Britain joined the Common Market on the 1st January 1973 along with Ireland and Denmark. In 1975 we had a referendum about whether we should remain members. The referendum was called to resolve political infighting within the governing Labour party. Many labour party MPs from both the left ad the right of the party were opposed to British membership of the Common market. The left believed that it would become a rich man's club and some on the right of the party were concerned about a loss of sovereignty.
There was a campaign coalition between business interests, the majority of the Conservative party and the whole Liberal party who argued for Britain remaining within the Common Market. Many senior members of the Labour government also campaigned for Britain to remain.
There was intense and intelligent debate about the issue and every one could see the pros and cons of membership; the decision was not a black and white one. Britain could have survived and prospered without being a member of the Common Market. However, the economic benefits were mostly clear and the vote to remain in the Common market won the the day as 67% of the British people voted to stay in with a turnout of 65% of the voting population.
This was the first National Referendum. All of us who voted believed that we had made a once and for all decision about the future our Nation. My own opinion was that it was a 50:50 decision and I did not finally make my mind up until I entered the polling station. I reserve the right not to reveal how I voted.
The referendum should have been the end of the matter and for a decade or so our country got on with the business of being a fully committed member of the Common Market. We embraced the freedom of movement of people, capital, goods and services. Our country prospered and grew and we became as wealthy as our German and French partners.
Our nation has adapted itself to the ways of the Common Market and latterly the EU. It would now be very difficult to unwind ourselves without considerable cost and to little benefit.
We should be very careful about blindly accepting the criticisms of Euro-sceptics and secessionists.
When I voted I was worried about the loss of national sovereignty but my fears have been allayed.
I ask everyone to to consider where the EU has impinged upon the sovereignty of the UK and where it has impinged adversely on the important rights of the individual.
Has the EU insisted that we should become a republic rather than a constitutional monarchy?
Has the EU dictated to us how we should conduct National and Local elections?
Did the EU prevent us from have a referendum on proportional representation?
Has the EU interfered in the right of the Scottish people to decide their future as part of the UK or as an independent state?
Has the EU interfered with our judicial system and the right to a fair trial and to be tried by a jury?
Has the EU interfered with the appointment of senior government ministers, law officers etc.?
Has the EU tried to interfere with the rights of the Church of England or any other religion in the UK?
Has the EU interfered with the UK's schools policy, the National Health or our Defence policy?
Has the EU interfered with the individual's right to own property, start a business, join a football club, go to the theatre or to see a film, go to the pub, to play cricket or rugby, to drive a car, to move around freely or to worship or not worship?
I think you will find that the EU has not impinged upon most aspects of our national political, cultural and social life.
Why is this? It is because we share common cultural values with our French, German, Spanish and Dutch neighbours. We all believe in democracy, the rule of law, freedom of speech and movement. We share common cultural values we play similar sports we like to go to the theatre, to watch films and go to rock concerts and classical music concerts. We all love family life and like to go for a drive or train trip on a Saturday but above all we do not want to interfere in the national lives of our neighbours.
The people of the UK do not want to impose a constitutional monarchy on the French anymore than the French want to impose a republic on us. All of the Nations of the EU have a live and let live attitude to one another.
The EU Commission does not rule us and neither does the European Parliament both; institutions have very limited powers. Most of the power of the EU resides in the Council of Ministers and for big decisions a national government is empowered with a veto. If the EU has impinged upon your rights then your national government is responsible.
The UK and Denmark have chosen not to join the Euro. No European state tried to to force us to join monetary union. The UK and Ireland have chosen not to join the Schengen agreement and no European state tried to force us to do so.
The EU Commission and Council has limited its activities to trying to improve the commercial life of EU members but not always successfully. It has messed up Fishery and Agricultural policies but this situation can be improved by negotiation and co-operation but not by threatening to leave the club.
In other areas the EU Commission and Parliament have succeeded improving such items as water and air quality in the member states. They have also improved the mobile telephone usage and reduced roaming charges etc. They have not always been a failure. They have also tried to improve food standards.
There have been very many benefits to EU membership. All of our economies have become more competitive and diverse. Europe has become a very desirable place to live and Britain has become part of this, that is the reason why so many people want to emigrate to Europe. Do we want to make our countries so bad that no one wants to come?
Before we decide, in the UK, to leave the we need a proper debate; one which is based on reason and objectivity and consideration of the possible consequences of secession.
We should not leave because we do not like foreigners, or immigrants or because "johnny foreigner" has decided we should have meat rather than rusk in our sausages. Unfortunately this is the level of debate.
Consider this: more than 40% of our trade depends upon the European Union, We export more to Germany than to the US. More than £400 billion of trade relies upon the EU.
One million UK nationals reside in Germany, Spain and France many of them are over 60 so if they were forced to return home, how would we look after them. The immigrants to Britain are mostly young and are not such a burden on the National Health and only 1.7% of them claim benefits. The overwhelming majority of EU immigrants make an economic contribution to our country so we can afford the extra schools needed etc.
Consider this also: the influx of French, Germans, Spanish and Italians etc. has improved our cultural life and improved the diversity of our nation without affecting the culture peculiar to Britain. You can still watch Coronation street or play cricket if you want to or eat Bacon and Eggs for breakfast. But you could even try a tasty Italian recipe from Nigella Lawson.
If we leave the EU we will probably be forced to join the EEA just like Norway and Iceland and for the same economic reasons. Norway has 5 million people and it must pay 300 million Euro pa to join the EU trading club. Norway has to obey European trading laws but it has no say in how those laws are formulated. Norway has to accept the freedom of movement of EU and EEA member nationals.
Britain would probably be forced to adopt a similar position to Norway but pro-rata we would have to pay more - something like 3 billion Euro pa . Britain's net contribution to the EU budget is around 3 billion pa. We would have no say in how European Union law is formulated just like Norway. We would still have to accept the free movement of people and "johnny foreigner " will still be saying we must put meat in our sausages.
Many people in Europe value our membership and value what we have to say and they all want to speak our language.
It is cold outside the tent - so maybe it would be better to stay inside it and warm our hands around the stove with "johnny foreigner" and eat real sausages rather than ones filled with gristle and rusk.
So please be careful what you wish for and think carefully before you vote.
Friday, 24 January 2014
Monday, 20 January 2014
World War 1
This year we, in the UK, will be commemorating the the start of World War One. I hope we shall not be celebrating and I hope that representatives for Germany and the Central Allies and all other combatants are also invited.
No country won the the first World War; there were only losers. The UK lost over 750,000 of its young men: France lost 1,300,000; Germany up to 2,000,000; Austria-Hungary up to 1,200,000; Italy up to 1,3000,000; Russia up to 1,700,000: Turkey over 300,000; The British Empire over 250,000 and the USA over 120,000.
These casualty figures are mind boggling. The UK lost as many soldiers during one day of the first World War than it has in the whole of the latest Afghan conflict.
World War One was entered into without much debate or consent and the UK was not a full democracy as women still did not have the vote. The war was caused by colonialism and rivalry between the UK and Germany and the other colonial powers of Europe. It must be remembered that much of the war was conducted in Africa where the colonial powers were competing for vast tracts of land; land to which European powers had no right to take by force.
We fought this war for no purpose and there were no ultimate beneficiaries. The war exposed some rampant jingoism extant in the combatant nations. Those who sent white feathers to conscientious objectors were the shameful representatives of this misplaced patriotism and nationalism.
The soldiers were exposed to the most appalling conditions and some of them who fell mentally ill from shell shock were cruelly executed in a form of unjust punishment.
Of course there was bravery and we should honour the brave, the fallen and the injured. But we should honour the combatants of all nations not just the "victorious" ones.
In Britain we are having left wing - right wing "politically correct" arguments about whether the war was caused by colonialism or not and whether we should celebrate victory or not. The colonialism was all too obvious but the victory was not.
The USA has no such left wing -right wing arguments about colonialism as colonialism is condemned by all political parties. It was Dwight Eisenhower who insisted that the British and French withdraw from Egypt during the 1956 Suez crisis. Eisenhower was a Republican and right of centre. There is no doubt that a left of centre Democratic president would have done the same.
World War One lead directly to World War Two but after the second conflagration the USA had no appetite for revenge. It made generous efforts to mend the broken economies of its adversaries. Germany was not subjected to the stringent economic reparations which impoverished it after World War One but imposed by the European powers. Perhaps, a World War Three was averted because of this American generosity.
Let us forget about the left-right debate and who was to blame and who was victorious but commemorate those who fell with a sense of dignity, humility and resolve. Let us resolve that such a dreadful war should never be repeated.
No country won the the first World War; there were only losers. The UK lost over 750,000 of its young men: France lost 1,300,000; Germany up to 2,000,000; Austria-Hungary up to 1,200,000; Italy up to 1,3000,000; Russia up to 1,700,000: Turkey over 300,000; The British Empire over 250,000 and the USA over 120,000.
These casualty figures are mind boggling. The UK lost as many soldiers during one day of the first World War than it has in the whole of the latest Afghan conflict.
World War One was entered into without much debate or consent and the UK was not a full democracy as women still did not have the vote. The war was caused by colonialism and rivalry between the UK and Germany and the other colonial powers of Europe. It must be remembered that much of the war was conducted in Africa where the colonial powers were competing for vast tracts of land; land to which European powers had no right to take by force.
We fought this war for no purpose and there were no ultimate beneficiaries. The war exposed some rampant jingoism extant in the combatant nations. Those who sent white feathers to conscientious objectors were the shameful representatives of this misplaced patriotism and nationalism.
The soldiers were exposed to the most appalling conditions and some of them who fell mentally ill from shell shock were cruelly executed in a form of unjust punishment.
Of course there was bravery and we should honour the brave, the fallen and the injured. But we should honour the combatants of all nations not just the "victorious" ones.
In Britain we are having left wing - right wing "politically correct" arguments about whether the war was caused by colonialism or not and whether we should celebrate victory or not. The colonialism was all too obvious but the victory was not.
The USA has no such left wing -right wing arguments about colonialism as colonialism is condemned by all political parties. It was Dwight Eisenhower who insisted that the British and French withdraw from Egypt during the 1956 Suez crisis. Eisenhower was a Republican and right of centre. There is no doubt that a left of centre Democratic president would have done the same.
World War One lead directly to World War Two but after the second conflagration the USA had no appetite for revenge. It made generous efforts to mend the broken economies of its adversaries. Germany was not subjected to the stringent economic reparations which impoverished it after World War One but imposed by the European powers. Perhaps, a World War Three was averted because of this American generosity.
Let us forget about the left-right debate and who was to blame and who was victorious but commemorate those who fell with a sense of dignity, humility and resolve. Let us resolve that such a dreadful war should never be repeated.
Friday, 13 December 2013
GCSE results are "mainly determined by genes"
So it is official your exam performance is more related to the performance of your genes than environmental factor such are teaching and culture etc. Intelligence is based on genes rather than how well you have been brought up or cared for. Where is the proof of this? There is none.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/nature-trumps-nurture-in-exam-success-gcse-results-mainly-determined-by-genes-says-landmark-study-of-twins-8998782.html
Why do we have to keep on returning to the gene versus nature argument? It is obvious , that with regard to the human species as a whole, that genes have conferred on us a bigger and more complex brain per kilogramme of body weight than any other mammal. It is obvious that a human being is more intelligent than a dog or chimpanzee.
It is not so obvious when comparing one human with another. Intelligence tests are simply bad science. We have no independent variable to test against as there is no other being which has any form of related intelligence by which a standard can be set.
IQ tests are conducted by comparing an individual subject against a community which that subject is a already a member of. There is no independent variable, so IQ tests are bogus.
If genes were in control of how well a subject does in a test then please tell me how well a English child would do in the Japanese "O" level equivalent? He would probably fail especially if he could not speak Japanese.
Where are the genes for intelligence and learning and who has identified them? Where are the genes for criminality for that matter? So Mother Nature invented a gene for "O"levels did she?
Whenever I see reports that intelligence and learning or success are based on superior genes I think of political correctness but not of the left wing variety. The elite are superior because God or Nature or both gave them better genes. And, because of this they deserve all the power and money. This is baloney.
Whatever next:: are we going to go back to the failed theories of Eugenics and racial superiority? White men, of course, being chosen to mate with white women provided their Mensa scores are above 140 or whatever.
I would like to see what a set of European academic geniuses would do if they were dumped onto a boat in the middle of the Pacific ocean without a "satnav", a compass, a map, a sextant or a watch or clock. Would they be able to navigate to the nearest island to save themselves like the Polynesian explorers of yesteryear?
The Polynesians did not have a gene for navigation; they learnt how to travel thousands of miles across the oceans, without mechanical aids, from a body of knowledge passed down through the generations. White men could do this too but only if they could learn how.
Let us forget about the better and the good being more intelligent and superior to lesser mortals.
The better and the good invented: Thermonuclear bombs, Eugenics, Nerve gases, Biological warfare, Racism, Slavery, the Holocaust etc. but some of them had the intelligence to regret what they did but most of them didn't. The real great and good had the intelligence and learning not get involved in any of this in the first place.
I wonder if Jesus Christ, Ghandi and Nelson Mandela got "A" passes in their GCSE?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/nature-trumps-nurture-in-exam-success-gcse-results-mainly-determined-by-genes-says-landmark-study-of-twins-8998782.html
Why do we have to keep on returning to the gene versus nature argument? It is obvious , that with regard to the human species as a whole, that genes have conferred on us a bigger and more complex brain per kilogramme of body weight than any other mammal. It is obvious that a human being is more intelligent than a dog or chimpanzee.
It is not so obvious when comparing one human with another. Intelligence tests are simply bad science. We have no independent variable to test against as there is no other being which has any form of related intelligence by which a standard can be set.
IQ tests are conducted by comparing an individual subject against a community which that subject is a already a member of. There is no independent variable, so IQ tests are bogus.
If genes were in control of how well a subject does in a test then please tell me how well a English child would do in the Japanese "O" level equivalent? He would probably fail especially if he could not speak Japanese.
Where are the genes for intelligence and learning and who has identified them? Where are the genes for criminality for that matter? So Mother Nature invented a gene for "O"levels did she?
Whenever I see reports that intelligence and learning or success are based on superior genes I think of political correctness but not of the left wing variety. The elite are superior because God or Nature or both gave them better genes. And, because of this they deserve all the power and money. This is baloney.
Whatever next:: are we going to go back to the failed theories of Eugenics and racial superiority? White men, of course, being chosen to mate with white women provided their Mensa scores are above 140 or whatever.
I would like to see what a set of European academic geniuses would do if they were dumped onto a boat in the middle of the Pacific ocean without a "satnav", a compass, a map, a sextant or a watch or clock. Would they be able to navigate to the nearest island to save themselves like the Polynesian explorers of yesteryear?
The Polynesians did not have a gene for navigation; they learnt how to travel thousands of miles across the oceans, without mechanical aids, from a body of knowledge passed down through the generations. White men could do this too but only if they could learn how.
Let us forget about the better and the good being more intelligent and superior to lesser mortals.
The better and the good invented: Thermonuclear bombs, Eugenics, Nerve gases, Biological warfare, Racism, Slavery, the Holocaust etc. but some of them had the intelligence to regret what they did but most of them didn't. The real great and good had the intelligence and learning not get involved in any of this in the first place.
I wonder if Jesus Christ, Ghandi and Nelson Mandela got "A" passes in their GCSE?
Friday, 15 November 2013
14% African ancestry indeed
There has been a lot of press reporting about a so called white supremacist submitting himself to a DNA test on the "Trisha Goddard" show in the US. Supposedly, he found out that he was in fact of 14% African ancestry. What does that mean? This statistic is completely wrong. All the evidence suggests that Homo Sapiens originated in Africa. We are all of 100% African ancestry. Every living person can trace their ancestry back to a mother and father somewhere in Africa. All Americans are African Americans and All Europeans are African Europeans despite their skin colour.
There is no such thing as a completely "white" person or a completely "black" person or a "yellow" person. All of us have melanin in our skin and it is an accident of genetic mutation and subsequent evolution that European people became lighter skinned than their African fore fathers and mothers. The terms "white" and "black" are simply labels of convenience as they have no real deep meaning.
To distinguish between people and call them members of different races on the basis of skin colour is irrational, illogical and ignorant.
We are all members of the same race: Homo Sapiens Sapiens. There are some grounds for believing that another "race" of mankind did once exist. There is evidence that the Neanderthals interbred with our ancestors to produce viable offspring, so the Neanderthal is most likely to be another subspecies or "race" of human namely, Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis. However, the morphological features of the Neanderthal man all fall within the range of modern man, but of course in different combinations, so we may not be a different "race" to the Neanderthal man after all.
To complicate the issue further there is strong evidence that both Neanderthals and modern humans interbred with the newly discovered Denisovan man. So there may have been another "race" of man on the planet in recent times. The Denisovan and Neanderthal subspecies or "races" have died out to leave just one subspecies of man or "race" on the planet: Homo Sapiens Sapiens or all of us.
It might do "racists" some good to read books about anthropology rather than appear on or watch shows such as the Trisha Goddard one.
There is no such thing as a completely "white" person or a completely "black" person or a "yellow" person. All of us have melanin in our skin and it is an accident of genetic mutation and subsequent evolution that European people became lighter skinned than their African fore fathers and mothers. The terms "white" and "black" are simply labels of convenience as they have no real deep meaning.
To distinguish between people and call them members of different races on the basis of skin colour is irrational, illogical and ignorant.
We are all members of the same race: Homo Sapiens Sapiens. There are some grounds for believing that another "race" of mankind did once exist. There is evidence that the Neanderthals interbred with our ancestors to produce viable offspring, so the Neanderthal is most likely to be another subspecies or "race" of human namely, Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis. However, the morphological features of the Neanderthal man all fall within the range of modern man, but of course in different combinations, so we may not be a different "race" to the Neanderthal man after all.
To complicate the issue further there is strong evidence that both Neanderthals and modern humans interbred with the newly discovered Denisovan man. So there may have been another "race" of man on the planet in recent times. The Denisovan and Neanderthal subspecies or "races" have died out to leave just one subspecies of man or "race" on the planet: Homo Sapiens Sapiens or all of us.
It might do "racists" some good to read books about anthropology rather than appear on or watch shows such as the Trisha Goddard one.
Tuesday, 22 October 2013
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.
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
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
Tuesday, 15 October 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
