There is only a possibility that fuel delivery drivers will go on strike in the UK. A week's notice has to be given before a strike takes place. Despite all this there is panic buying at the fuel stations with some garages running out of petrol whilst yesterday fuel purchases rose by 170%. Who knows what will happen if the fuel delivery drivers really decide to go on strike? Why does there have to be panic buying when the situation has hardly changed?
The attitudes of some people never cease to amaze me especially when taking advice from the government. When govern ministers offer sensible advice about not drinking too much every one ignores it.
When the government tries to recommend that we fully adopt the metric system like most other civilised countries we have protests. Perhaps avoirdupois sausages taste better than metric ones. So we ignore the recommendations.
When a government minister suggests something daft, rather than stupid, like filling up your tank even though it is unnecessary many people comply without question. What has happened to commonsense? Perhaps it's the early hot and sunny weather? Why waste petrol and time to fill up unnecessarily? This form of behaviour just gets in the way of people who have to fill up out of necessity like policemen and doctors.
Hopefully all this madness will quietly die down and there will not be a strike. I hate to think what will happen if there is a disruption to fuel supplies - fuel rage at the pumps? Luckily, commonsense usually prevails, even when there is an industrial dispute too.
Friday, 30 March 2012
Friday, 16 March 2012
Resistance to Antibiotics
The Director General of the world health Organistion has warned us that the resistance of disease causing micro-organism to antibiotics is increasing at an alarming rate. There is a risk that every antibiotic which has been developed will be rendered useless. If true, this might have enormous implications for the health of everyone in the world. It is possible that diseases such as Tuberculosis will be rendered incurable. A contributing factor to microbial resistance is the use of antibiotics in farming on an industrial scale and the inappropriate use of antibiotics by the medical profession.
This problem has implications for all of us. Antibiotics have made a major contribution to world health. They have also made a major contribution to the growth in the human population. We have come to rely upon antibiotics and our survival without them may now be imperilled.
Is it possible, now, that the growth in our population will be curtailed by the spread of untreatable diseases?
Urgent work is required to find new methods of controlling infectious disesase; perhaps by the use of Bacteriophages?
Our vulnerability to infectious diseases and our increasing inablity to control them points out that we are not immune to the the processes of nature. Despite all our hubris and cleverness, we are not completely able to protect ourselves from natural or man made catastrophes. We need to intervene in nature with the utmost care, intelligence and understanding, otherwise we could easily damage ourselves or even wipe ourselves out.
This problem has implications for all of us. Antibiotics have made a major contribution to world health. They have also made a major contribution to the growth in the human population. We have come to rely upon antibiotics and our survival without them may now be imperilled.
Is it possible, now, that the growth in our population will be curtailed by the spread of untreatable diseases?
Urgent work is required to find new methods of controlling infectious disesase; perhaps by the use of Bacteriophages?
Our vulnerability to infectious diseases and our increasing inablity to control them points out that we are not immune to the the processes of nature. Despite all our hubris and cleverness, we are not completely able to protect ourselves from natural or man made catastrophes. We need to intervene in nature with the utmost care, intelligence and understanding, otherwise we could easily damage ourselves or even wipe ourselves out.
Syria and Chemical Weapons
The UN is now concerned that Syria has chemical weapons. This is another disturbing development for peace in the region. If true, this is another considerable threat to peace in the region. Syria has been involved in so many wars. It is, of course, a major threat to Israel which is obliged to defend its citizens; so it is no wonder that Israel is determined to maintain a nuclear deterrent.
Syria is also becoming a destabilised state so what would happen if chemical weapons were to fall into the hands of terrorists?
It is time for the UN Security council to insist that all nations in the Middle East divest themselves of all types of weapons of mass destruction to prevent another calamity from happening.
Syria is also becoming a destabilised state so what would happen if chemical weapons were to fall into the hands of terrorists?
It is time for the UN Security council to insist that all nations in the Middle East divest themselves of all types of weapons of mass destruction to prevent another calamity from happening.
Wednesday, 14 March 2012
Afghanistan,War and Military Occupation
Afghanistan is another international tragedy which will be difficult if not impossible for western powers to resolve. I agree with the new policy to withdraw our troops by 2014 and to start reducing their deployment in 2013. Evens so, we have a duty to try and prevent chaos during the period of withdrawal. There was very little justification for invasion in the first place. It is better to prevent terrorism by policing operations and the use of intelligence; intelligence in all the meanings of the word.
It is difficult to completely control the actions of a nation's servicemen even when those servicemen completely share common values. Atrocities have been committed by soldiers on duty even though their political masters have have ordered them to act with restraint. This is one of the unfortunate consequences of both war and occupation.
If it is difficult to completely control soldiers who share the same values as you , what chance do you have to control or influence a nation which does not share most of your opinions?
It is my view that war and occupation of another state can rarely be justified on either moral or pragmatic grounds. In recent history, I can only support one war and that was the Second World War. Diplomacy had failed to prevent, Hitler, a crazed maniac from subverting liberal secular democracy to impose a tyranny based on semi-religious beliefs. However, war could not prevent him and his henchmen committing some of the biggest crimes in history.
The occupation of Western Germany by American, British and French forces was accepted, in peace, by the German people for a number of reasons: fear of the Soviet Union, shared values with the USA, Britain and France and perhaps a sense of guilt. It should be remembered that most of the German people did not support Hitler or his policies and he never received majority support in any election.
The Soviet Union was un-able to occupy the other countries of Central and Eastern Europe without resentment or in some cases violent opposition. Even though Russia shared European values with the states that it occupied it ultimately failed to impose its will.
The Second World war had undesirable and unforeseen consequences. The USA was almost forced into developing nuclear weapons because of the fear that Germany would acquire them first. Hitler, without doubt, would have used them without restraint against any nation that opposed him and there would have been a worse holocaust. The cost of using these weapons, against Japanese civilians, was then assessed against the benefit of shortening the war and saving military lives. A diabolical inhuman calculation was, therefore, imposed upon the most liberal of politicians. This was the unfortunate result of the opposition to tyranny.
There are now dangers of another war breaking out in the Middle East. Israel has been allowed by the Western Powers to obtain Nuclear weapons. Israel is allowed to defend itself. The Israeli nation has an absolute right to exist. Every nation should consider what happened in the Second World war especially Middle Eastern neighbours. This does not mean that Israel should not act with restraint. Its policy of occupying Palestinian territory will eventually be seen by history to be a diplomatic mistake. Nuclear proliferation in the Middle East was an error which should not have been allowed to happen. It looks as though Iran too wants to arm itself with Nuclear weapons to protect itself from perceived threats from its neighbours. This is the dangerous consequence of allowing Israel to arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction. Can we expect Israel to act with restraint when the leaders of Iran have stated that they want to eliminate its nation completely? Would the USA, France or Britain act with restraint if confronted with a similar situation? I don't think so; there would be a pre-emptive non-nuclear strike. Their citizens would expect nothing less. There will, therefore, probably be another war in the Middle East. It looks as though diplomacy will fail because of fear and hatred.
Nuclear proliferation has been one of the biggest threats to world peace and all this has been a result of un-preventable tyranny, war and occupation. Nuclear weapons must be removed from the diplomatic equation otherwise at some time in the future a maniac like Hitler will use them. The dangers of Nuclear war do not recede because of increased "deterrence" they only accumulate. Every nation needs to rid itself of these weapons as a matter of priority. Unfortunately, I doubt that this will ever happen. Human Beings, underneath it all, are just animals that are unable to control the dangers of their own ingenuity.
It is difficult to completely control the actions of a nation's servicemen even when those servicemen completely share common values. Atrocities have been committed by soldiers on duty even though their political masters have have ordered them to act with restraint. This is one of the unfortunate consequences of both war and occupation.
If it is difficult to completely control soldiers who share the same values as you , what chance do you have to control or influence a nation which does not share most of your opinions?
It is my view that war and occupation of another state can rarely be justified on either moral or pragmatic grounds. In recent history, I can only support one war and that was the Second World War. Diplomacy had failed to prevent, Hitler, a crazed maniac from subverting liberal secular democracy to impose a tyranny based on semi-religious beliefs. However, war could not prevent him and his henchmen committing some of the biggest crimes in history.
The occupation of Western Germany by American, British and French forces was accepted, in peace, by the German people for a number of reasons: fear of the Soviet Union, shared values with the USA, Britain and France and perhaps a sense of guilt. It should be remembered that most of the German people did not support Hitler or his policies and he never received majority support in any election.
The Soviet Union was un-able to occupy the other countries of Central and Eastern Europe without resentment or in some cases violent opposition. Even though Russia shared European values with the states that it occupied it ultimately failed to impose its will.
The Second World war had undesirable and unforeseen consequences. The USA was almost forced into developing nuclear weapons because of the fear that Germany would acquire them first. Hitler, without doubt, would have used them without restraint against any nation that opposed him and there would have been a worse holocaust. The cost of using these weapons, against Japanese civilians, was then assessed against the benefit of shortening the war and saving military lives. A diabolical inhuman calculation was, therefore, imposed upon the most liberal of politicians. This was the unfortunate result of the opposition to tyranny.
There are now dangers of another war breaking out in the Middle East. Israel has been allowed by the Western Powers to obtain Nuclear weapons. Israel is allowed to defend itself. The Israeli nation has an absolute right to exist. Every nation should consider what happened in the Second World war especially Middle Eastern neighbours. This does not mean that Israel should not act with restraint. Its policy of occupying Palestinian territory will eventually be seen by history to be a diplomatic mistake. Nuclear proliferation in the Middle East was an error which should not have been allowed to happen. It looks as though Iran too wants to arm itself with Nuclear weapons to protect itself from perceived threats from its neighbours. This is the dangerous consequence of allowing Israel to arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction. Can we expect Israel to act with restraint when the leaders of Iran have stated that they want to eliminate its nation completely? Would the USA, France or Britain act with restraint if confronted with a similar situation? I don't think so; there would be a pre-emptive non-nuclear strike. Their citizens would expect nothing less. There will, therefore, probably be another war in the Middle East. It looks as though diplomacy will fail because of fear and hatred.
Nuclear proliferation has been one of the biggest threats to world peace and all this has been a result of un-preventable tyranny, war and occupation. Nuclear weapons must be removed from the diplomatic equation otherwise at some time in the future a maniac like Hitler will use them. The dangers of Nuclear war do not recede because of increased "deterrence" they only accumulate. Every nation needs to rid itself of these weapons as a matter of priority. Unfortunately, I doubt that this will ever happen. Human Beings, underneath it all, are just animals that are unable to control the dangers of their own ingenuity.
Monday, 5 March 2012
Homesexuality and Marriage
I have no strong feelings about whether the law should be changed to allow civil marriages between homosexuals. There is already the possibility of a civil partnership which is akin to marriage. I got married in a registry office because I believe that the church, or another other religion, should not be allowed to influence what constitutes a legal marriage. If the UK parliament is allowed a free vote on the matter, then I am confident that members will make the decision, whether the law should be changed or not, based on some sort of evidence. Church leaders seem to be incapable of weighing up any moral or intellectual dilemma based on evidence so their judgement cannot be trusted.
One prominent cardinal of the Roman Catholic church claimed that "gay" marriage would lead to some sort of moral dissolution and that "gay" marriage was against natural law. Where is the evidence that marriage is in any way governed by natural laws? There is no evidence.
Where is the evidence that homosexuality harms our society? There is no evidence. So, why is the church so opposed to homosexuals having the same rights as anyone else? I have the feeling that the church's opposition to homosexuality is based on blind and irrational prejudice.
Religious leaders are of course entitled to express their opinion, but if ever they were allowed to influence secular law making on the basis of their prejudice or irrational thoughts then all of us would be heading for trouble. The sort of intolerance that they are displaying disqualifies them from interfering in law making. I would hate to think what would happen if the church were to be given real power once again. Would it mean that Jews, Muslims, Hindus, agnostics, atheists or homosexuals would be prevented from expressing their opinion or be disqualified from public office or worse?
My views are not an attack on religion or the beliefs of anyone. I agree that the church should be free not to marry homosexuals, if they so chose. But in exchange for this the church should accept that we live in a secular society and should not try to interfere with the decisions of a democratically elected parliament which represents society in general.
A liberal, democratic and secular society is the best way of ensuring the freedom of everyone to practise their religion, no matter which one. It is also the best way of protecting the rights of those that do not adhere to the proscriptions of the religious. Above all, it is the best way of protecting our human rights and combating persecution.
One prominent cardinal of the Roman Catholic church claimed that "gay" marriage would lead to some sort of moral dissolution and that "gay" marriage was against natural law. Where is the evidence that marriage is in any way governed by natural laws? There is no evidence.
Where is the evidence that homosexuality harms our society? There is no evidence. So, why is the church so opposed to homosexuals having the same rights as anyone else? I have the feeling that the church's opposition to homosexuality is based on blind and irrational prejudice.
Religious leaders are of course entitled to express their opinion, but if ever they were allowed to influence secular law making on the basis of their prejudice or irrational thoughts then all of us would be heading for trouble. The sort of intolerance that they are displaying disqualifies them from interfering in law making. I would hate to think what would happen if the church were to be given real power once again. Would it mean that Jews, Muslims, Hindus, agnostics, atheists or homosexuals would be prevented from expressing their opinion or be disqualified from public office or worse?
My views are not an attack on religion or the beliefs of anyone. I agree that the church should be free not to marry homosexuals, if they so chose. But in exchange for this the church should accept that we live in a secular society and should not try to interfere with the decisions of a democratically elected parliament which represents society in general.
A liberal, democratic and secular society is the best way of ensuring the freedom of everyone to practise their religion, no matter which one. It is also the best way of protecting the rights of those that do not adhere to the proscriptions of the religious. Above all, it is the best way of protecting our human rights and combating persecution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
