remembering the tiananmen square massacre anniversary yesterday – where hundreds, perhaps thousands died…

many were summarily imprisoned or executed…

and where today there is still no democracy.

(more incredible photos at the big picture and time’s photoessay “photographing tank man”)

the grief, the exile, the international outrage.

did it matter?

those who were born after – for whom the media memory has been wiped clean, erased from the page, the history scrubbed clean of bloodstains – do they really know what any of those students died for?

i wish i knew.

Like this post

Unlike

i talk a lot about being staunchly pro-choice on this blog.  in thinking more about the post i wrote the other day, about the primacy of a woman’s right to always have control over her body, including complete control over reproduction, i realised i’ve never fully articulated here just why i believe what i believe.  it may not be of interest to many of you, but it’s important to me to establish here the context in which i have chosen to support abortion rights.

there are, to my mind, two factors in every pregancy – the existing, external life of the woman, and the *potential*, internal life represented by the fetus.  i believe that if at any point those two interests come into conflict, the established rights of the existing life must always take precedence over the potential rights of the potential life.

there are many who would argue that the point at which that potential life can survive outside the womb (around 24 weeks, currently), that it should be legally treated as a baby, and granted all the same rights as babies inherit when they are born, i.e. recognised as an existing life.  i disagree.

i think of it this way:

this is an egg.  this egg may be fertilised.  it may not.  it may, in fact, have a nearly fully-developed chick inside it. but its essence in its *current state* is that of an egg.  it is an egg.  for purposes of decision-making based on what it is right now, it is an egg.

this is a chick.  it still looks a lot like an egg, and could easily be the same egg from the above picture, but its principle nature has changed.  it is no longer an egg, but a chick being born.  there’s no rationale for calling it an egg – it is clearly a chick.

that is to say: in my mind there is something about the act of being born which changes the fundamental status of a thing from a *potential* life to an *actualised* life, and therefore (i would argue) changes the essence of how it should be recognised.  it is no longer in the internal world of things which, (no matter how likely, no matter how close), *might one day be* born as a chick, and joins the external world of the *chick which is*.

so if, in a pregnancy, there must be drawn a bright line of demarcation between whose interests must be considered paramount, whose health and well-being must take priority, whose needs must be met more, the line between being born and unborn is mine.  an existing life takes precedence over a potential life, and the difference between potential and existing is the act coming into being in the external world.

this is not, of course, by any means a perfect analogy.  in fact, it’s not an analogy at all – simply my attempt at representing the way in which i have chosen my beliefs in a world where there is no objective certainty, no absolute moral rectitude.  in a world where one must weigh up all the science, laws and politics, and somehow integrate that with one’s beliefs about things like spirituality, conscience and relationships… in a world in which we are required to choose sides, i choose the woman.  i choose her right to an abortion up to the point of birth.  i choose her needs, her health, her best interests first, foremost, and above all others.  and i choose to support choice – always.

Like this post

Unlike

i’ve been thinking a lot about the murder of dr. tiller today, and the kind of courage of one’s convictions it must take to go to work every day in the face of attempted assassinations and persistent acts of terrorism.  there are few in this world who could do it, i’m sure.

dr. tiller performed late-term abortions – that moral gray area that even many pro-choice voters have twinges of unease about.  the kinds of abortions that are so highly charged and emotive (even being called “partial-birth” abortions) because they stray into the murky areas of “rights”, elusive definitions of “life”, and all sorts of other sticky stuff that ethicists and the law have not yet been able to agree upon.

the reason i bring this up, is because thinking about dr. tiller’s death today, has for me, solidified some views i didn’t even know i had, and made me examine the logic of my own beliefs – with some surprising results.

in thinking about why his death outrages me so, i realised it’s because i think that women *must* have access to abortion up to the point of birth.  i know that’s not a very palatable opinion for most, but i fervently believe that women must have complete and total autonomy over their own bodies at all times.  i believe that until women everywhere have this autonomy (in the forms of contraception, health care, and abortion, *as well as* freedom from all forms of physical and sexual violence or coercion) there will never be true equality for women anywhere.

but in pondering that, i began thinking about the true meaning of autonomy – and that’s not just the ability to be free from harm, but also the ability to use (and even exploit) one’s own body.  which lead me to the first surprise realisation of the day: i guess that means i believe women should have the right to sell their own bodies for others’ pleasure – even if i believe that it undermines other women’s efforts to be free of violence or coercion.  i’ve never been for the legalisation of prostitution before, and never quite grasped the concept of legalising prostitution as a means to empower women.  much like some kinds of misogynistic porn**, i’ve always deplored the fact that there is a market for it, but been resigned to its existence.  however if i truly believe that women should have complete autonomy over their bodies, then that means *i* don’t get a say in what they do with them either.  and further, (following on from my own logic above) in a world where there is true autonomy for all, there will be true equality, and therfore prostitution/stripping/porn will only be entered into by individuals out of genuine free will, and will no longer be acts which demean and objectify people on the wrong side of a power imbalance.

wow.  colour me surprised.

secondly, i was thinking about the characterisation i’ve been reading in some blogs, of anti-abortion groups (such as operation rescue and their ilk) bearing much of the responsibility for dr. tiller’s death.  the argument being, that such groups have deliberately used seditious rhetoric as a means to garner support for their actions, and that by fanning the flames, they incited this man (and other recent shooters) to murder.  they decry the lukewarm disavowals by such groups of dr. tiller’s killing, as being tacit condonation of his murder.

this whole argument puts me in mind of those who, after the london bombings, said the “moderate muslims” did not come out strongly enough against what had happened, or hadn’t done enough to stop it fomenting in the first place.  and as i wrote here before, that just puts a bad taste in my mouth.  i don’t think that people who just happen to be from the same largely-peaceful religion bear *any* responsibility for the acts of a small handful of nutters.  that’s like saying that all christians should bear some responsibility for the the actions of timothy mcveigh – they should have cried out more against his horrific actions, or done something more to ensure he would never kill anyone in the first place.

i just don’t think you can apportion blame solely based on commonalities with someone who clearly has mental health problems.  and that’s what this boils down to: someone with mental health problems made the completely insane connection between their stance on abortion, and gunning down someone they disagreed with.

a sane person, no matter how het up over the abortion issue, could never be goaded into shooting dr. tiller in broad daylight.  and a crazy person who thought they *had* to kill him, could never be dissuaded.

so while it might make me, in a fit of intense frustration and despair, feel better to tar and feather all anti-choice groups with the same bloody brush, it simply doesn’t make sense.  no matter how vehemently i believe their clinic-blockading, abusive tactics and scaremongering to be wrong, i cannot lay dr. tiller’s death at their feet.

and there, in a nutshell, is surprise number two.  i can’t be angry at the pro-lifers over this one.

** i don’t by any means believe that all porn is misogynistic or harmful to women.  but far too large a proportion of it is.

i’m not engaging debate on this one, i’m afraid. i’ll leave comments open for the time being, but reserve the right to delete at my discretion, because i don’t believe this is a topic where anyone’s mind will be changed. certainly not my own.

Like this post

Unlike

about a week or so ago, i read this article.  typical daily mail tripe – a beyond-sanctimonious mother who says that bosses are right to distrust women who don’t want children, then goes on to call childfree women selfish, partying backstabbers who are unreliable in the workplace.

i spent about a millisecond getting irate over it, then promptly discarded it from my thoughts as so much ludicrous rubbish.

or so i thought.

but over the past day or so, i’ve noticed it lurking at the back of my brain again.  so i went back and re-read it, wondering what the hook was that wouldn’t let go.  and there it was, staring me in the face:

Yet if she says she hasn’t a shred of maternal feeling in her… my heart whispers: ‘Lady, you’re weird.’

It was welcome news, therefore, to discover this week that I am not alone. Research conducted over six years shows that far from bosses and colleagues always being suspicious of a working mother, the opposite is becoming true: it is the childless woman who is regarded as cold and odd.

… many employers believe them to lack what the study calls ‘an essential humanity’. And I know exactly what they mean.

that nugget of truth that i can’t dismiss quite so easily.  people think it’s weird to not want children.

the reason i can’t deny that, is because i see it over and over again in my own interactions.  almost all of my friends have at least one child now, as do a significant proportion of my female colleagues.  so when children or pregnancy come up, i can chat with ease about pelvic spd, breastfeeding, cloth-vs-disposable, and developmental milestones.  i’ve absorbed quite a lot of mother-related knowledge by osmosis, it would seem.  so invariably, when someone then asks, “so what about you and your husband?”, and i say, “oh, you know, we’re not really going to do the kids thing,” they look at me with suspicion.

i know, in that instant, that what they’re thinking is, “lady, you’re weird.”

and what follows is usually a combination of the pitch about how fabulous children are, and oh-you’ll-change-your-mind certitude, with an underlying layer of confusion and incredulity.  at times, there’s even an undercurrent of hostility – as if i’m somehow denigrating their experiences by saying i don’t want the same.

what follows by me, is a response that’s become nearly automatic – myself acknowledging that 99% of the world have kids, that i know i’m an outlier, that i actually really like kids (really i do!), that i know if i *had* kids i’d feel differently, that my own mum was great and definitely-not-deficient-in-any-way.

in other words, i know you think i’m weird.  i apologise for unnerving you with my weirdness.  really i’m not a psychopath.

but at the bottom of it all, is a lack of comprehension.  they simply don’t understand, and there’s a real sense that i’m lacking in something – that “essential humanity”.  because for 99% of the world, having children is something so central to the human experience, and by missing that, how could i *not* feel that i’m missing out?

it’s precisely that which the (otherwise disgusting) article hits exactly on the head.  that otherness which sets my life choices so outside the realm of understanding of pretty much everyone else.  precisely that which i can never change about the way i feel.

so as repelled as i am by the otherwise wildly ridiculous assertions the author makes – that by not having kids i am “cold, calculating, sad, and mad” -  i can’t deny that bit that she gets right.  the bit that’s gone unspoken in every conversation i have with mums.  i am weird.  everyone else knows it, i know it.

but she had the gumption to actually say.

Like this post

Unlike

in norwich, posties are able to “opt out” of delivering bnp election materials.

As part of a “conscience clause”, postmen and women in Norwich can choose whether or not they deliver the canvassing material if they find it offensive or for personal reasons.

And some have refused to deliver the BNP’s controversial leaflets, which set out the party’s policies regarding immigration, out of fear of being threatened by members of the public.

…

Workers were asked to start delivering the material this week ahead of the European elections on June 4.

Within BNP’s pamphlet, it sets out that the far-right party is constitutionally opposed to racial integration, campaigns for an immediate end to immigration and the voluntary resettlement of immigrants living legally in the UK “to their lands of ethnic origin”.

as much as i detest the kkk bnp, the problem with this, is, of course, the slippery slope. where does it end? the postie who decides that s/he finds delivering porn objectionable? or pro-choice literature? or certain prescription medications? it has unsettling parallels to the “conscience clauses” for pharmacists in the u.s., or the case brought by the registrar in islington who refused to carry out same-sex unions.

your job as a postal carrier, is to deliver the post – not pass moral judgement on either the contents of that post, or the people for whom you deliver it. as election material, no matter how repulsive i find it, (and as an aside: how is it not considered “hate speech”? **), as long as it is legal, it should be delivered. as for feeling threatened, well, surely that’s a matter for the police, isn’t it?***

it’s reprehensible stuff, to be sure. but in a democracy where the bnp is <*gag*> considered a legitimate political party, they have the same rights as any other party. censorship and politics is not a role royal mail wants to take on.

**whilst i am on record as being opposed to hate speech laws, if they’re on the books, shouldn’t they be enforced?

***oh, right – not in this country, where the onus is always put back on the victim to try to protect themselves better next time.

Like this post

Unlike

“you’re such a retard”

“that’s so retarded”

i hear these phrases, this word, bandied about so very often, as if it’s just another turn of phrase for “stupid”.  people tell me they don’t mean anything by it, as if the lack of ill intention means it doesn’t cause people pain.  as if using “retarded” as an insult is a victimless crime.

it’s only seen as victimless because the people who are most harmed by it are often the ones least able to speak out against it.  using “retarded” as a synonym for stupid/useless/backward/wierd  is, by inference, equating people who have a diagnosis of mental retardation with all of the above.

for every individual with learning disabilities, there is a different level of intellectual impairment.  the flip side of that, is that every individual also has a unique set of skills and abilities – just like everyone else.  we spend so much time focusing on the differences of people with disabilities, that we overlook the ways in which we are all alike.  using the “r” word is a mark of disdain, of degradation, of setting someone apart as a lesser person, someone less deserving of respect – someone not like everyone else.

people with learning disabilities face enough obstacles for full and valued acceptance in our society – perpetuating hurtful language and stereotypes only compounds these.

i’ve worked with people with learning disabilities for 17 years now – as someone who advocates on behalf of people with learning disabilities, i try wherever possible to challenge people when they use the “r” word.  at the same time, i know that as just one person, i won’t change a world where people are too lazy to find other, less offensive ways of speaking.  people who say it’s just “political correctness gone mad”.  but whether i say anything or not, i notice and i cringe – i notice every time. it doesn’t have to be me you’re insulting for me to be offended.

our language reflects our thoughts and attitudes.  we need to stop and think whether using the “r” word is really what we want to say about not only others, but about ourselves.

Like this post

Unlike

last week (whilst i was without internet), channel four ran a series on adoption in britian which simply broke my heart.  as many will know, adoption is an issue i am incredibly passionate about because all of my four brothers and sisters are adopted.  one brother and one sister were adopted as infants, but the other brother and sister came into our family as near teenage siblings, so my family has experienced both ends of the adoption spectrum.

the dispatches episode lost in care focused on the thousands of children in britain who spend their lives being bounced around “the system”, with poor prospects for being adopted and in many cases shoved out into the world at just 16 years old.  without the stability, education and skills to transition into fully functioning adults, they often end up poor, in trouble with the law, or pregnant.  for example, it’s not uncommon for older kids to have been through 20 or more foster placements, and it hit home hardest when they interviewed teens talking about being uprooted from a foster family every few months, throwing their few possessions into garbage bags to change placements at the drop of a hat, being put up in hotels and temporary accommodation when placements couldn’t be found.  i found myself in tears at their description; i vividly recall my new brother and sister arriving at our home toting garbage bags of meagre possessions, so used to disappointment and impermanence that it took them months to even unpack

how in the world can we expect that children will get a good education, or develop trust and empathy, when their whole world fits into a bin liner that they have to cart around from foster placement to foster placement because they don’t have a home or family to call their own? that we continue to fund such a broken system producing broken children, is positively criminal.

try to imagine your life without a mum or dad – who kissed your scraped knee when you fell?  who came running in the dark when you had nightmares?  who comforted you when you were teased at school?  who helped you with your homework?  who taught you to drive?  who helped you open your first bank account?  now imagine turning to a paid carer for all of the above.  now imagine if that paid carer was a different person every few months.

my brother and sister are considered statistical anomalies – as a set of older siblings of colour, their chances for adoption were considered slim.  and yet even though we know how deeply foster care scars children, and we know the odds for adoption decrease exponentially with age, many kids languish in the system for years as opportunities for a home and family pass them by.  too few carers, too few families, too many kids living in limbo for too long.

surely a caring, permanent family is the minimum every child deserves.  i urge you to watch the programme if you haven’t already, and to write to the children, schools and families committee about the horrific way we fail our children.

Like this post

Unlike

boris johnson, the buffoon mayor of london, made a campaign pledge to fund four rape crisis centres around the city – a resource sorely needed in a city where reported rapes increased by 14% last year alone, yet only 6% of all rapes result in a conviction.  just a year ago he said:

I have made it a key Manifesto pledge that I will use GLA funding to substantially increase financial support to the charity sector working with the victims.   There is currently only one Rape Crisis Centre in London – located in Zone 5.  I will provide the funding for four new Rape Crisis Centres in London, paid for by reducing spending on the Mayor’s personal press officer budget.

today he reneged on that pledge.

in related news, the cab driver who was convicted of a dozen serial rapes over 18 months, (and suspected of attacking up to 85 people back as far as 2002), was sentenced to at least 8 years today.  he went unapprehended for so long in part because the sex crimes unit of the metropolitan police was understaffed and in disarray.

yet boris outlined a new domestic violence strategy in which he says:

For any plan to work we must have the police, local authorities, community organisations, health sector and criminal justice system all working together across borough boundaries. We also need to get tougher. Tougher on the perpetrators of violence, who currently enjoy a ridiculous level of immunity, and tougher on the attitudes that condone violence against women.

no kidding boris.  tell me when you’re willing to get serious about it, instead of just paying lipservice. actions speak louder than words.

women in london deserve better.

1 person likes this post.

Unlike

the government finally reports on what’s long been known: the children’s care system is a crime against children. outcomes for children taken into care are incredibly poor – they leave school with few qualifications, and no support, often turfed out of the system at age 16(!!!).  within two years, half are unemployed, nearly 20% homeless.  fully half of those under 25 in jail have been in care, as have one third of the entire prison population. nearly half have mental health needs.

as i’ve mentioned here numerous times before, it’s much the same in the states.  children “age out” of the system and end up poor, incarcerated, pregnant or on drugs.  the statistics are astounding, shameful.

these are the kids who’ve already been through more hardships in life than anyone, much less a child, should ever have to experience – parents who were unable or unwilling to care for them properly, no real family to call their own, no feeling of security, bounced around from foster home to foster home, abused, neglected, unloved, afraid… alone.

and instead of doing everything humanly possible to ensure that they are cared for, protected, educated, and supported to become successful adults, we fail them over and over and over again.  they spend their most formative years in lonely and uncertain limbo, and are then thrust into the world and expected to fly.

they are falling.  the most vulnerable children and young adults are falling into the cracks and gutters of the system, of our society.  tomorrow they will fall off the front page.

how can we continue to let it happen?

Like this post

Unlike

marriage equality is now the law in vermont. the first to do so by legislative vote.

4 down, only 46 more to go.

edited to add: and washington d.c. voted to recognise same-sex marriages performed in other states. what a wonderful, wonderful day!

what began five years ago in massachusetts, has been slowly gathering steam. someday soon, the supreme court of the land will have to take a stance. a stance that says one of the most bone-true principles of civil rights – that separate but equal is *not* equal – applies to all citizens. that legal discrimination against people based on sexuality, violates our most cherished and oft-stated belief:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

someday soon. not today, and maybe not tomorrow. but soon.

Like this post

Unlike

iowa joins massachusetts and connecticut in allowing same-sex marriage.

and yesterday sweden voted overwhelmingly to recognise same-sex marriage.  they join the netherlands, belgium, spain, canada, and south africa.

the march of progress may be slow, but it is sure.

Like this post

Unlike

“What are the dangers to a democracy of a national police organization, like the FBI, which operates secretly and is unresponsive to public criticism?” – (optional question on the University of California’s 1959 English aptitude test for high school applicants, said to have infuriated j.edgar hoover)

(via andy)

met police hold a secret databank on thousands of protesters.

Police are targeting thousands of political campaigners in surveillance operations and storing their details on a database for at least seven years, an investigation by the Guardian can reveal.

Photographs, names and video ­footage of people attending protests are ­routinely obtained by surveillance units and stored on an “intelligence system”. The ­Metropolitan police, which has ­pioneered surveillance at demonstrations and advises other forces on the tactic, stores details of protesters on Crimint, the general database used daily by all police staff to catalogue criminal intelligence. It lists campaigners by name, allowing police to search which demonstrations or political meetings individuals have attended.

Disclosures through the Freedom of Information Act, court testimony, an interview with a senior Met officer and police surveillance footage obtained by the Guardian have ­established that ­private information about activists ­gathered through surveillance is being stored without the knowledge of the people monitored.

Police surveillance teams are also ­targeting journalists who cover demonstrations, and are believed to have ­monitored members of the press during at least eight protests over the last year.

The Guardian has found:

•Activists “seen on a regular basis” as well as those deemed on the “periphery” of demonstrations are included on the police databases, regardless of whether they have been convicted or arrested.

•Names, political associations and photographs of protesters from across the political spectrum – from campaigners against the third runway at Heathrow to anti-war activists – are catalogued.

•Police forces are exchanging information about pro­testers stored on their intelligence systems, enabling officers from different forces to search which political events an individual has attended.

if all this sounds terribly familiar, it’s because it’s almost the exact same tactics employed under hoover’s fbi and specifically the “cointelpro” covert surveillance programme which kept secret information files on people it believed to be possible political dissidents, potential radicals, or their sympathisers.

according to the church committee report which investigated the cointelpro programme:

The Government has often undertaken the secret surveillance of citizens on the basis of their political beliefs, even when those beliefs posed no threat of violence or illegal acts on behalf of a hostile foreign power. The Government… has swept in vast amounts of information about the personal lives, views, and associations of American citizens. Investigations of groups deemed potentially dangerous — and even of groups suspected of associating with potentially dangerous organizations — have continued for decades, despite the fact that those groups did not engage in unlawful activity. Groups and individuals have been harassed and disrupted because of their political views and their lifestyles. Investigations have been based upon vague standards whose breadth made excessive collection inevitable…Intelligence agencies have served the political and personal objectives of presidents and other high officials. While the agencies often committed excesses in response to pressure from high officials in the Executive branch and Congress, they also occasionally initiated improper activities and then concealed them from officials whom they had a duty to inform.

try substituting “british” for “american”, “prime minister” for “president”, and “parliament” for “congress”, and then see how it reads.

particularly distressing is the police surveillance of the journalists:

The National Union of Journalists… documented at least eight ­protests since last March where its ­members were “routinely” photographed and filmed by police. Several journalists said police officers they had never met knew their names. “We have put this to police and the Home Office several times but they have always denied the practice or sought to avoid answering the question,” said Jeremy Dear, the union’s general secretary. “With this evidence there is no credibility in doing so any longer.”

a free press is one of the cornerstones and guardians of democracy. this too, however, harkens back to the more nefarious hoover tactics. in particular, cointelpro also targeted the alternative media and press, for the purposes of intimidation and harrassment.

ringing any (alarm) bells yet?

Like this post

Unlike

sunday, march 8th is international women’s day – since 1911, this day has been recognised as a day to promote the social, political and economic equality of women.

today, amnesty international uk is using international women’s day to draw attention to their 1:10 campaign, highlighting the unconscionable statistic that one in ten women in the uk are the victims of rape or gender-related violence every year (domestic violence/female genital mutilation/forced marriages/”honour” violence/sexual abuse/sex trafficking).

i’ve written many times here about how the uk law enforcement and judicial systems are failing rape victims in horrifying fashion, and one in four local authorities offers no services for violence against women.

if you live in the uk, go to the map of gaps to petition your mp for services and funding to combat violence against women.  if you live elsewhere, take action on amnesty’s global campaign to combat rape against women in conflict zones – “rape is cheaper than bullets”.

international women’s day has been much needed for nearly a hundred years now – how many more?

Like this post

Unlike

watching television does not make babies smarter.

duh.

now, i’m certainly not one to tell parents what to do – i fully recognise that we live in a world where television is a inescapable and pervasive medium.  today’s childhood is not like it was when i grew up.

when i grew up, we had one television.  it was black and white, and had about 7 watchable channels.  the only children’s programming on offer at my house was “sesame street”, “the brady bunch” and a few mild cartoons.  we didn’t get a colour television until i was 10.  my television viewing was limited to the hours after my parents got home from work, and until i hit the teen years, i wasn’t even allowed to watch t.v. after 9pm.  adult shows like “hill street blues” were off limits until i was about 15.  my dad used to go so far as to put a lock on the television during the afterschool period so we couldn’t watch it until he’d made sure we’d done our homework and chores.  certainly no surprise then,  that we never had our own televisions, and we definitely never had cable.

and this was in the *70s and early 80s* – an era that looks positively innocent, nearly virginal really, by comparison with today’s standards.

i would never suggest that today’s parents be quite so draconian as my parents were, because quite frankly, these measures resulted in a lengthy period in my early adulthood when i was positively glued to the t.v. set, ingesting television like a starving man at a junk food buffet, as if to make up for lost time.  moderation in all things, i say.

but my parents (and many others) knew back then what many of today’s parents have lived in denial of for far too long: t.v. is not good for the developing brain.  we are, by nature, creatures who learn best through social interaction, and a brightly lit box simply cannot substitute for a parents attention and engagement. my parents generation called it the “idiot box” when they saw us sitting in front of it, gazing at it adoringly with glazed eyes – and they weren’t far off.

yes, i learned a lot of spanish through watching “sesame street”.  but i learned a great deal more by reading and playing and creating and imagining.  and my parents ensured that i did a lot more of the latter than i did of the former.

the “baby einstein” programmes and their ilk offer too many parents a panacea – assuaging their guilt at using the television as a substitute babysitter by convincing them they’re actually enhancing their child’s brain power.  hopefully this study puts paid to that.

and though i don’t praise my parents often enough, let me give credit where credit is due.  while you may have tried too hard at times, you never took the easy way out, and i benefited enormously from that – thanks mom and dad.  you may have saved me a few extra i.q. points

Like this post

Unlike

if ever there was an upside to the ever-deepening economic recession, this is it:

fewer people may die as a result of the death penalty in the u.s.

nine states have bills seeking to abolish or repeal the death penalty, while others are delaying or halting costly death penalty trials.

A 2008 study by the Urban Institute, an economic and social policy research group based in Maryland, found that an average capital murder trial in the state resulting in a death sentence costs about $3 million, or $1.9 million more than a case where the death penalty is not sought.

people may not care much about the principle of “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”, but they sure care when the state coffers are empty.

Like this post

Unlike

i’ve posted about gay marriage here quite a lot in the past. and even with all the evidence about how archaic and retrograde the states can be about civil rights, i choose to believe that plain old fairness eventually will win out. i concede that there is much struggle ahead, and i concede that it may take some time. i have no doubt however, that no matter how scary it may be for some, in the end, love can conquer that fear.

which is why it is simply incomprehensible to me that there are people who would deliberately seek to retroactively dissolve those unions celebrated in california during the months that gay marriage was legal. 18,000 couples stood up with their family and friends, and with their whole heart and soul said “i do”. with all their love, they pledged to be together for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, til death.

how can you tell them it didn’t count?

“Fidelity”: Don’t Divorce… from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

Like this post

Unlike

valentine’s day doesn’t particularly mean much to me and j.  we’ve never really done very much, mostly because our anniversary is in a week, and it seems silly to celebrate twice.

what valentine’s day *does* mean to me, however, is another yearly opportunity to take part in vday – a global movement to end violence against women and girls.

i’ve been terribly lucky – no man has ever tried to hurt or abuse me.  unfortunately, several friends and millions of women  cannot say the same – in the u.s. alone, one in four women have been raped or assaulted by their dates or partners.

that’s one in four daughters/sisters/mothers.  raped or assaulted by people they knew.  think about the women in your immediate family.  chances are that one in four of them will be a victim at some point.  in a country which considers itself civilised, that figure is sickening.  and in other parts of the world, women are routinely subject to rape, genital mutilation and sexual slavery.

sexual and domestic violence continues to be perpetrated against women everywhere, and until it stops for all, none of us are truly free from that threat.

so if there’s a woman in your life that you love and respect – mother, daughter, sister, wife, lover – please consider taking part or contributing in anyway you can.  this valentine’s day, do something to help protect and respect women everywhere.

(and if you’re in the london area, consider taking part in the march to end violence against women, being held on 7th march.)

Like this post

Unlike

this is the kind of thing that gives the whole “childfree by choice” contingent a bad name.**

calling kids a “pain in the ass”, bemoaning their ability to “talk, scream and cry”, being “grossed out” by the thought of pregnancy…

*none* of this has anything to do with not wanting children because it’s not the right choice for you, and everything to do with being an immature, selfish twit.  *i* certainly don’t want to be identified with this kind of idiocy,

the sad thing is that this sort of thinking is not representative of most people i know who’ve elected not to have kids.  but this is the kind of thing that gets put on cnn.com.  it does a disservice to everyone by deliberately inflaming and polarising the issue.

the writer claims her biological clock is broken.  sadly her common sense seems to have gone awry as well.

**i must add that i do not identify as “childfree”, precisely because i feel it to be a term loaded with the kind of connotations set out in the article.

Like this post

Unlike

this is crazymaking:

EU attacks ‘Buy American’ clause

The EU has increased its pressure on the US to reconsider the “Buy American” clause in the $800bn (£567bn) economic recovery package now before Congress.

The clause seeks to ensure that only US iron, steel and manufactured goods are used in projects funded by the bill.

A European Commission spokesman said it was the “worst possible signal”.

…

The EU spokesman said Europe would launch a complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO) if the clause remained.

“There isn’t a great deal of scope for doing much more, but if America went ahead and did this we would have to take it up with the World Trade Organization,” the European Commission trade spokesman, Peter Power, told the BBC’s Chris Mason in Brussels.

European and Canadian ambassadors to Washington have already warned that the clause could provoke protectionism and trigger retaliatory moves.

EU Ambassador to Washington John Bruton said that, if passed, the measure could erode global leadership on free trade.

“We regard this legislation as setting a very dangerous precedent at a time when the world is facing a global economic crisis,” he said.

what do they really expect?  first and foremost, the u.s. president and congress are responsible to the american people, and secondarily accountable to the voters who put them in office.  and they simply will not stand for a $800 billion stimulus bill which  a) does not seek to protect those few manufacturing jobs still in the u.s. or b) sends their hard earned tax dollars out of the country.

this bill is not about fixing the global recession, it is about keeping the u.s. out of a seismic economic *depression*.

any other country would do the same -  of course it would.  is it really that hard to understand?

Like this post

Unlike

Two months ago, the UK Borders Agency began fingerprinting foreign children over six years old

Like this post

Unlike

i read earlier today about the pope lifting the excommunication of a holocaust denier.

now, i could care less about what the pope does.  what i found interesting was this:

“I believe that the historical evidence is strongly against — is hugely against — 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler,” he said in the interview, which appeared on various Web sites since its broadcast.

“I believe there were no gas chambers,” he added.

He added: “I think that 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, but none of them by gas chambers.”

Prosecutors in Regensburg, Germany, where the interview took place — and where the pope once taught — are investigating Williamson’s comments on suspicion of inciting racial hatred. Holocaust denial is treated as a crime in Germany.

while i understand why germany is so sensitive to holocaust deniers, i don’t understand prosecuting them.  aside from my personal fundamental belief in freedom of speech (even hateful speech), i don’t get what function it’s meant to serve?

no one with even a shred of credibility believes that the holocaust didn’t happen, and anyone with a few brain cells would immediately dismiss these kinds of remarks out of hand as completely deluded.  clearly he is not thinking rationally.  and we should ensure that future generations continue to learn the lessons that history has taught us.  as ban ki-moon has said today, on this international day of remembrance:

“New initiatives in Holocaust remembrance and education have given us an authentic basis for hope. But we can and must do more if we are to make that hope a reality.

We must continue to teach our children the lessons of history’s darkest chapters. That will help them do a better job than their elders in building a world of peaceful coexistence”.

but *prosecuting* these kinds of remarks gives them a power they would never otherwise have.  they imply that we are fearful of the weight of these words, no matter how utterly bizarre.  we give them gravitas by treating them as too dangerous, too influential to be discredited through simple exposure to the light of facts and truth.  and in banning them, we risk making such ridiculous ideas more attractive to others through giving them the aura of naughty excitement of the forbidden.

as any parent knows, the best way to extinguish clownish behaviour is to ignore it.

he’s a fool.  and instead of being afraid of foolish ideas, we should be careful of turning a fool into a martyr.

Like this post

Unlike