You are what you do, not what you say; so do it like the "space monkey".

Why are we becoming so sensitive about what everyone says rather that what everyone does? There have been three classic examples in the press recently.

1) The "slutgate" affair and the UK Independence Party (UKIP)

UKIP's Godfrey Bloom was accused of insulting an audience of (mainly) women when he called women who did not clean behind the refrigerator "sluts". One of the ladies took exception even though he was only joking. He was subsequently told that he could no longer represent UKIP as an MEP.

I do not support Mr Bloom's policies and never will. However, I do support his right to make fair comment and make a joke. Mr Bloom quoted the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. The first entry for the word slut is " a women of  slovenly habits or appearance or a kitchen maid or a drudge". The second entry is "a sexually promiscuous woman".

I am prepared to accept that Bloom meant the former. Why should he be traduced for using the word "slut"?
The person or  people who complained were obviously ignorant of all the meanings of the word. It would have been better if they had looked up the Shorter Oxford Dictionary before creating a furore.

Why not give him the benefit of the doubt even if you do not like him or his policies?

I accept that Bloom's comments about "Bongo Bongo" land were ill judged and should not have been made.
He has also made other ill judged remarks about the employment of young women. So, if you do not like him don't vote for him.

The best way of resolving issues about Mr Bloom are at the ballot box rather than creating a  silly furore about his use of language.

http:wwwhuffingtonpostcouk20130928ukipsgodfreybloomhits_n_4007325html


2) The "plebgate"  affair

Ten years ago a Government Minister could swear unjustifiably at a policeman and then apologise and the matter would then be dropped. The policeman would have accepted that the language used was uttered on the spur of the moment.

Policemen are sworn at and insulted much more on the streets by drunkards and petty criminals.

Andrew Mitchell, the government minister involved ,was forced to resign for using naughty words. This is completely ridiculous.

The senior management of the police have got themselves in a lot of hot water for refusing to accept Mitchell's explanation of what he said.

I am sure that all the parties involved in the affair would have preferred it if the matter had been dropped after the initial apology. Andrew Mitchell had not been violent and he had done nothing wrong other than use a few impolite words.  You are what you do, not what you say.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/policing-reform-needed-plebgate-affair-2464082



3) The "spacemonkeygate" affair

It is difficult enough to be the manager of the England football team at the best of times without being accused of racism. The "space monkey" phrase came from the initial era of American space travel. Instead of sending dogs into space before humans, like the Russians, the Americans sent chimpanzees, Ham and Enos, into space first. During Project Mercury this  prompted the joke about the astronauts being sent into space only to feed the "monkey" who was doing all the real work.

Roy Hodgson is not a racist and once again he is the victim of ignorance. No one took offence about what he said  and the comment should not have been leaked to the press. There should have been no investigation and no one should have even mooted an investigation. The matter should have been dropped. Hodgson was only joking.

There is no such thing as different races of human beings  as we are all members of the same race - homo sapiens sapiens.  It is completely ignorant to claim that there are different races of human being. To differentiate human beings on the basis of skin colour is also ignorant and unjustified by the facts.

Let's forget about race in this context and treat all men and women as being equals and with equal respect. This is what Roy Hodgson, who is a decent and intelligent man, does; he puts his beliefs into action.

When Project Mercury was in progress the astronaut corps members were all white men. There were no black astronauts selected and women were not selected either. Quite rightly, NASA was criticised at the time for their selection criteria. It was wrong to exclude both black men and  all women. NASA subsequently corrected this.

The subject of the astronautical joke took the "space monkey"  comment as being rather a compliment. It implied that the he was rather special and should be fed the ball.

Once again, you are what you do, not what you say. Let there be shame on those who misconstrued the joke and blew a little piece of humour and humanity out of all proportion and into a racist incident.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/england/10388833/Andros-Townsend-defends-England-manager-Roy-Hodgson-saying-space-monkey-joke-a-compliment.html


I find it very irritating, when dining with my wife, to be called "guys". If I am dining alone no one calls me "guy", and I get funny looks from the waiter if I call him Guy in return. My wife hates being called "guys". The use of this word is irritating; what is wrong with using the word "folks"?

I looked up " guy" in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary and apart from meaning 3 being defined as "a man or fellow" in the singular or "people" in the plural  and chiefly North American; it also means "a person of grotesque appearance" or "an effigy of a man about to be burnt on Guy Fawkes night".

When the waiter calls me and my wife  "guys", he does not intend to call us "people of grotesque appearance" or burn us. He is just trying to be friendly. It is my wife and I who interpret it as being irritating. However, we are not offended and usually see the funny side of it especially when I ask the waiter "how did you know my name was Guy?" This joke is usually lost on waiters, just like the "space monkey"" joke was lost on the media and the watchdogs.


It is a pity that everyone takes themselves too seriously especially with regard to jokes, the way you are greeted or even the way you are sworn at.

Let us reserve our ire for those who are truly offensive and advocate violence against others - even with polite words.

You are what you do, not what you say ;so three cheers for the "space monkey" , he was very clever even if he was really a chimpanzee.

Badger Cull in the UK

The badgers have won. They have outsmarted the human beings and refused to roll over and allow themselves to be shot. It is now time to stop the the cull and put the guns away.

The tuberculosis bacteria has also won. A small proportion of badgers that were infected with bovine TB have probably run away from the cull site to spread the infection elsewhere - the scientists call this perturbation. Other species which carry  bovine TB bacteria might have done this too.

It is now time to re-assess why bovine TB has got into the population of wild animals and the mechanism of its spread amongst cattle.

If badgers were economically important a cull would never have been contemplated in the first place it seems that money is the only driving force.

Alternative solutions are required.  The vaccination of wild animals could help prevent the spread. There is also a need to improve cattle husbandry. Improved bio -security on farms and when transporting cattle will also help.

Luckily no-one was hurt as a result of the cull. No protestor was accidentally shot and no farmers seem to have been attacked  by animal rights activists.

http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/Martin-Horwood-Cheltenham-MP-run-badger-cull/story-19964792-detail/story.html#axzz2iReDSCEa

US Debt Ceiling

It is to be hoped that negotiations to settle the US debt ceiling  will be resolved before the so called October 17th deadline. There is no doubt the US Treasury will be able to carry on settling the country's debts beyond the deadline.

There is a danger that panic could set into the markets at anytime leading up to the deadline and afterwards. If the impasse continues who knows what would happen? All the domestic and international financial markets need to be confident that the US will settle its debts. The US President might order the Treasury to settle all essential debts even if it means breaching the debt ceiling.

What would happen ,however, if the Government  failed to pay social security checks or fail to pay its soldiers? Many thousands of other American citizens and small businesses are set to suffer if a deal is not reached.

A protracted impasse could lead to chaos in both the financial markets and the social arena.

The financial system might become ruined by inflation and ever increasing interest rates.

Some people of both the extreme right and the extreme left could be wishing for this as a type of catharsis which would lead to a new world order of the left or the right. I ask them to think again; the last think to wish for would be violence on the streets of America this would have far reaching consequences beyond the USA borders.

It is time for the politicians to stop playing with fire. Of course it is desirable for governments to run their societies without massive debt ceilings, but the debt ceiling needs to be managed downwards by careful negotiation about future spending and revenue collection and the growth of the economy. This has to be done slowly but not precipitously by denying the settlement of existing obligations . All nations have a lesson to learn here.

Greenpeace and the Russian Oil Platform

The Greenpeace Activists and other members of their party who have been arrested whilst protesting against the Gazprom Prirazlomnaya  rig are in for a very tough time. I wonder if the directors of Greenpeace were fully aware of what would be the consequence of their action and did they fully advise all members of their ship's party of the risks involved?

The oil rig may be in international waters but it is very close to the the Russian mainland but albeit in a very remote location. The Russian authorities obviously see Greenpeace as a threat to their national interests and their fuel strategy. They could have been expected to have acted very strongly when their oil rig was approached by the Arctic Sunrise ship. The  attempt to board oil rig: was regarded as being illegal and it was resisted.

Perhaps, the Greenpeace activists on board knew what they were letting themselves in for but was  the British journalist, who was not a member of Greenpeace, fully informed of what might happen? The journalist and his family must now be living in despair.

The detainees are claiming that they should be released under the convention of the law of the sea but I doubt that this will make much difference. The detainees could quite easily be charged and found guilty of piracy and end up in prison for a long time. 

I hope that no one has entered into this form of high profile protest without knowing what could happen especially with regard to the risk to their own safety. Fire hoses were used to try to wash the boarders from their  ropes. Shots were also fired at or near them by the Russian authorities. 

In Western Europe, we have got used to our governments treating protesters with a rather light touch when compared to Russia and other states. In fact, in Britain, the police will quite often defend the right to make peaceful protest. We cannot expect liberal values to prevail in every other state; protesters should therefore act accordingly and look after their own safety as no one else will do it for them.

Of course the protesters should be released immediately without charge; that would be the fair approach but can we expect the Russian authorities to do this? No: we cannot.

Greenpeace should be more careful  about what it is doing, how it obtains publicity and how it exploits the idealism of its young activists. It should also pay attention to the safety of the journalists who work for them.

The end does not always justify the means.

Rapprochement with Iran

The sudden warming of relations with Iran is to be welcomed. We must at least listen to what they have to say. We can lose nothing from this. The people of Iran also deserve  better too. They deserve a democratic and secular government that serves their best interests. The people of Iran are probably not interested in acquiring nuclear weapons or sponsoring extreme religious groups intent on attacking Israel.

Israel must listen too they can lose nothing from hearing what Iran has to say. There is no doubt, in my mind, that Iran wants to do a deal. However, I suspect that they will demand a quid pro quo. They will demand that Israel dismantles its nuclear weapons. In which case no deal will be struck. Lets hope this is not the case.

Israel will probably not give up its nuclear arsenal whilst its neighbours seek to destroy its very existence.
The  key to a Middle East settlement lies in the hands of Israel's neighbours; they must stop trying to destroy the state of Israel which is the only homeland where Jews feel safe.

It is obvious from history that Jews must have a homeland where they are free from persecution and where they can defend themselves. They have been let down too many times by European nations which have failed miserably to guarantee their safety.

When the security aims of Israel are guaranteed by rapprochement with its neighbours it will be time for the United Nations to apply the pressure for a military withdrawal from the West Bank. This is the realpolitik situation which must be embraced by Jews, Arabs and Persians alike.  Rapprochement should then lead to the dismantling of nuclear weapons and their removal from the Middle East.

The hatred on both sides must stop. Small steps are being taken with Syria and by Iran but Israel must also show that some small steps can be taken too. Any resolution depends on a quid pro quo.

Peace should be the ultimate objective and there is no reason why a Middle East commonwealth could not be established afterwards. This will allow for the return of Palestinians to their natural homeland and will allow Jews to become legitimate and protected  residents, but not masters, in the West Bank and beyond.

If their is no ambition for the peace and security for all  the people of the Middle East then there is no hope.