Essays and Referencing

It's madness in my poor, little, insignificant life right now. Well, insignificant to the point I am only one person and there's much worse out there.

But, as I finish typing a political essay on the Attlee Governments and Democratic Socialism, I've realized a real bugbear when it comes to essays - necessary though annoying.

As you probably guessed from the title - it's referencing and bibliography.

As boring as it is, it is also tedious as those academics among you will realize. To help with the speed of my essays, I have merely referenced in the text shorthand (I use Harvard), and now I need to shift through and write them out, long hand and get my bibliography set up.

With this being one of 4 essays due in in the next 10 days, I have also made a similar (mistake) approach to one of my essays due in a week on Monday.

This coming Wednesday - Philosophy of Logic essay - I'm intrigued how this essay is going to turn out...

then a week on Monday:

Extended Essay [Politics] (which requires BINDING) I've not even started researching, never mind writing.
Germany Politics Essay (needs referencing properly)
UK Essay (just conclusion and referencing required)

So just 3,000 words for the Logic essay now, and a further 5,000 in me for the Extended Essay.

I am on a tight schedule to get all this done, so apologies for lack of interesting blogging in the meantime.

I do miss it. But I'm sure you understand.

Rant over.

Sociology and Religion: Belief in the Supernatural

A Theos survey found:
27% believe in reincarnation
39% believe in ghosts
55% believe in Heaven
53% believe in life after death
70% believe in human soul.

Comparing with 1950s:
22% believe in astrology or horoscopes & 15% believe in fortune telling
1950s: 10% believe in ghosts (2% seen one), 7% in fortune telling, 6% in satrology.

Comparing with 1998:
18% believe in fortune telling
38% believe in astrology
40% believe in ghosts, 15% seen one.

"The results indicate that people have a very diverse and unorthodox set of beliefs. Our research may point to a slight increase in scepticism about aspects of the supernatural over the last 10 years." (Wooley)

Source: BBC

So what does this tell us?

True that results indicate a diverse and 'unorthodox set of beliefs', and I would like to refer back to my last blog in a mention of a 'Civil Religion' - and that for some, even a sports game can be followed somewhat religiously. So perhaps given this, the results are not all that suprising.

But, what is really meant by a belief in... heaven, or life after death, or reincarnation, or astrology, or fortune telling? We can't by any stretch of the imagination draw anything conclusive other than the very obvious: There is a degree of an increase in such diversity of beliefs. Yet also, we cannot ignore there are degrees within these beliefs. For example, just what IS heaven? Also, what kind of life after death are we talking about? Something along the lines of John Hick's philosophy of a physical existence in the next world, or Christian resurrection, or that we move on to a higher mental plane after our physical death?

I would also like to make the suggestion that some beliefs could well be interlinked: consider the soul, life after death, and ghosts. One person may believe that when we die, our soul continues after death and is reconstituted in the form of a ghost. Another may feel the soul dies with the body, or that it carries on after death and there are no such thing as ghosts.

So there are many different (and interesting things) we can draw from the sociological survey, and importantly that while people may seem to be less religious (consider church attendences), that does not mean that people are any less spiritual and searching for this fulfillment in other ways.

Religion, Faith, Spirituality, Belief... all this smacks of a DIY ethic on the one hand, and a more critical, open-minded and considerate ethic on the other.

Happy Good Friday?

Found this on my Feedly newsreader via Firefox which I found rather strange:



Happy Good Friday. It seems a bit strange, but I asked my dad, Fr Peter and he says its not a day of celebration as such but rather one of remembering. Quite right, too.

This Easter has seen a religious holiday getting all political over the football being shown on Easter Sunday - only ever happened 8 times, ever, in the past. For a country that is historically Christian, I do think that there is a point.

We should remember the Passion of Christ and Easter for specifically those reasons but also I think, for an atheist, who might not have any holidays, a compromise should be found: a religion of one is no less relevant than a religion shared by 6, 6 million or 6 billion.

Robert Bellah puts forward his argument of a 'Civil Religion in America' ; which we if accept this premise, can translate for many football fanatics that football is religion too, and the stadium is the church and the game is the service.

Should there be any clash of religions, (as ridiculous as football being a religion may seem to Catholics, Christians and vice-versa), what I propose is the art of compromise:

Whereby there is a clash, there are those that are religious, and watch their football too, and so both should be allowed in the spirit of things - but the football should be screened at a time that does not disrupt the Easter festivities. Where Setanta are showing the game at 1PM (kickoff at 2PM) - this does not allow most Evertonians travelling from Merseyside to get to the game on time where Christian services are likely to take place around 10:30AM. So I would argue the game should be kicked off at 4PM instead, to allow for Easter to go somewhat less disrupted, ample time to arrive for the game.

All this bleating might seem a bit crazy for some - it's impossible to please everybody. Still, this reminds me of an email my dad sent me on religious days for the atheist:

In Florida , an atheist created a case against the upcoming Easter and Passover holy days. He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians, Jews and observances of their holy days.

The argument was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days.

The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring,"Case dismissed!"

The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying, "Your honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah, yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays."

The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, "But you do. Your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant."

The lawyer said, "Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists."

The judge said, "The calendar says April 1st is April Fools Day. Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day. Court is adjourned."

You got to love a Judge that knows his scripture!

Sexual Ethics: Abortion and Condom Advertisments before the Watershed?

As I type, my mother is drawing up a petition against the news that the advertising agency are planning to air TV advertisements giving pregnancy advice before the 2100 watershed.

You can read the planned news here
You can read news on anti-abortion agency being against this proposal here.
And a heartwarming mother’s perspective on the blogosophere on the nature of abortion, here.

There are various positions we can argue from; for and against. The debate rages and comes to light in this blog in light of my own Catholic beliefs and my philosophical background. They are, it seems to be at odds and it is a very emotional issue. So, what’s the fuss about?

---

Against

The sanctity of life is a moral imperative for Catholics. It would be quiet controversial to suppose that murder is acceptable. Abortion and the morning-after pill equals murder. Condoms and the pill for contraceptive use prevents the possibility of life, the natural order of things. Abstinence is the answer - STIs are avoided and babies can be raised in a traditional, nuclear family.

---

For

The reality is different: STIs are on the increase, media sensationalization of sex and the acceptance of sexual promiscuity is clearly the problem and we must respect the rights of the mother and the social circumstances that lead to use of contraception and abortion methods. A last resort, is needed to prevent the breakdown of society and we must provide for the circumstances in abortion and condom use is sensible and necessary.

---

Conclusion

Speaking with my philosopher’s hat on, it is not disputed that abortion is abhorrent, the destruction of life. I would have to agree with BBC Mark Easton’s blog:

“What stops teen pregnancies: condoms or family meals? I suspect that the problem is more down to lifestyle than to lack of information.” [Read blog here]

This hits the nail on the head and fits into both arguments - the conservative, religious view and the liberal, pro-choice view. So what’s the answer?

The reality must be accepted - that we exist in a society where sex is apparent, and yet it seems that discussion of sex and sexual ethics is a ‘taboo subject’. It is not the place of government is legislate what is right and wrong on this personal issue, but some guidance and acceptance in the difference of opinions should allow people to make a rational choice. Perhaps this is too philosophical to contemplate, maybe no society can become one-dimensional in its moral directives. Yet if the education is there, condoms and abortions can be used for the more rational and acceptable means: Preventing spread of STIs, Family planning, abortion to protect the life and welfare of the mother and child. To resolve this dilemma of ‘what is right’ here is an age-old question that I cannot answer. Something to consider…

---

PS: You can read my personal opinion in the comments section here.

Chimp pre-meditates stoning zoo visitors

Peter Singer would agree with me, (read copied article below), that this is evidence that we need to give Chimps rights, and maybe, also, we need to start making chimp prisons?:

---

Zoo chimp 'planned' stone attacks

Chimpanzees have long been suspected of planning ahead

A male chimpanzee in a Swedish zoo planned hundreds of stone-throwing attacks on zoo visitors, according to researchers.

Keepers at Furuvik Zoo found that the chimp collected and stored stones that he would later use as missiles.

Further, the chimp learned to recognise how and when parts of his concrete enclosure could be pulled apart to fashion further projectiles.

The findings are reported in the journal Current Biology.

There has been scant evidence in previous research that animals can plan for future events.

Crucial to the current study is the fact that Santino, a chimpanzee at the zoo in the city north of Stockholm, collected the stones in a calm state, prior to the zoo opening in the morning.

The launching of the stones occurred hours later - during dominance displays to zoo visitors - with Santino in an "agitated" state.

This suggests that Santino was anticipating a future mental state - an ability that has been difficult to definitively prove in animals, according to Mathias Osvath, a cognitive scientist from Lund University in Sweden and author of the new research.

"We've done experimental studies, and the chimps in my mind show very clearly that they do plan for future needs, but it has been argued that perhaps this was an experimental artefact," Dr Osvath told BBC News.

"Now we have this spontaneous behaviour, which is always in some sense better evidence."

Cracking show

Dr Osvath embarked on the study after zoo staff discovered caches of stones in the section of the enclosure facing the public viewing area.

Since the initial discovery in 1997, hundreds of the caches have been removed to protect visitors, to whom the caching and the aggressive displays seem strictly related; in the off season, Santino neither hoards the projectiles nor hurls them.

The chimp stashed hundreds of stones in anticipation of throwing them

Most interestingly, Santino seems to have learned how to spot weak parts of the concrete "boulders" in the centre of the enclosure.

When water seeps into cracks in the concrete and freezes, portions become detached that make a hollow sound when tapped.

Santino was observed gently knocking on the "boulders", hitting harder to detach bits that were loosened and adding those to his stashes of ammunition.

There are a number of examples of complex behaviour in apes that suggest forms of consciousness.

Planning behaviour like that of the current work is connected to so-called autonoetic consciousness, where information due to memory can be distinguished from that from the senses.

"I'm personally convinced that at least chimps do plan for future needs, that they do have this autonoetic consciousness," Dr Osvath said.

"I hope that other zoos or those in the wild will look more closely at what is happening," he added.

"I bet there must be a lot of these kinds of behaviours out there, and I wouldn't be surprised if we find them in dolphins or other species."

Source - BBC

---

Questions of Truth

I found this blog a bit interesting: http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=708


It is about a review of a book, Questions of Truth.

"Questions of Truth vividly illustrates how, if you are sufficiently committed to a belief, it is always possible to interpret other facts to fit in with it. It all depends on which of your beliefs you take to be non-negotiable. “The materialist takes as basic fact the existence of matter,” they say, somewhat caricaturing the atheist position. “The theist takes as basic fact the existence of a divine creator,” they add, accurately describing their own. From this starting point, it is clear there is nothing which could persuade the theist otherwise."

The only thing that I have to ask if: If you are willing to see some parts of your faith as negotiable, then should or can you really subscribe to that faith at all?...

Self-Consciousness

Yesterday I had a Philosophy of Mind tutorial, on Cartesian Dualism. This blog has a slight personal touch to it, as you will soon see. Most of us hadn't done the reading but the conversation nevertheless kicked off philosophically on whether we can have self-consciousness.

First we argued on the basis of animals, and I brought up a story of my own showing that animals do not have self-consciousness because their natural instincts are supreme - those of you who might know think of my first dog mickie and the car accident, where he went to die but when he was rescued to be treated, he bit the person that picked him up. This as I see it, as proof.

One person in the class, whether he disagrees personally or not is up to debate, but he used the analogy of disabled people to question, ponder the possibility whether disabled people (he didn't specify so naturally I take this in most general terms) like animals, whether they are capable of self-consciousness. In his defence, I understood what he really meant but there is an element of ignorance on his part where he failed to specify what he means. People will, mainly take things as given and this is an implication that is ludicrous and evidence to show that clarity of expression is paramount. Never mind the fact that philosophically speaking he was arguing for the sake of arguing. There is a fine line between thought and intent. Had I not known any better I'd have cried fowl. But this is not a minority crying wolf, even though I think it such a thing said in print SCOPE would have a field day. Look no further than Jeremy Clarkson's recent comments to see what I mean here.

For arguments sake it should always be said that when making a point there is no intent to offend. Otherwise people simply will, whether offence was intended or not.

On the topic, I would suggest that even the very definition of what a self-consciousness is. It would appear from the philosophical quagmire of yesterday this is unclear among students.

I know full well what I am and I know, also believe that the very notion of CP on a piece of paper or mind can illicit the most stereotypical of responses. I am not your average, conventional, stereotypical Cereal Palsean. But the very notion that any persons being any different is an affront to any idea of equality of persons in the basic sense, any idea of fairness among persons. It smacks of pure ignorance.

For anyone who doubts my position, I would invite you to read the US Declaration of Independence, the Social Contract ethic that is the foundation of social morality today :

"All men [peoples] are created equal"* (Thomas Jefferson)

*NB: The use of language is understandably gendered, cultured to the time. It is now universally understood that 'men' in this context is to extend to all humankind. Think of the iconic Star Trek opening credit declaration as an example - From 'no man' (TOS) to 'no one' (TNG).


This is unequivocally a truism. Black, White, Gay, Straight, Transexual, Hermaphrodites, Disabled and non-disabled, everyone, we are all equal. And not just in the eyes of God, but in the depths of our soul and understanding of humanity. Any advocate of inequality of this scale is contradicting themselves - it would always be possible then for them to be the supressed, the weak, and not the opressors and the strong.

A final note to finish on with the general bracketing of disabilities. The response I've given, I argue to quote Brian Barry, is the only intellectually honest one. Second, PVS or not (which I believe is what he really meant to refer to), using disability in a general context equates not just Cerebral Palay to Persistant Vegetative State, but obesity and even left-handedness which can be considered amongst those as disabilities. It is also debated whether those with PVS are without a self-conscious if this is the argument to make and it is known I am assured that people can come out of PVS.

There are degrees to disabilities, stereotypes and brackets are undeserved and ignorant.

And to say that people with disabilities, or anyone with anything beyond average, as not having a self-conscious - which is centre to self-realisation and being? Heaven forbid.

-- Post From My iPhone

Buddhism: A Spiritual Philosophy?

After reading parts of a book over the Christmas period, "Destroying Emotions: A Dialogue with the Dalai Lama", and my initial knowledge of Buddhism, I have become increasingly curious about Buddhism.

I decide to do some research. Knowing that some call it a religion, others a "spiritual philosophy, I was interested into looking into the basic teachings and I can see where, arguably there is Buddhism as a spiritual philosophy, and Buddhism as a religion.

SoYouWanna's convert to Buddhism article deals with the basics and the crux of the Buddist ideal - I will refer it to as an ideal for now and return to the question of spiritual philosophy/religion later.

There are, it argues, and this corresponds to Wikipedia's various articles on Buddhism - I will discuss a few Buddhist concepts later - many different factions of Buddhism, just like in Christianity or Judaism or Islam, and the same for the "Eastern Religions" of Hinduism, Sikhism, etc. There is no central thesis, no bible, but there are guidelines. Also Buddhism does not, it asserts, deal with the question of a God of Classical Theism. So by right, it is possible to be a Buddhist and believe in a God. From this perspective I would call it "religious Buddhism".

Buddhism as a 'spiritual philosophy' is based on 5 precepts, and a 8-fold path, in order to eliminate bad thoughts, and promote the good. Here we find the classic thing when we think of as Buddhism - meditation. As a bit of education, I quote from SYW the 8-fold path and 5 precepts below. The 5 precepts should be thought of as guidelines, they are rules but given that Buddhism has no strict doctrine, despite many religious texts, they are guidlines in the aim of being mindful at all times in order to acheive enlightment. The 8-fold path, is the path we should follow.

5 Precepts:

1. Don't kill - man or beast
2. Don't steal
3. Don't lie
4. Don't cheat on your loved one
5. Don't take drugs or drink booze

I would personally agree with all on the basis of acheiving mindfulness at all times, and at first glance it might appear that being a strict vegetarian or vegan is the way of a Buddhist. However, given the main aim of Buddhist ideals is to acheive enlightenment, I would not say that the killing of animals for food violates this objective.

Second, I would have to reexamine the 5th precept. As a guide of course, it is always a good idea not to drink excessively or take drugs. The 'Don't drink and drive' policy is the obvious one we can think of here. However some Buddhist of the spiritual kind might argue that some drugs and alcohol, taking recreationally is fine and can be used to acheive mindfulness. My father even calls real ale "brainfood", for one. The importance of the 5th precept must not be ignored, it is common sense not to drink too much that we lose control of our way of thinking, but in moderate amounts, recreational drugs and drinking can acheive happiness inone sense. It only becomes a violation when the 5th precept, I would argue, violates any of the other 4. I'm not a Buddhist scholar, but for me this is acceptable from a philosophical point of view.

The 8-fold path:

The whole reason for becoming Buddhist is to achieve happiness and become "enlightened." In order to do this, you must follow the Eightfold Path. Once you have accomplished all eight steps, you are officially enlightened:

1. Right Knowledge: Strive to comprehend the first three Noble Truths. This might seem a bit circular, but language is a tricky thing, and the Great Seer wanted to make sure you had all your bases covered. The Noble Truths perhaps aren't as straightforward as they may seem at first. So you must strive to fully comprehend them.
   
   
2. Right Thinking: Consciously dedicate yourself to a life in harmony with the Noble Truths elucidated by the Buddha.
   
   
3. Right Speech: No gossiping, lying, backbiting, and harsh language. If you don't have anything valuable to say, keep your big yapper shut. Always good advice.
   
   
4. Right Conduct: For lay Buddhists (meaning Buddhists who aren't monks), Right Conduct means following the Five Precepts (see below). If you're a monk, there are some more rules for conduct, but don't worry about them until you're ready to become a monk.
   
   
5. Right Livelihood: Go peacefully into the world and do no harm. So choose a profession that's harmless to living things, and refrain from killing people.
   
   
6. Right Effort: Conquer the flow of negative thoughts, replacing them with good thoughts.
   
   
7. Right Mindfulness: Achieve an intense awareness of your body, emotions, and mental states. Quiet the noises in your head and dwell in the present.
   
   
8. Right Concentration: Learn about (and practice) various kinds of meditation, an important booster rocket on the launch pad to enlightenment.

None of these, I think are unreasonable and I think everyone could learn something from these from a philosophical point of view.

Taking the 8-fold path and the 5 precepts into account and following them would lead us to become enlightened and therefore we would becoming a Buddhist in its spiritual philosophical form.

As various Wikipedia articles will show and as SYW points out, there are various strains, concepts and beleifs that fall within Buddhism that one might not strictly call philosophical, but rather religious. This includes (among others), the ideas of rebirth, and as I have already pointed out, the neutral stance on the idea of a creator. It could be taken either way from a philosophical point of view.

Though the philosophy of Buddhism from its spiritual perspective is something I largely agree with, the argument has to be made that Christianity or Judaism could be seen as a philosophical, spiritual teaching rather than a religion. Religions attest to a certain way of living, a doctrine tyhat we ascribe to in order to acheive some utlimate goal or good. Buddhism becomes this when Buddhist texts and teachings regarding the issues of rebirth are taken. It is a rather religious beleif, the more philosophical (and perhaps, realistic) may want to stand more rather neutral on the issue: In the end, the basic philosophy and teachings given here are to live a good life, something all religions do.

I can therefore only see that simple subscription to one religion, philosophical or given doctrine's moral values are spiritual, not religious. Religion is about worship, the Spiritual about fulfilment. Of course, these two can intersect and perhaps to be religious you cannot have a spiritual dimension. However you can merely ascribe to spiritual ideals and not be religious, if religion is thought to deal with primarily worship, before all other doctrine on how to live. The 10 Commandments is a classic example here to demonstrate this point - the first being: 'I am the Lord your God and no other God may be worshipped before me'

It is possible therefore, to be a spiritual Judeo-Christian, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or Jew or Christian, taking in the basic philosophical teachings as a guidline rather than a law of life that we live or die by. This is what chiefly characterises the religious - if we do not follow the teachings of Jesus, God in the bible as explained to us by the Pope in the Roman Catholic religion (if we cannot think, understand or have any direct view in the Bible we can read from - such as the use of IVF, use of contraceptives regarding AIDs, etc) - we are either destined for Heaven or Hell. From the spiritual side, accepting morals given by a doctrine as guidlines as a way of life and being open to the question of a supreme deity is not religion. This is where the two differ and it is entirely possibly to be a spiritual Buddhist and exercising restrain with regards to the 5th precept to acheive Enlightenment; or a religious Buddhist through accepting given teachings such as the samsara (rebirth).

So then, for those of us that may not subscribe to any religion I propose the following: Not Agnosticism, but Spiritual Philosophy. If we ascribe to any agree to more than one code of conduct (say the 10 Commandments in Christianity and others from other religions, or indeed perhaps even philosophical views, political-philosophical views or that of a "civil religion" (if we choose to accept this - think Robert Bellah's argument that America is a civil religion, or the idea of fanatics and supporters of a sports team that that sport is a religion and the stadium is the 'place of worship'), then we are spiritual philosophers. If we strictly adhere to a religion and that religious teaching, then we are of that religion - be it Christianity, Judaism, etc. Finally, no strong convictions on religion or philosophical views, if we do not concern ourselves with either because we feel it is not important; is Agnosticism.

From my own personal viewpoint I cannot argue and agree more with what I have said about my take on Buddhist philosophy. It would of course be a bit weird if I didn't agree with myself! From the 5 precepts and the 8-fold way of life, they are good guidelines for a way of life. Furthermore, the fundamentals of the religious teachings of which I was brought up in (Christianity), I do not reject, nor take too seriously. The aim is to live a good life, or in philosophical terms, Kantian summum bonum; living life for a higher good. For that, I beleive, whether there is a God or not I cannot say, and I would not argue that any religion is inherently wrong though I find some views suspect as I did with the 5th precept. In my view, if there is a supreme being, a creator, then if I have lived a good life (of which many philosophical texts are influential and good, including justice as fairness, Kantianism, Buddhist philosophy, Judeo-Christian 10 Commandments), I will be judged on the value and the basis of that. If God were to make worship to him is paramount to access to heaven, it seems reasonable to suggest that we would all be born with this knowledge of Him. God-worship is not the most important, though it can be a good tool for some in order to live a good life. For me, the synthesis of theological teachings, philosophy and life experience I feel will lead me to live a good life and be judged on the basis of that conviction. For that I call myself not a religious person, a Catholic, or any more an agnostic (of which I have labelled myself), but a spiritual philosopher.

Privacy: The biggest, most fundamental issue of our time

Privacy, or the need for it, has come to light to me lately. My brother gave me some very good advice a few weeks ago:

"Don't worry about what you can't control"

This is very true, of course and very good advice.

Not long ago I posted a blog focusing mainly on Facebook: Social Networking or Spy Networking?

One of the main things Facebook does unbeknown to you if you are a computer novice is it will send out information to your friends - things like what you post to other people in the public domains (or their, "walls").

Targeted advertising is another one - if you are a university student you will get adverts offering student discounts and the like. Its a scary thought what information you can give out on the internet.

Targeted advertising is something that we cannot control at our own will. But I would not be surprise if one day this issue comes up in the media one way or another.

So back to the first point: Don't worry about what you can't control. We have the rights to report photos if we do not give our prior consent to publication, or report people posting or discussing our lives as a form of gossip that may be damaging to our reputation.

Facebook does indeed provide this facility, and people can be excluded from even the most minute of details - whether you are single, in a relationship, whether when you break up with your girlfriend it becomes public knowledge or not. It is not at all uncommon for people, even if it is friends out of curiosity, to "comment" on an issue, but then everybody else on the host;'s friend list can see this. With Facebook privacy settings you can do this. You can limit your friends to being able to do nothing but message you if you so wish.

It is, I believe, within our rights to know whats going on in our surroundings and to know what people may know about us which we might wish to withhold from them for whatever reason (be it job, personal privacy, dislike of nosiness, etc).

It is therefore, reasonable to expect to know what we might encounter at any given time. Living in a somewhat public residence (private bedrooms/communal ground floor), it has becoming increasingly familiar to me and important to me to understand and know that people could be in close proximity at any given time and I may not expect this to be the case if I were living in a private home elsewhere where I could expect privacy.

When in the public domain - whether Facebook or in the real world - we deserve to know what to expect and be respected with a certain level of privacy. Facebook, though it provides the possibility for this, is not so outgoing with its privacy policies and I think that they could do more to educate current and new users on privacy control. In the real world, reality, it is unfortunately, sadly a different matter. The most scariest of things is that even living in the most public of places, people are in such close quarters that they could, unwittingly, unknowingly, or God forbid intentionally invade privacy or violate their privileges of use of such a communal area.

Anybody could be walking around. Anybody could turn their back. It's not paranoia. We live in the 21st century and the information age, people just don't leave their doors unlocked anymore out of a sense of naievety. It is about protection, being safe. Knowledge is power.

I'm just glad I have a lock on my door.

Unholy Urine?

Having downloaded a great app on my iPhone - ukPolitics - I have gained access to as handy set of political news items by party and blogs on the bologsphere.

One such blog, from Liberal Conspiracy attacks the Vatican statement that women's urine is unholy and contributes to male infertility.




"The contraceptive pill was polluting the environment and was in part responsible for male infertility, a report in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said on Saturday.

The president of the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, Pedro Jose Maria Simon Castellvi, said the pill ''has for some years had devastating effects on the environment by releasing tonnes of hormones into nature'' through female urine.

''We have sufficient evidence to state that a non-negligible cause of male infertility in the West is the environmental pollution caused by the pill,'' he said, without elaborating further."

Laurie Penny, a feminist liberal blogger at LiberalConspiracy.org, attacks the Vatican on grounds of being sexist, and being incorrect in their assertions:

"I don’t see the Pope asking us to stop eating so much junk in order to protect some sacred ideation of male potency. I don’t see that increasingly unfunny former Hitler Youth member and his friends asking blokes everywhere to wear looser trousers and stop smoking. Why would they, when they’ve already decided that by daring to decide for ourselves whether we want to have kids, we’ve symbolically castrated men?The contraceptive pill is one of the most important inventions of the last three centuries, and doesn’t damage the environment so much as the status quo. I’m not a Christian, but if I were I’d get down on my knees every night to thank Ratzinger’s God for the miracle of contraception."

"Oestrogens are present in drinking water from a host of sources, most notably from the by-products of plastics production, and studies have shown that most oestrogens in drinking water are natural – not the synthetic oestrogens present in oral contraception."

You can read Laurie's blog here.


My personal opinion is not something I am going to argue here (just yet)... but I would argue that Laurie is missing crucial points of the Vatican's statement. Short of reading the actual statement (I can't read Italian, I will assume she can't either), I would like to suggest that she took the Australian article at face value and believed every word of it.

What is more likely, is that the Vatican are not disputing the science that there are natural oestrogens in various water sources, but are merely making the logical point that the substances contained in the contraceptive pill may constitute, in part, of women's urine.

It is not a sexist attack, and I'm sure the Pope would also argue that it is best that men do not smoke either - though I am sure he is not so conservative as to outlaw smoking and drinking.

Smoking may damage the sperm given consistent usage and abuse, but it does not interfere with the direct act of sexual intercourse with marriage, as does a contraceptive pill or a condom.

This here is the crucial difference I see. It is not sexist of the Pope, the media spin has twisted it that way and Laurie has obviously been unduly offended. She says she is not Catholic, so I'm wondering why she bothers to take note of supposed Vatican directives if they have no bearing on her life. People will consider the facts for themselves, I believe that we can reach through reason the right decisions on whether to use contraceptives or not, irrespective of religious doctrine or scientific evidence that increased usage of the morning after pill or the use of Thalidomide can be harmful (certainly in the case of Thalidomide, anyway).

The Pope is merely making the point as part of traditional Catholic doctrine that it is wrong to use any artificial means to interfere with the natural act of procreation. Always the Catholic church has been against contraceptives and this has caused controversy in AIDs-stricken countries. Thus I do not believe the statement is saying that women's urine is unholy (or at least the ones that take contraceptives, anyhow), but is merely adding the Catholic church's medical findings (correct or otherwise) into the scientific sphere.

That is how I see the other side of the coin anyway and I value the arguments on both sides over the issue of contraception. Sex is a loving act, and should, where possible be open to the possibility of pregnancy. But there are so many variables, unforseen circumstances where contraception is necessary (in cases to prevent STIs), or where the entire Catholic doctrine, I feel should be called into question when it opposes procedures such as IVF which allow women to fulfill their natural biological instinct to procreate. That, however is another story. But women's wee as unholy? I doubt that is the Catholic position. And even if it were, I would like to ask what Laurie is supposing by highlighting the Pope's Hitler Youth past. What does this have to do with the price of bacon?

Moral Absolutes

Afghan foetus 'aborted by razor'

By Martin Vennard BBC News

The family of a 14-year-old Afghan rape victim face prosecution after her foetus was removed without anaesthetic.

The mother and brother of the girl are accused of cutting her open with a razor blade to perform an abortion.

Doctors say the girl is in a critical condition. A man accused of raping her is under arrest, officials say.

Rape victims and their families in Afghanistan often feel ashamed to report what has happened because people may think the victim consented to sex.

Sex outside marriage is illegal in Afghanistan.

'Dog bite'

The governor of Bamiyan Province, Habiba Sarabi, says that action is being taken.

When the girl was five months pregnant it is alleged her mother and brother took her to a stables and cut her open with a razor blade.

They removed the foetus, which they buried, before stitching up her wound, Governor Sarabi said.

The father eventually took the girl to get medical treatment.

Dr Ghulam Mohammad Nader, head of Bamiyan hospital, said the girl is in a critical condition, but that she had been able to explain what had happened to her.

"The girl stayed at home for three or four days in her condition until her father took her to hospital," Dr Nader said.

"He said a dog had bitten her so that people in the area wouldn't know what had really happened."

The girl has now been transferred to Kabul for treatment.

The provincial governor says the man accused of raping the girl has been arrested and that police are trying to arrest her mother and brother.

The victims of rape and their families in Afghanistan are often afraid to admit what has happened to them because of the stigma and shame attached to the issue.

Sometimes the victims are murdered by their own families.

Critics accuse the authorities of not taking accusations of rape seriously, especially those made by children.

But President Karzai recently called for rapists to be brought to justice and the Afghan Supreme Court suspended three judges who acquitted people accused of rape.

(Source: BBC)

---

How people can resort to such a thing I don't know. It is a difficult situation, where a woman has been raped and left pregnant as a result. It's hard to imagine what they must have gone through, and this is even without considering the culture of Afghanistan and the fact that sex outside marraige there is illegal and the stigma attached to rape, particularly more so in her case.

It makes me think of whether there are moral absolutes - human life, I beleive does begin at conception and I can understand why women might want to consider their options when they have been left pregnant as a result of a rape.

But the methods, the extremes gone to in this case, I don't think is just. Its inhumane (for lack of a better word), and cruel and unusual. Whether the girl consent to the procedure is another matter, but I think the lengths gone to acheive abortion in this case is shameful.

It is difficult to say whether abortion should ever really be accepted, but in this case, I think the situation was not treated with the delicacy and respect it deserves.

Guns don't kill people...

A 12 year old boy from Arizona in the US shot and killed his mother this week.

I remember watching Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, where the NRA (National Rifle Association) said that Guns don't kill people, the people do.

I'm not so sure that is the case, especially in cases like these and more so in the one explored in the film of Michael Moore's - if I remember rightly a 6 year old killed a classmate with a gun. Crazy.

Still, the boy (if you read the article link above), has been deemed mentally capable to have the MO for the murder.

Ridiculous. At least Arizona is one the 49 US States that don't allow for the death penalty for minors (Georgia do - see "Why do people hate America" by Sardar and Davies)... so he will just be given a juvenile prison sentence.

Which is fair enough, hopefully though, he is rehabilitated rather than have his life destroyed by the courts.

Social Networking or Spy Networking?

I am becoming increasingly convinced, that Social Networking like Facebook, Myspace etc. (these two being my main mediums of outlet) are nothing more than Spy Networks. ... or Spy Networking, I would like to call it. Just a while ago, I blogged on giving myself the "challenge", just to stay away. Needless to say, it wasn't a brilliant success, or indeed one at all. But it resulted in deletion of people that I'm sure will just be, temporary for the time being.

The main reasons, I think why social networking tools like these on our beloved interweb are really spy tools are two things - the Twitter-inspired Status Update revolution and the "Who You May Know" Tool.

Over the course of the year, it was reported that Facebook has overtaken MySpace, globally as the main media for social networking, so this is where, I think the first reason, the "Status Update", comes into play more dramatically. It comes mainly from Twitter, which now you can sync the two using various web applications within Facebook. Log into Facebook, and you will see what I mean:

John Doe is eating his breakfast (two minutes ago)
Oprah Winfrey is having a bath with the dogs (1 hour ago)
Ms Blobby misses him even though he hates me (2 hours ago)
Anita Ball is getting pissed with Montel tonight (4 hours ago)

These are just randomly made up examples but they are not far off the mark. Some people post many of these a day, where it becomes like a diary, and you can have mini-conversations by "commenting" on a status update as if it were breaking news. One particular example I observed was a girl celebrating her 10 week anniversary with her boyfriend, with no less than 36 replies to the story where they had what I cannot describe other than a "<3 fight". You can see where it gets extreme.

I probably haven't been immune to this kind of criticism either - I like to bitch and moan, as much as the next person. And I've been the culprit of PM's on MSN Messenger from people asking me if I am "okay" because my statuses don't seem too happy. So there's a more personal, objective peice for me to give to this argument. And if you have facebook, log in now and you will see exactly what I mean. You will have a page of "news stories" and "items" all from people you have added to your facebook, because you either went to Primary School with them, met them at a Star Trek convention once, or tangeled your tackles together on one fateful night on the town. Put simply, anything you say, if you added someone who knows you, they will know too what you are doing with your life if you care to tell Facebook. Tell Facebook, tell the world.

I must prefer to entertain myself grading beers, noting humourous stories I find on the interweb, or writing long, rant-like articles such as this one on LucasWeatherby.com.

Still though, I find I update my facebook status, probably once or twice too many times when I'm awake. I mean, who cares if someone's getting drunk every day on the town or who you spend your time with? Sometimes though, these things can get personal, simply annoying, a headache. I've rarely ever seen things I find entertaining on facebook status updates.

Somehow, this brings us to my next point. I'm not quite sure how, but I want to move on.

MySpace and Facebook has over the past few months, recently rolled out a feature called "People You May Know", basically its friends of friends, a listing of people that if you have a few friends in common, you can find them this way. It's ingenious, isn't it?

But then if you know just one or two people, you can be seen by other people lurking in the background. Personally I add 99% of people to my facebook that I know or met because I'm not too bothered what they know about me or not. I only ever seem bothered when I know a little too much about them. You can always block, delete people and ignore their "friend request", but doesn't the "People You May Know" tool imply it being more of a spying tool than a social networking? I mean, you "may know" them, not actually be friends with them. That strikes me as a little bit strange, and still does really when you can see that people have contacts for "friends" when you know clearly you never really liked them in school or cared about them.

For some, I guess, it poses for a bit of humour (it does for me) - at least, where appropiate.
Sometimes when there is the need, you've always got your block and delete options, you might want to be friends again one day.
But Facebook as a social networking tool? Pfft.

Spy Networking, more like.

Baby has body parts removed from brain

Logged into MSN when I came home, and found this bit of news that I found rather entertaining to the thoughts:

"A two-month-old baby boy had surgery to remove a foot and other body parts from inside his brain shortly after his birth."



A rare case of 'fetus in fetu', apparently. It has been known in some cases for an entire human-like fetus to develop inside the body of another. Interestingly then it be considered alive but usually at the risk of the host body. I wonder if that constitutes murder, manslaughter, abortion, or what?

One to ponder, I think...

Child Pornography, or Art?

---

Wikipedia child image censored

Wikipedia allows readers to edit the content of its pages

A decision by a number of UK internet providers to block a Wikipedia page showing an image of a naked girl has angered users of the popular site.

The blocked page of the online encyclopaedia shows an album cover of German heavy metal band Scorpions.

Internet providers acted after online watchdog the Internet Watch Foundation warned them its picture may be illegal.

Some volunteers who run Wikipedia said it was not for the foundation to censor one of the web's most popular sites.

They also argued that the image was available in a number of books and had never been ruled illegal.

But the IWF, which warns internet providers about possible images that could be linked to child abuse, said it had consulted the police before making its decision.

The foundation's list of proscribed sites is widely used by British internet service providers to filter out images showing child abuse and other illegal content.

It's the first time they've done this on such a visible site David Gerard, Wikipedia volunteer

As a result, the addition of the Scorpions Wikipedia page has made it inaccessible to the majority of British internet users.

A spokeswoman for the IWF, which lists its members as including the BBC, AOL (UK), Ask and News International, suggested as many as 95% of British users would now be unable to access the page.

Wikipedia volunteer David Gerard said he and fellow users were angry that as well as the photo, the text on the page had been blocked.

"Blocking text is a whole new thing - it's the first time they've done this on such a visible site," he said.

Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation, which manages the encyclopaedia, said the removal of the page also appeared to have stopped thousands of UK users from editing articles on Wikipedia, which allows readers to self-edit its pages.

"It appears that there's a large number of editors - I can't say all - who appear to have access issues," he said.

The IWF spokeswoman said a reader had brought the image to the foundation's attention last week and it had contacted the police before adding the page to their list.

Wikipedia is one of the world's most popular websites. It is a multi-lingual online database written, edited and funded largely by its users. It has 2.6m articles in English alone.

(Source: BBC)

---

Child Pornography, or Art?

The Album the news is referring to, is Scorpions album "Virgin Killer" released in the 1970s - (access to wikipedia to find out if you can get to the page for UK users).

Reading further into Wikipedia's own entry on the controversy, I found that:

"The filtering is in response to the Internet Watch Foundation’s list of websites that host or contain content that have been reported to contain inappropriate images of naked children,(those under the age of 18). The IWF considers those images child pornography. However, in the United States (where the websites of the Wikimedia Foundation are hosted), it is not considered obscene under the criteria of the Miller test, which requires that an obscene work lack “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value” (as album art is used to “brand” the album, it is considered to be artistic)."

This then, brings the question of whether we can consider such controversial images as Art. The crucial thing to note between the US and UK system of laws is that the UK is not protected by any Bill of Rights and I would assume that the "Miller test" which makes this kind of controversial image legal in the US is protected by the first amendment, the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The UK however, is not given this kind of protection in the constitution as we are bound to the 1998 Human Rights Act, which is subject to EU Human Rights legislation. There appears to be a case for a new bill, which is advocated by David Cameron.

I am not defending child pornography in any way, but freedom of speech, freedom of art and publication and expression is at the very foundation of our society. I have already looked into recently the criticism of Alan Carr, Russell Brand and Jonathon Ross in two blogs (One and Two).

Unfortunately because there is no real Bill of Rights in the UK protecting free speech (something that we really ought to sort out in the 21st Century), I cannot give any further analysis without viewing the image, which at the moment being considered "Child Porn", I could arrested for viewing and publicising the picture for something which is arguably art.

I would argue however, if it can pass the US litmus test for appropiate freedom of expression, then surely it can be accepted in our own society. The real crime here, is the true lack of any established bill of rights universally - if it can pass a western democracy with the power and stature in the world like the United States of America, then why not here in the United Kingdom.

Protect Art.

Protect Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression.

The argument against the publication or viewing of the album cover that it personifies and encourages child porn is akin to saying watching Texas Chainsaw Massacre will make us all like Edward Gein.

It would seem the media lately are having a particular moral panic and we cannot be trusted in the UK to use our common sense to say that such work (however distasteful) is art, not child It would not seem that the cover to Nirvana's "Nevermind" album is censored, it does feature a naked baby afterall. Is this "art" or child pornography? Art. And though it is apparently on the grey area whether I can look at the Scorpions album cover or not for legal reasons, I would argue anyway on the same grounds that artistic integrity should be protected, not just because somebody is offended by a particular image of particular expression. If the Virgin Killer album cover is censored for a depiction of 'child porn' and not art, then how the Nevermind album cover is free from scrutiny I will never know. I would like to think we can acheive some sort of moral standand. At the moment this smacks of nothing but double standards, and freedom of speech and expression has gone down the toilet because somebody raised a red flag because they were offended. Again.

If such arguments and events are a sign of things to come, then we have let the dark side of humanity win, and not our good side.

I would hope, that we can all use our common sense when it comes to moral issues and controversial subjects. Perhaps then we will actually get somewhere without seemingly pressing the panic button at every opportunity.

Broken Society?

Two of the biggest stories of the week - the conviction of Karen Matthews and the resignation of Roy Keane as Sunderland FC Manager in the English Football Premier League - and the commentary surrounding the characters brings an interesting discussion on British Society when you consider:

- Karen Matthews, a sociopath who placed her own interest above those of her children
- Roy Keane's "volatile temper" and past behaviour.




As it turns out, the Roy Keane tackle (the second one in the video) was intended
, and received nothing more than a fine and suspension from playing. An injustice on this account surely?

On the Karen Matthews case, Debroah Orr makes the case of a Broken Society and mentions Beatrix Campbell giving a defence of Karen Matthews' character, treated differently because of class when compared to the similar Madeleine McCann case.

Arguably it was even considered by the most popular newspaper (albeit controversial) as an injustice that a reward of a mere £20,000 at the time was for Shannon Matthews' discovery, compared to the one offered for Madeleine McCann.

Now, I am not arguing that Karen Matthews is innocent - far from it. She is an example of parenting at its worst, it is horrible how she could have treated her daughter that way. However, her crime aside, the case of a working class compared to that of the McCanns - middle class - and how the McCanns sued whatever came their way; all this is an indication that people can be treated differently because of class.

Even the high profile case of Roy Keane, who intended on injuring a player on the football field - and succeeded - received a fine when he should have, in any other walk of life, been prosecuted for his actions.

I am not a Marxist at all, but everyone should be, I beleive, treated as equal before the law. Clearly in these instances, this does not seem to be realised. Perhaps this is a case of all that is wrong with society - we surely can't hope to fix it unless we get the fundamentals right and treat everyone equally.

The facts, as Beatrix Campbell rightly pointed out (see link to article above) that the McCanns are officially suspects, and last time I checked, they are living free and still raising for the Madeleine fund as recently as last month.

My qualm, is not with whether the McCanns are guilty or innocent - but that they were treated differently by society, meeting foreign dignitaries, when children go missing every day in Britain. That, regardless of class, is an injustice itself. The Roy Keane case, likewise, a millionaire footballer was treated very lightly over his alleged 'crime'. This is all indicative of one rule for some, one for another.

Sadly, evidence would suggest that we are living in a broken society - our culture, media, our attitudes to life are all responsible.

Perhaps we should get back to the drawing board...