a mention as it really annoyed me. As it happens early in the film I nearly switched it off (I am glad I didnt). Basically it shows a wolf chasing a heard of Bambi looking creatures and it isolates a young one and chases it. The chase is shot from a helicopter and it is staggeringly good, but eventually the wolf catches the cub by its tail and the cub then sits down and waits to be eaten. Then, after all the build up, it cuts and we do not see it. I am all for wrapping kids up in cotton wool but this is ridiculous. It is a nature documentary for goodness sake, this is how the world of nature works. Show it.
It is Disney's first production from it's new production arm 'disneynature' and I really hope there is some more of the same on the way. Perfect filmmaking that will make you appreciate how spectacular our planet is. I really hope people who see this movie will be more inclined to protect our home. You will laugh, you may even cry but I can 100% gaurentee you will think. And that is what a film should do.
Kudos disney
Seriously, I cannot recommend this beautifully shot, nature documentary highly enough. Think March of the penguins but a million times better.
I have only one problem with it and it is small but worth a mention as it really annoyed me. As it happens early in the film I nearly switched it off (I am glad I didnt). Basically it shows a wolf chasing a heard of Bambi looking creatures and it isolates a young one and chases it. The chase is shot from a helicopter and it is staggeringly good, but eventually the wolf catches the cub by its tail and the cub then sits down and waits to be eaten. Then, after all the build up, it cuts and we do not see it. I am all for wrapping kids up in cotton wool but this is ridiculous. It is a nature documentary for goodness sake, this is how the world of nature works. Show it.
It is Disney's first production from it's new production arm 'disneynature' and I really hope there is some more of the same on the way. Perfect filmmaking that will make you appreciate how spectacular our planet is. I really hope people who see this movie will be more inclined to protect our home. You will laugh, you may even cry but I can 100% gaurentee you will think. And that is what a film should do.
Kudos disney
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
