Saturday, 31 March 2012
Friday, 30 March 2012
COMMENT: George Galloway MP
Last night George Galloway swept to victory in by-election in Bradford West. It was and is an historic victory that humiliated the three main parties and saw him gain a 56% share of the vote for his Respect Party.
I find George Galloway an oddity.
So many of his headline politics I find superficially attractive. I support his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I agree with him that the West's support of Israeli action against Palestine is wrong. He's right when he says we shouldn't be preparing for war with Iran. I support his disarmament opinions. I agree with him when he talks about equality and when he highlights the corruption and failure of the established big three political parties. I want a fairer society like he does. I admire the way he speaks his mind and stands up for the underdog.
But I just don't trust him or believe a word he says.
I don't know why. It's irrational but I just don't find him trustworthy and, were I to live in Bradford West, I would have agreed with all his policies but still voted for someone else, or more likely spoilt my ballot paper.
I find George Galloway an oddity.
So many of his headline politics I find superficially attractive. I support his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I agree with him that the West's support of Israeli action against Palestine is wrong. He's right when he says we shouldn't be preparing for war with Iran. I support his disarmament opinions. I agree with him when he talks about equality and when he highlights the corruption and failure of the established big three political parties. I want a fairer society like he does. I admire the way he speaks his mind and stands up for the underdog.
But I just don't trust him or believe a word he says.
I don't know why. It's irrational but I just don't find him trustworthy and, were I to live in Bradford West, I would have agreed with all his policies but still voted for someone else, or more likely spoilt my ballot paper.
Thursday, 29 March 2012
Wednesday, 28 March 2012
Yesterday I was sacked
Something awful has happened.
Yesterday I was sacked by my school for something I didn't do.
The police investigated and totally cleared me but school have decided to ignore that and believe the malicious allegations.
There seems little point in appealing when they've already ignored all the evidence that shows my innocence.
I have no idea what future I now have.
The GTC will probably strike me off.
I am unemployed and unemployable.
As a direct result, I've moved out from home.
I've no idea what I'm going to do.
Options seem rather limited at the moment. But I won't be staying in the area.
I won't be using Facebook/Twitter/etc. much for a while.
So it just leaves me to say, thank you all for your support and friendship over the years.
Rob
Yesterday I was sacked by my school for something I didn't do.
The police investigated and totally cleared me but school have decided to ignore that and believe the malicious allegations.
There seems little point in appealing when they've already ignored all the evidence that shows my innocence.
I have no idea what future I now have.
The GTC will probably strike me off.
I am unemployed and unemployable.
As a direct result, I've moved out from home.
I've no idea what I'm going to do.
Options seem rather limited at the moment. But I won't be staying in the area.
I won't be using Facebook/Twitter/etc. much for a while.
So it just leaves me to say, thank you all for your support and friendship over the years.
Rob
Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Monday, 26 March 2012
OPINION: Why only GBH and not attempted murder?
I realise I risk sounding like a Daily Mail editorial, but when, last March, three men shot a gun into a shop surely they were intending to murder?
Thusha Kamaleswaran, 5, was shot in the chest and is crippled for life, and Roshan Selvakumar, 35, was shot in the face at Stockwell Food and Wine shop in Brixton but, of course, they or anyone else in that shop could easily have been killed.
And yet, somehow, a court has found the guilty of grievious bodily harm but not attempted murder.
I studied A-level law. I understand about mens rea etc. and yet I thoroughly disagree with the court's decision.
Surely, by firing a gun you intend to kill, even if the target isn't specific? If you don't want to kill you shouldn't be firing a weapon.
Thusha Kamaleswaran, 5, was shot in the chest and is crippled for life, and Roshan Selvakumar, 35, was shot in the face at Stockwell Food and Wine shop in Brixton but, of course, they or anyone else in that shop could easily have been killed.
And yet, somehow, a court has found the guilty of grievious bodily harm but not attempted murder.
I studied A-level law. I understand about mens rea etc. and yet I thoroughly disagree with the court's decision.
Surely, by firing a gun you intend to kill, even if the target isn't specific? If you don't want to kill you shouldn't be firing a weapon.
COMMENT: Cam dine with me
This weekend's revelations that Cruddas, the Tory party vice-treasurer, had been caught trying to sell influence/appointments with David Cameron shouldn't come as any surprise.
Sure, the opposition will make the most out of the latest dubious cash for dinner revelations but if they're honest none of the major parties are without those who wish to buy themselves a greater influence with the party leaders.
How Labour can complain about large donations made from businessmen to the Tories while they themselves receive huge amounts from the unions is beyond me. Unions buying influence with Labour, a practise that's bedevilled the left wing of politics for decades, is a thoroughly disingenuous and dishonest system.
Some say that state funding of parties is the solution. I'm not convinced. State funding favours existing parties and, indeed, favours parties over independents which has to be a bad thing.
There are laws that require openness and honesty. All donations over £7,500 have to be declared. Clearly, some feel that they have a right to bypass the law and buy influence with policy makers.
Let's be honest, party politics is intrinsically corrupt. Parties are, themselves, coalitions of opinions and have to find ways of attracting attention and support.
Personally I'd favour an end to party politics, with all MPs being independents able to vote freely on every subject, no whips and no dodgy donations to have an influence on party policy.
Sure, the opposition will make the most out of the latest dubious cash for dinner revelations but if they're honest none of the major parties are without those who wish to buy themselves a greater influence with the party leaders.
How Labour can complain about large donations made from businessmen to the Tories while they themselves receive huge amounts from the unions is beyond me. Unions buying influence with Labour, a practise that's bedevilled the left wing of politics for decades, is a thoroughly disingenuous and dishonest system.
Some say that state funding of parties is the solution. I'm not convinced. State funding favours existing parties and, indeed, favours parties over independents which has to be a bad thing.
There are laws that require openness and honesty. All donations over £7,500 have to be declared. Clearly, some feel that they have a right to bypass the law and buy influence with policy makers.
Let's be honest, party politics is intrinsically corrupt. Parties are, themselves, coalitions of opinions and have to find ways of attracting attention and support.
Personally I'd favour an end to party politics, with all MPs being independents able to vote freely on every subject, no whips and no dodgy donations to have an influence on party policy.
REVIEW: The Hunger Games (12A)
I've never been one to be sucked into cult teen stories. Sure, as a school kid I read Lord of the Rings and the Narnia books but wasn't a big fan of either. Now as an adult I found Harry Potter to be a bit dull (though the movies got better as the series progressed) and Twilight... well I'm male and went through puberty several decades ago so I'm clearly not in the intended demographic!
I'd never heard of The Hunger Games books until publicity for the movie began and, as it's aimed at "young adults" I wasn't totally convinced I should bother but, hey ho, I thought I'd give it a go.
The Hunger Games is set in a dystopian future world where, as an annual television event, the 12 Districts put up one girl and one boy aged between 12 and 18 to compete to the death for the honour of the district. Only one can survive.
Now I'm sure there will be those who wil decry the movie and say it's not as good as the book. I'm not convinced. That, as far as I can see, is adults trying to justify why they're reading books intended for teenagers - the same people for whom Harry Potter was published in an edition with more adult looking covers to spare their blushes on the morning commute.
It's an odd mix of a movie with elements blatantly lifted from The Truman Show, Lost and even Death Race 2000 - and not as good as any of them. It's all very clunky and awkward and, to be honest, would probably have worked better as a mini series.
It's very stylised but all so very, very predictable. Even the twist at the end (Donald Sutherland's intervention) is highly predictable in a way that the twist at the end of The Truman Show was a surprise.
Jennifer Lawrence gives a good performance as Katniss, the female representative for District 12 who volunteers herself in place of her younger sister, but Josh Hutcherson, who plays Peeta, the male representative, has as much life and character as one of those life size cardboard cut outs cinemas often have in their foyer. Most of the time he seems to be reading his lines from the trees where the games are held. (At one point Peeta is experimenting with camouflaging himself as a tree... which says all you need to know about his acting!)
If The Hunger Games are such great books they almost certainly deserve a better movie than this. I suspect fans of the books have over stated their case and it's simply a mediocre story made into a mediocre movie with a big advertising budget.
I'd never heard of The Hunger Games books until publicity for the movie began and, as it's aimed at "young adults" I wasn't totally convinced I should bother but, hey ho, I thought I'd give it a go.
The Hunger Games is set in a dystopian future world where, as an annual television event, the 12 Districts put up one girl and one boy aged between 12 and 18 to compete to the death for the honour of the district. Only one can survive.
Now I'm sure there will be those who wil decry the movie and say it's not as good as the book. I'm not convinced. That, as far as I can see, is adults trying to justify why they're reading books intended for teenagers - the same people for whom Harry Potter was published in an edition with more adult looking covers to spare their blushes on the morning commute.
It's an odd mix of a movie with elements blatantly lifted from The Truman Show, Lost and even Death Race 2000 - and not as good as any of them. It's all very clunky and awkward and, to be honest, would probably have worked better as a mini series.
It's very stylised but all so very, very predictable. Even the twist at the end (Donald Sutherland's intervention) is highly predictable in a way that the twist at the end of The Truman Show was a surprise.
Jennifer Lawrence gives a good performance as Katniss, the female representative for District 12 who volunteers herself in place of her younger sister, but Josh Hutcherson, who plays Peeta, the male representative, has as much life and character as one of those life size cardboard cut outs cinemas often have in their foyer. Most of the time he seems to be reading his lines from the trees where the games are held. (At one point Peeta is experimenting with camouflaging himself as a tree... which says all you need to know about his acting!)
If The Hunger Games are such great books they almost certainly deserve a better movie than this. I suspect fans of the books have over stated their case and it's simply a mediocre story made into a mediocre movie with a big advertising budget.
Sunday, 25 March 2012
100WCGU: The Red Box
100 Word Challenge for Grown Ups - Week 35 - The Red Box
The Red Box
by
Robert Steadman
Last night I was a contestant on a game show.
I was doing really well. The low numbers disappeared. I was left with only high value boxes.
"Are you ready for the question?"
"Yes, I'm ready."
"£50,000 - Deal or No Deal?"
"No deal!"
The audience whooped and cheered.
"Do you want to do the swap?"
"No."
I was left with one box. This was my box.
I nervously held the tab before ripping it open.
What had I won? Would it change my life?
I flipped the lid open and looked in to find my prize: Noel Edmond's decapitated head.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
100 Word Challenge for Grown Ups - Week 35 - The Red Box
The Red Box
by
Robert Steadman
Last night I was a contestant on a game show.
I was doing really well. The low numbers disappeared. I was left with only high value boxes.
"Are you ready for the question?"
"Yes, I'm ready."
"£50,000 - Deal or No Deal?"
"No deal!"
The audience whooped and cheered.
"Do you want to do the swap?"
"No."
I was left with one box. This was my box.
I nervously held the tab before ripping it open.
What had I won? Would it change my life?
I flipped the lid open and looked in to find my prize: Noel Edmond's decapitated head.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
100 Word Challenge for Grown Ups - Week 35 - The Red Box
Saturday, 24 March 2012
COMMENT: Cutting calories from foods
Plans are afoot for food manufacturers to voluntarily cut the number of calories in a wide range of their products.
What's the point?
I suspect that the tiny (and yes the proposals are no more than a tiny slither from the calorie count of the products) will have a negligible effect on the daily calorie consumption of most people. It has been suggested that it might be as little as the equivalent of 16 peanuts a day!
The problem is the current proposal is voluntary. It's not backed by any legislation or code of conduct.
To improve diets there are two sensible tactics the government should be legislating for.
1) Heavily tax all high fat, high salt, unhealthy food. High taxation has been used to try to put off smokers so why not as a tool to adjust eating habits? And, instead of the money being lost in the Treasury's coffers, why not use the money raised to subsidise healthy foods?
2) Educate more and better about the dangers of eating badly as well as how to cook.
On BBC News just now a mother said she welcomed foods that children eat being made more healthy. The examples she used were two chocolate bars!
D'oh!
What's the point?
I suspect that the tiny (and yes the proposals are no more than a tiny slither from the calorie count of the products) will have a negligible effect on the daily calorie consumption of most people. It has been suggested that it might be as little as the equivalent of 16 peanuts a day!
The problem is the current proposal is voluntary. It's not backed by any legislation or code of conduct.
To improve diets there are two sensible tactics the government should be legislating for.
1) Heavily tax all high fat, high salt, unhealthy food. High taxation has been used to try to put off smokers so why not as a tool to adjust eating habits? And, instead of the money being lost in the Treasury's coffers, why not use the money raised to subsidise healthy foods?
2) Educate more and better about the dangers of eating badly as well as how to cook.
On BBC News just now a mother said she welcomed foods that children eat being made more healthy. The examples she used were two chocolate bars!
D'oh!
COMMENT: Spring Forward - the curse of changing the clocks
Yes, it's that time of year again when Europe puts the clocks forward by one hour.
It gives an extra hour of daylight in the evening but, of course, makes the morning darker for an hour. The loss, for many, of an hour's sleep and the disruption to our established sleep patterns means that the next few days tend to see an increase in tiredness and more accidents.
Changing the clocks forward in spring and back in autumn might have had a purpose in the past (even that is questionable) and, of course, during World War Two there was Double Summer Time when the clocks were moved forward two hours!
Today it all seems a bit daft and unnecessarily disruptive.
Common sense, the markets and a general sense of co-operation would suggest the UK should ditch GMT and keep clocks one hour forward, joining with the rest of Western Europe.
But it's the biannual changing that's the real problem.
Let's work out which is the best time zone for the whole year and leave the clocks alone.
It gives an extra hour of daylight in the evening but, of course, makes the morning darker for an hour. The loss, for many, of an hour's sleep and the disruption to our established sleep patterns means that the next few days tend to see an increase in tiredness and more accidents.
Changing the clocks forward in spring and back in autumn might have had a purpose in the past (even that is questionable) and, of course, during World War Two there was Double Summer Time when the clocks were moved forward two hours!
Today it all seems a bit daft and unnecessarily disruptive.
Common sense, the markets and a general sense of co-operation would suggest the UK should ditch GMT and keep clocks one hour forward, joining with the rest of Western Europe.
But it's the biannual changing that's the real problem.
Let's work out which is the best time zone for the whole year and leave the clocks alone.
Friday, 23 March 2012
OPINION: Time to add solar panels to all houses
I do find it quite extraordinary that any new house is built without sufficient solar panels to cover the consumption of a regular family.
Additionally all new shops, schools, office blocks, etc. should be fully equipped with solar panelling.
I know there is an ongoing debate as to whether man made climate change is real or not (I'm firmly in the it's real camp) but, even if it's not doesn't it make good economic sense for families to be able to turn their backs on fossil fuels and use only renewables for their household needs? After all sunlight is free!
But, let's be honest, that's not going far enough. Why don't the government pay for all new households to have solar panels fitted?
It would cost around £7,000 per house (probably less as part of an organised campaign). And then, beyond occasional maintenance costs, every household would have no household electricity bills.
How cool would that be?
So why don't they do it? My guess is that the big oil companies and their shareholders, which probably include a large number of MPs and their families, block actions that might harm their profits.
Whether man made climate change is real or not the economic argument would support a move to minimise the use of fossil fuels at the earliest possible moment. It couldn't harm the environment or make man made climate change any worse and it would surely eliminate fuel poverty at a stroke.
Let's stop funding wars, and investing in pollution causing industries, and have some vision for the future.
Additionally all new shops, schools, office blocks, etc. should be fully equipped with solar panelling.
I know there is an ongoing debate as to whether man made climate change is real or not (I'm firmly in the it's real camp) but, even if it's not doesn't it make good economic sense for families to be able to turn their backs on fossil fuels and use only renewables for their household needs? After all sunlight is free!
But, let's be honest, that's not going far enough. Why don't the government pay for all new households to have solar panels fitted?
It would cost around £7,000 per house (probably less as part of an organised campaign). And then, beyond occasional maintenance costs, every household would have no household electricity bills.
How cool would that be?
So why don't they do it? My guess is that the big oil companies and their shareholders, which probably include a large number of MPs and their families, block actions that might harm their profits.
Whether man made climate change is real or not the economic argument would support a move to minimise the use of fossil fuels at the earliest possible moment. It couldn't harm the environment or make man made climate change any worse and it would surely eliminate fuel poverty at a stroke.
Let's stop funding wars, and investing in pollution causing industries, and have some vision for the future.
366/83 - Thomas the Tank Engine
Click here for Thomas the Tank Engine, Thomas Newman and today's Word of the Day...
Thursday, 22 March 2012
REVIEW: The Raven (15)
About 20 years ago I spent a few days in Philadelphia and visited Edgar Allen Poe's house there. It may have changed since then but when I visited the house was completely empty, there was no furniture or memorabilia, not even a bookcase with the author's books on it. The whole house was undecorated and the walls were, if I remember rightly, unplastered. Somehow, though, the tour guide made it into a thoroughly enjoyable and memorable visit weaving details of Poe's life with his poems and stories.
In many ways that is what The Raven does.
Edgar Allen Poe, the American master of horror, is found sitting on a park bench in Baltimore. He is dazed and confused and near death.
What follows is a ripping yarn of a serial killer inspired by Poe's writings, and all his most famous works get a mention. It is, on many ways, a bit like the movie Se7en but transferred to mid-19th century America.
It's not art but a great romp with cloaks and candles, graveyards and cellars, horse riding and a masked ball and a body count that would put Midsomer Murders to shame!
John Cusack, not known for period drama, is convincing as Edgar Allen Poe and the supporting cast all play their parts to support the twists and turns of the story. Alice Eve, the daughter of Actors Trevor Eve and Sharon Maughan, is Poe's love interest, the woman he wants to marry but her father objects to the suggestion of marriage.
Towards the end of the movie the possibility that it's all been the narrative of a near death dream - bringing together all the threads of his life's works. Has it all be an hallucination?
I'm not one for blood and guts and gore, and it's worth noting there are a few rather gory moments that, along with some fairly mild swearing, definitely warrant the 15 certificate
Overall - an enjoyable romp!
In many ways that is what The Raven does.
Edgar Allen Poe, the American master of horror, is found sitting on a park bench in Baltimore. He is dazed and confused and near death.
What follows is a ripping yarn of a serial killer inspired by Poe's writings, and all his most famous works get a mention. It is, on many ways, a bit like the movie Se7en but transferred to mid-19th century America.
It's not art but a great romp with cloaks and candles, graveyards and cellars, horse riding and a masked ball and a body count that would put Midsomer Murders to shame!
John Cusack, not known for period drama, is convincing as Edgar Allen Poe and the supporting cast all play their parts to support the twists and turns of the story. Alice Eve, the daughter of Actors Trevor Eve and Sharon Maughan, is Poe's love interest, the woman he wants to marry but her father objects to the suggestion of marriage.
Towards the end of the movie the possibility that it's all been the narrative of a near death dream - bringing together all the threads of his life's works. Has it all be an hallucination?
I'm not one for blood and guts and gore, and it's worth noting there are a few rather gory moments that, along with some fairly mild swearing, definitely warrant the 15 certificate
Overall - an enjoyable romp!
OPINION: Budget 2012
Yesterday, George Osbourne presented his third budget to the House of Commons and today, and for most of the next week or so, the petty bickering, attempts at point scoring, and politicking goes on.
As far as I can see, yesterday's budget tinkered. There were a few good things, a few bad things and just about everything except the so-called "Granny Tax" had been leaked in advance.
Yesterday's budget can best be summed up as "meh".
There was no great innovation on the proposals. There was no vision for the future. There was no sense of a new political ideology or fiscal system.
George Osbourne may as well have stood up and said "Everything increased by inflation. That's it!"
Where are the great pitical visionaries? Why is there no desire to do more than tinker? Where I'd the politics of principle and ideology?
Yesterday's budget, once the dust has settled, will be viewed as a non-event that did nothing for the UK, its citizens, or the wider world.
The UK has become a one-party state, but a one-party state with different faces so that the proles think that change has happened.
Opposition oppose for the sake of opposing but offer no alternative and no vision for a better future. And yet, while they're busy opposing, they refuse to say they'd do anything different or reverse decisions.
We have hit a stalemate in which bland consimerist capitalism is the only choice available and it makes no difference who delivers the budget.
As far as I can see, yesterday's budget tinkered. There were a few good things, a few bad things and just about everything except the so-called "Granny Tax" had been leaked in advance.
Yesterday's budget can best be summed up as "meh".
There was no great innovation on the proposals. There was no vision for the future. There was no sense of a new political ideology or fiscal system.
George Osbourne may as well have stood up and said "Everything increased by inflation. That's it!"
Where are the great pitical visionaries? Why is there no desire to do more than tinker? Where I'd the politics of principle and ideology?
Yesterday's budget, once the dust has settled, will be viewed as a non-event that did nothing for the UK, its citizens, or the wider world.
The UK has become a one-party state, but a one-party state with different faces so that the proles think that change has happened.
Opposition oppose for the sake of opposing but offer no alternative and no vision for a better future. And yet, while they're busy opposing, they refuse to say they'd do anything different or reverse decisions.
We have hit a stalemate in which bland consimerist capitalism is the only choice available and it makes no difference who delivers the budget.
COMMENT: Red light cameras
Over the past few weeks I've increasingly noticed a disturbing behaviour amongst drivers. Yes, there's always the idiotic speeders who feel that any road is a Formula One racetrack, but that's not the problem - though I'd welcome speed cameras wherever it is thought they'll catch speeders. If you don't want to be caught don't speed.
There are also the huge number of drivers who seem unable to use their indicators to let others know their intentions and movements on the road and, more often than not, on roundabouts. But again, this isn't the problem.
The worrying trend I've spotted is more and more drivers going later and later after traffic lights have turned red.
It is absolutely idiotic.
Sure, you may well be in a hurry to get somewhere, or you might even be late, but jumping red lights may well result in you arriving even later... or not at all!
At the moment there's an effective tv ad highlighting the dangers of trying to skip through a level crossing. Surely, jumping a red light is just as serious AND vastly more common an event.
Why do people do it? I'm guessing they think their lateness and inability to organise their life properly is more important than the safety of other road users, cyclists and pedestrians?
And that's part of the problem. Not only do these bad drivers risk their own safety, they risk the safety of others who are abiding by the law.
I think it's time for a clampdown.
I've never understood why all traffic lights aren't fitted with a speed/red light camera as a matter of course. This needs to be changed.
And let's not bother with a fine and a few points on the offender's driving license. That's hardly a deterrent. It needs to be real punishment. Licenses lost. Re-testing required. Long bans.
And don't go bleating about Big Brother. The safety of law-abiding road users and pedestrians is something that must be protected.
There are also the huge number of drivers who seem unable to use their indicators to let others know their intentions and movements on the road and, more often than not, on roundabouts. But again, this isn't the problem.
The worrying trend I've spotted is more and more drivers going later and later after traffic lights have turned red.
It is absolutely idiotic.
Sure, you may well be in a hurry to get somewhere, or you might even be late, but jumping red lights may well result in you arriving even later... or not at all!
At the moment there's an effective tv ad highlighting the dangers of trying to skip through a level crossing. Surely, jumping a red light is just as serious AND vastly more common an event.
Why do people do it? I'm guessing they think their lateness and inability to organise their life properly is more important than the safety of other road users, cyclists and pedestrians?
And that's part of the problem. Not only do these bad drivers risk their own safety, they risk the safety of others who are abiding by the law.
I think it's time for a clampdown.
I've never understood why all traffic lights aren't fitted with a speed/red light camera as a matter of course. This needs to be changed.
And let's not bother with a fine and a few points on the offender's driving license. That's hardly a deterrent. It needs to be real punishment. Licenses lost. Re-testing required. Long bans.
And don't go bleating about Big Brother. The safety of law-abiding road users and pedestrians is something that must be protected.
Wednesday, 21 March 2012
Tuesday, 20 March 2012
UK Eurovision entry 2012
I'm not sure about the UK's entry to this Year's Eurovision Song Contest.
It's a very nice song, naive and gentle with a hint of an OTT and powerful end that doesn't really ring true. It's like the songwriters suddenly remembered he has a big voice and had to to tack on the big orchestra with crashing cymbals!
I'm not sure why you'd get Englebert Humperdinck, known for huge belting hits like Release Me and Quando, Quando, Quando and then give him a gentle little ballad.
Maybe it'll grow on me but, of course, Eurovision songs need to win votes on one hearing.
It's a very nice song, naive and gentle with a hint of an OTT and powerful end that doesn't really ring true. It's like the songwriters suddenly remembered he has a big voice and had to to tack on the big orchestra with crashing cymbals!
I'm not sure why you'd get Englebert Humperdinck, known for huge belting hits like Release Me and Quando, Quando, Quando and then give him a gentle little ballad.
Maybe it'll grow on me but, of course, Eurovision songs need to win votes on one hearing.
Monday, 19 March 2012
Sunday, 18 March 2012
Saturday, 17 March 2012
366/77 - Ashover, Derbyshire
Click here for today's Project 366 - a photo of the village of Ashover.
Friday, 16 March 2012
Thursday, 15 March 2012
Symphony No.3 - Robert Steadman
I've finished my third symphony.
Here are demo files of the movements to listen to.
It is in 4 movements (the 2nd and 3rd are played without a gap, so there are only 3 files) and is scored for a large 9-part string orchestra, piano and, in the 2nd movement only, a soprano saxophone.
Interested to hear comments... (... and from anyone who has an orchestra who might like to perform it!)
If you'd like to see the score just let me know.
Here are demo files of the movements to listen to.
It is in 4 movements (the 2nd and 3rd are played without a gap, so there are only 3 files) and is scored for a large 9-part string orchestra, piano and, in the 2nd movement only, a soprano saxophone.
Interested to hear comments... (... and from anyone who has an orchestra who might like to perform it!)
If you'd like to see the score just let me know.
Wednesday, 14 March 2012
Tuesday, 13 March 2012
COMMENT: How much longer can a civilised society tolerate horse racing?
Today the annual blood bath begins - grandly called the Cheltenham Festival as if there is something about animal abuse that should be celebrated.
Horse racing is wrong.
It is abuse.
It is cruelty.
It has little to do with a love for animals and all to do with gambling.
In recent years the Cheltenham Festival has witnessed the killings of so many horses that even the organisers have taken action to try to minimise the problem but this doesn't mean that horse racing is a caring, loving, animal friendly sport.
Far from it.
For every Kauto Star that becomes a celebrity there are many, many horses who are killed by their owners because they're not fast enough, haven't win enough money or are too old to race any more. Few race horses have long retirements, too many are sent to the abattoir, discarded like a pair of old jeans.
Sadly, because so many in the British establishment gave an interest and involvement in horse racing, it has an air of respectability. Quite why I will never understand. And the broadcast media goes overboard at regular intervals throughout the year: Cheltenham, the Grand National, the Derby...
Horse racing is cruel. The jockeys have made much if the new whip which, they claim, is more about sound and less about pain. That is irrelevant. We should not be whipping horses purely for entertainment and to support the corrupt, global betting markets.
Sure, flat racing is safer than jumps. Well, it's safer on race day. The owners and trainers kill just as many flat racers as National Hunt horses away from the courses.
And it is no argument that horses naturally run and jump. No animal should be used for entertainment. Crufts, the dog show that finished last weekend, is an atrocity of dangerous selective breeding and making animals do things just for human entertainment, and the selective breeding of race horses has made them into very fragile beasts, most unlike their natural cousins.
The government has recently announced they will ban the use of "wild animals" in circuses. This is to be applauded as it is a situation that should have been stopped decades ago. But while elephants, tigers, zebras, etc. will be protected from any further abuse by new legislation race horses will continue to be misused and abused, injured, drugged and killed so that people can "have a flutter".
Let's not be naive. The use of the term "have a flutter" is deliberately used to make it all seem innocent fun, but alongside every once or twice a year punter there are countless gambling addicts whose life, and the lives of their families, are destroyed by gambling. And beyond them are the international betting syndicates that have destroyed the credibility of cricket and who are without scruple or moral code.
I'm often surprised that bookmakers don't seem to offer odds on the number of horses that will be killed during a race meeting.
If we were a civilised society we would treat all animals with care and respect. Sadly, while horse racing is seen as an acceptable pastime, we are still a society of barbarians.
Horse racing is wrong.
It is abuse.
It is cruelty.
It has little to do with a love for animals and all to do with gambling.
In recent years the Cheltenham Festival has witnessed the killings of so many horses that even the organisers have taken action to try to minimise the problem but this doesn't mean that horse racing is a caring, loving, animal friendly sport.
Far from it.
For every Kauto Star that becomes a celebrity there are many, many horses who are killed by their owners because they're not fast enough, haven't win enough money or are too old to race any more. Few race horses have long retirements, too many are sent to the abattoir, discarded like a pair of old jeans.
Sadly, because so many in the British establishment gave an interest and involvement in horse racing, it has an air of respectability. Quite why I will never understand. And the broadcast media goes overboard at regular intervals throughout the year: Cheltenham, the Grand National, the Derby...
Horse racing is cruel. The jockeys have made much if the new whip which, they claim, is more about sound and less about pain. That is irrelevant. We should not be whipping horses purely for entertainment and to support the corrupt, global betting markets.
Sure, flat racing is safer than jumps. Well, it's safer on race day. The owners and trainers kill just as many flat racers as National Hunt horses away from the courses.
And it is no argument that horses naturally run and jump. No animal should be used for entertainment. Crufts, the dog show that finished last weekend, is an atrocity of dangerous selective breeding and making animals do things just for human entertainment, and the selective breeding of race horses has made them into very fragile beasts, most unlike their natural cousins.
The government has recently announced they will ban the use of "wild animals" in circuses. This is to be applauded as it is a situation that should have been stopped decades ago. But while elephants, tigers, zebras, etc. will be protected from any further abuse by new legislation race horses will continue to be misused and abused, injured, drugged and killed so that people can "have a flutter".
Let's not be naive. The use of the term "have a flutter" is deliberately used to make it all seem innocent fun, but alongside every once or twice a year punter there are countless gambling addicts whose life, and the lives of their families, are destroyed by gambling. And beyond them are the international betting syndicates that have destroyed the credibility of cricket and who are without scruple or moral code.
I'm often surprised that bookmakers don't seem to offer odds on the number of horses that will be killed during a race meeting.
If we were a civilised society we would treat all animals with care and respect. Sadly, while horse racing is seen as an acceptable pastime, we are still a society of barbarians.
Monday, 12 March 2012
OPINION: Banning religious symbols in the workplace
It all started in 2006 with Nadia Eweida, the fundamentalist Christian, who wanted to be allowed to flaunt and advertise her religion at work, even though it broke BA's uniform policies.
Naturally, the dullards and religious extremists of the right wing press were up in arms and Christians up and down the country, including the then prime minister Tony Blair, weighed in saying that they were being victimised and that it was their right to display their faith. Even Boris Johnson supported Mrs. Eweida, and he ought to know better.
Similarly, a nurse who offered prayers for patients, as if superstition could intervene where medicine struggled, was rightly disciplined for imposing her faith.
More recently the same numbskulls have defended the right of a council to have prayers as part of their meeting and claimed that this didn't prejudice or favour anyone or any group! There has been a lot of whining and whinging about "militant atheism" and "creeping secularism" as if atheism and secularism are bad things.
Surely, if there is any sense, it is time for parliament to drop its prayers and for courts to abandon the nonsense of witnesses swearing on the Bible, a book so full of lies it throws into doubt every word sworn on it!
Although, through extreme pressure from religious groups, supported by the government, BA were forced to initially back down and allow employees to advertise their religion on their work uniforms, it is pleasing to hear that the case is not yet over and that the current Tory government, which many would have thought would have been on the side of the religious nut jobs, is supporting BA's original decision and saying that there is no right to wear religious symbols in the workplace.
Mrs. Eweida has continued to fight to be allowed to advertise her faith at work and, with financial help from a number of Christian fundamentalist sources, she has now taken her case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The British government, in a rare moment of common sense, will oppose her petition - and rightly so.
Sadly, though, Ministers will only be opposing "optional" religious symbols such as the Christian cross, and not all religious symbols, some of which have a compulsory element, like headscarves, bangles, etc.
This is a shame. There has already been a hearing in which Justice Stephen Sedley threw out Mrs Eweida’s case for discrimination, accusing her of following a “sectarian agenda”. Given that, she doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Mrs Eweida will probably argue, in Strasbourg, that her deep personal convictions drove her to wear a cross in the same way that another female employee may well argue her deep personal convictions drove her to wear a burka. But that is simply a nonsensical argument.
BA have acted both reasonably and proportionately in the way it dealt with Mrs. Eweida and its time that all religions were prevented from flaunting their beliefs in public. It is time that religious faith, a clear mental illness and a display of ignorance and stupidity, was forced to be a private matter at worst, and educated out of society at best.
As a society we mustn't fall into the trap of thinking the only fundamentalists are Muslims and they're all suicide bombers. To adhere to a religious faith in the 21st Century, denying science, reason and all rational thought, is a ridiculous position to hold and good governments must act to prevent the cancer of religious faith spreading any further.
The banning of religious symbols in the workplace is the act of a courageous company standing against the would-be oppressors of the Church. The government and the European Court of Human Rights now need to stand up for sanity.
Naturally, the dullards and religious extremists of the right wing press were up in arms and Christians up and down the country, including the then prime minister Tony Blair, weighed in saying that they were being victimised and that it was their right to display their faith. Even Boris Johnson supported Mrs. Eweida, and he ought to know better.
Similarly, a nurse who offered prayers for patients, as if superstition could intervene where medicine struggled, was rightly disciplined for imposing her faith.
More recently the same numbskulls have defended the right of a council to have prayers as part of their meeting and claimed that this didn't prejudice or favour anyone or any group! There has been a lot of whining and whinging about "militant atheism" and "creeping secularism" as if atheism and secularism are bad things.
Surely, if there is any sense, it is time for parliament to drop its prayers and for courts to abandon the nonsense of witnesses swearing on the Bible, a book so full of lies it throws into doubt every word sworn on it!
Although, through extreme pressure from religious groups, supported by the government, BA were forced to initially back down and allow employees to advertise their religion on their work uniforms, it is pleasing to hear that the case is not yet over and that the current Tory government, which many would have thought would have been on the side of the religious nut jobs, is supporting BA's original decision and saying that there is no right to wear religious symbols in the workplace.
Mrs. Eweida has continued to fight to be allowed to advertise her faith at work and, with financial help from a number of Christian fundamentalist sources, she has now taken her case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The British government, in a rare moment of common sense, will oppose her petition - and rightly so.
Sadly, though, Ministers will only be opposing "optional" religious symbols such as the Christian cross, and not all religious symbols, some of which have a compulsory element, like headscarves, bangles, etc.
This is a shame. There has already been a hearing in which Justice Stephen Sedley threw out Mrs Eweida’s case for discrimination, accusing her of following a “sectarian agenda”. Given that, she doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Mrs Eweida will probably argue, in Strasbourg, that her deep personal convictions drove her to wear a cross in the same way that another female employee may well argue her deep personal convictions drove her to wear a burka. But that is simply a nonsensical argument.
BA have acted both reasonably and proportionately in the way it dealt with Mrs. Eweida and its time that all religions were prevented from flaunting their beliefs in public. It is time that religious faith, a clear mental illness and a display of ignorance and stupidity, was forced to be a private matter at worst, and educated out of society at best.
As a society we mustn't fall into the trap of thinking the only fundamentalists are Muslims and they're all suicide bombers. To adhere to a religious faith in the 21st Century, denying science, reason and all rational thought, is a ridiculous position to hold and good governments must act to prevent the cancer of religious faith spreading any further.
The banning of religious symbols in the workplace is the act of a courageous company standing against the would-be oppressors of the Church. The government and the European Court of Human Rights now need to stand up for sanity.
Sunday, 11 March 2012
OPINION: Football finances
Football (soccer) finances in the UK have been a mess for decades now. Clubs overspending on players who receive gargantuan salaries, underwritten by sugar daddies as hobbies, few clubs, in their current state, are sustainable.
Television money, instead of helping the situation, has made things worse with the bulk going to hyper-inflate the greed of players and their agents and most times, it seems, a club gets into financial difficulty there's an outcry and everything is done to keep the club going. New owners, new money (often temporary and with no guarantees) and just a few years until the same problems happen.
Other clubs, like Manchester United, are in so much debt that if they were any other business they would have been buried long ago.
The troubles at Rangers, probably the biggest UK team to go into administration, have, surely, given a number of clubs a wake up call. It is only a matter of time before a major club, or two, ceases to exist.
Yes, it would be sad if some clubs go to the wall but if they are not sustainable then that should happen. A few clubs going out of business would be a good thing for football because it might mean that the rest get their Ccounts in order and learn to live within their means, or, at least, within reasonable overdraft facilities.
But is the current system sustainable in the long term? I don't think so.
I maintain that the UK, not just England, can only really sustain 16 top flight teams. Too many at the bottom half of the Premier League spend heir time going up and down between the Championship and the Premier League. It could probably be argued that there are only 10 or 12 genuinely Premier League teams. This is a nonsense and, added to the financial chaos that is found at man clubs, it is not a sensible way to continue.
I think it's time that the F.A. took a look over the Atlantic and seriously considered a franchise system.
A franchise system would require financial certainty and propriety, and would be a positive way to ensure no more Rangers or Portsmouthhs happen.
Yes, those teams who don't make the cut will be upset but, hey, that's life. the clubs could continue as semi-professional or amateur teams and, consequently, have a much stronger and safer future.
As part of the franchise system, I think it's important that we move to a UK league. Having separate leagues and FAs for each constituent part of the UK is just a nonsense.
So I'd suggest a Franchise Premier League would have 3 London clubs, geographically spread around capital and neighbouring counties, a Welsh team, a Northern Irish team, possibly 2 Scottish teams, a team in North East of England, 2 or 3 North West teams, a southern team and a south west team. One team in East Midlands and 2 in the West Midlands.
And that's it.
If a club develops financial problems they lose their franchise, simple.
A franchise system would demand greater financial openness.
And, to help the clubs, I'd suggest an "average salary" cap for the first team squad.After all, it is the greed of the players that has caused many, if not quite all, the financial woes of clubs.
Television money, instead of helping the situation, has made things worse with the bulk going to hyper-inflate the greed of players and their agents and most times, it seems, a club gets into financial difficulty there's an outcry and everything is done to keep the club going. New owners, new money (often temporary and with no guarantees) and just a few years until the same problems happen.
Other clubs, like Manchester United, are in so much debt that if they were any other business they would have been buried long ago.
The troubles at Rangers, probably the biggest UK team to go into administration, have, surely, given a number of clubs a wake up call. It is only a matter of time before a major club, or two, ceases to exist.
Yes, it would be sad if some clubs go to the wall but if they are not sustainable then that should happen. A few clubs going out of business would be a good thing for football because it might mean that the rest get their Ccounts in order and learn to live within their means, or, at least, within reasonable overdraft facilities.
But is the current system sustainable in the long term? I don't think so.
I maintain that the UK, not just England, can only really sustain 16 top flight teams. Too many at the bottom half of the Premier League spend heir time going up and down between the Championship and the Premier League. It could probably be argued that there are only 10 or 12 genuinely Premier League teams. This is a nonsense and, added to the financial chaos that is found at man clubs, it is not a sensible way to continue.
I think it's time that the F.A. took a look over the Atlantic and seriously considered a franchise system.
A franchise system would require financial certainty and propriety, and would be a positive way to ensure no more Rangers or Portsmouthhs happen.
Yes, those teams who don't make the cut will be upset but, hey, that's life. the clubs could continue as semi-professional or amateur teams and, consequently, have a much stronger and safer future.
As part of the franchise system, I think it's important that we move to a UK league. Having separate leagues and FAs for each constituent part of the UK is just a nonsense.
So I'd suggest a Franchise Premier League would have 3 London clubs, geographically spread around capital and neighbouring counties, a Welsh team, a Northern Irish team, possibly 2 Scottish teams, a team in North East of England, 2 or 3 North West teams, a southern team and a south west team. One team in East Midlands and 2 in the West Midlands.
And that's it.
If a club develops financial problems they lose their franchise, simple.
A franchise system would demand greater financial openness.
And, to help the clubs, I'd suggest an "average salary" cap for the first team squad.After all, it is the greed of the players that has caused many, if not quite all, the financial woes of clubs.
OPINION: The Tyranny of Tolerance
Over the past couple of years the religious faiths, particularly the Christians, have become more and more shrill in the defence of and support for their "beliefs" and if, or more often when, they look like losing the debate they scream that those who oppose them are being intolerant.
Tolerance is, to an extent, a good thing. Of course it is. But the way that the faiths use it as a club with which to batter opponents is nothing more than a Tyranny of Tolerance.
Tolerance isn't a right. Just because someone says or believes something doesn't give them the right to say it and have it defended by the law. Look at the racism of extreme far right parties. Their racism should never be tolerated in a modern society and while they have a right to say their views (as long as they stay within the race hate laws that protect minorities), and they have a right to stand for public office and see if others support their views, but they do not have the right to have their views uncontested, and they do not have the right o impose their beliefs on others.
This is, or at least should be, the case with religious faith too. Just because somehow has a religious faith doesn't mean it should be protected or tolerated. Far from it.
When religions display bigotry they must, of course, be challenged and their bigotry highlighted. Currently many oppose the Christian stance against gay marriage and feel it is an affront to civilised society. Some of us think it comes quite close to breaking the law.
There is no way that Christian bigotry should be tolerated and yet, because it's their "faith" that's what many Christians want and demand.
Ultimately, why should ANY faith that has, at its core, an imaginary superbeing and all sorts of unproven, unprovable "facts" that are used as mind control on its adherents?
Religious faith, the denial of science, reason and logic, is, at best, stupidity and ignorance and, at worst, a form of mental illness and madness. If I suddenly announced that invisible superbeings were talking to me I'd, quite rightly, be licked up for my own safety and the safety of others but Christians think that such nonsense should be tolerated if it's their lunacy - because that's faith and should be beyond normal society.
What utter nonsense.
Religious faith should not be tolerated as a matter of course. It should be challenged at every turn. It should be shown to be a nonsense. It should, when appropriate, be ridiculed. It should, when it breaks the laws that the rest of use have to follow, be prosecuted. It should be brought to book in every way possible so that people know the facts about religion.
Tolerance of religion is a bad thing for society - it allows churches to abuse and control the vulnerable and leads to a society divided by superstition, which has to be a bad thing.
Should horoscopes be tolerated and not mocked for their blatant nonsense? Of course not.
Should all who speak out homophobic ally, as Christian leaders have on the issue if fat marriage, be tolerated? No of course not, and the churches must not be above the law and treated differently.
Religious faith is a bad thing. It is a nonsense in modern society and yet Liz Windsor sits as Head of the established church being praised for her leadership for 60 years over ridiculous superstitions, and Rowan Willuams, the Archbishop of Bigotry, fuels the fires being intolerant of reason and fact whilst demanding tolerance for his own nonsense.
The Tyranny of Tolerance, the last line of defence for the abusive religions, must be smashed.
Tolerance is, to an extent, a good thing. Of course it is. But the way that the faiths use it as a club with which to batter opponents is nothing more than a Tyranny of Tolerance.
Tolerance isn't a right. Just because someone says or believes something doesn't give them the right to say it and have it defended by the law. Look at the racism of extreme far right parties. Their racism should never be tolerated in a modern society and while they have a right to say their views (as long as they stay within the race hate laws that protect minorities), and they have a right to stand for public office and see if others support their views, but they do not have the right to have their views uncontested, and they do not have the right o impose their beliefs on others.
This is, or at least should be, the case with religious faith too. Just because somehow has a religious faith doesn't mean it should be protected or tolerated. Far from it.
When religions display bigotry they must, of course, be challenged and their bigotry highlighted. Currently many oppose the Christian stance against gay marriage and feel it is an affront to civilised society. Some of us think it comes quite close to breaking the law.
There is no way that Christian bigotry should be tolerated and yet, because it's their "faith" that's what many Christians want and demand.
Ultimately, why should ANY faith that has, at its core, an imaginary superbeing and all sorts of unproven, unprovable "facts" that are used as mind control on its adherents?
Religious faith, the denial of science, reason and logic, is, at best, stupidity and ignorance and, at worst, a form of mental illness and madness. If I suddenly announced that invisible superbeings were talking to me I'd, quite rightly, be licked up for my own safety and the safety of others but Christians think that such nonsense should be tolerated if it's their lunacy - because that's faith and should be beyond normal society.
What utter nonsense.
Religious faith should not be tolerated as a matter of course. It should be challenged at every turn. It should be shown to be a nonsense. It should, when appropriate, be ridiculed. It should, when it breaks the laws that the rest of use have to follow, be prosecuted. It should be brought to book in every way possible so that people know the facts about religion.
Tolerance of religion is a bad thing for society - it allows churches to abuse and control the vulnerable and leads to a society divided by superstition, which has to be a bad thing.
Should horoscopes be tolerated and not mocked for their blatant nonsense? Of course not.
Should all who speak out homophobic ally, as Christian leaders have on the issue if fat marriage, be tolerated? No of course not, and the churches must not be above the law and treated differently.
Religious faith is a bad thing. It is a nonsense in modern society and yet Liz Windsor sits as Head of the established church being praised for her leadership for 60 years over ridiculous superstitions, and Rowan Willuams, the Archbishop of Bigotry, fuels the fires being intolerant of reason and fact whilst demanding tolerance for his own nonsense.
The Tyranny of Tolerance, the last line of defence for the abusive religions, must be smashed.
Saturday, 10 March 2012
Friday, 9 March 2012
Thursday, 8 March 2012
Lento - a new piece for string orchestra
Lento is a piece for 9-part string orchestra and piano written on 7th and 8th March 2012.
It's in 3 sections, all slow, and lasts about 25 minutes
-The opening is sad but somehow optimistic
-The middle section is rather intense and emotional
-The final section is a release from the trauma that has gone before and a resolution
This is a demo of the piece played through Sibelius notation software.
For more information:
www.robertsteadman.com
It's in 3 sections, all slow, and lasts about 25 minutes
-The opening is sad but somehow optimistic
-The middle section is rather intense and emotional
-The final section is a release from the trauma that has gone before and a resolution
This is a demo of the piece played through Sibelius notation software.
For more information:
www.robertsteadman.com
Wednesday, 7 March 2012
OPINION: What's the problem with Mitt Romney being a Mormon?
Despite his Super Tuesday wins edging him ever closer to becoming the Republican Party candidate to stand against Barrack Obama in November's Presidential election, there are still many who have a problem with him because of his faith. He is a Mormon, and the USA has never had a Mormon President.
Mitt Romney
Why though, in the "land of the free" should bring a Mormon be a problem? How is it any different from being a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu or a Christian?
The Mormon church, or to give it its proper name, The Church of Latter Day Saints, was founded by Joseph Smith in upstate New York in the 1820s. According to Smith, he was visited by an angel who directed him to a buried book inscribed in a language only he could translate on gold plates. He published a version of this book in 1830. (Surprise, surprise, the plates have only ever been seen by a dozen of Smith's inner circle and theit whereabouts are not known). Mormons believe in the Bible but also the Book of Mormon and they believe that after his resurrection Jesus visited the Americas.
Joseph Smith
Mormons have many unusual beliefs that don't sit well with modern society. They have compulsory tithing of a percentage of income to the church. They ban drugs, alcohol and caffeine. They say any adult male can become a priest but ban females and o ky allowed black men to become priests in 1976. They believe there are multiple heavens and multiple worlds, each with its own God. And the list goes on and on.
But hang on a minute....
While rational people will find Mormon beliefs and practises peculiar, if not outright bizarre, but why are they any more odd than the beliefs of all the other religions?
Why is Mitt Romney's Mormon belief any more lunatic than Barrack Obama's Christianity?
The answer, of course, that it isn't.
Both Mormonism and Christianity, and all the other faiths, rely on a good story, lack of evidence, gullible and stupid people, and a "priesthood" happy to abuse the stupid, feckless and at risk.
What we should be asking, instead of attacking Romney's Mormonism, is why anyone with religious faith should be elected to a responsible office?
Does it make any more sense to give power to a man who believes a person came back to life after their death, or that the world was created in six days, or believes our souls will be judged and some will go to heaven and others to hell?
And how does it make any sense to have a President who holds dear to his heart blatant bigotry?
These are, of course, the beliefs of lunatics and the mentally ill. People who believe in imaginary super beings should not be trusted to run local councils, let alone superpower nations.
Sadly,however, through the all-pervading cancer that is religious indoctrination, there has never been an atheist President of the USA and, in all likelihood, there want be for many generations to come. All of the Republican candidates for the Presidency are extremist fundamental believers and they will be standing against another extremist fundamental believer to try to depose him of the White House in November.
It is time for the skeptical, rational, logical and sane to stand up against the monster of religion and snatch power away from the churches because,ultimately, it is the churches who will be President. It's just their face that changes.
Why though, in the "land of the free" should bring a Mormon be a problem? How is it any different from being a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu or a Christian?
The Mormon church, or to give it its proper name, The Church of Latter Day Saints, was founded by Joseph Smith in upstate New York in the 1820s. According to Smith, he was visited by an angel who directed him to a buried book inscribed in a language only he could translate on gold plates. He published a version of this book in 1830. (Surprise, surprise, the plates have only ever been seen by a dozen of Smith's inner circle and theit whereabouts are not known). Mormons believe in the Bible but also the Book of Mormon and they believe that after his resurrection Jesus visited the Americas.
Mormons have many unusual beliefs that don't sit well with modern society. They have compulsory tithing of a percentage of income to the church. They ban drugs, alcohol and caffeine. They say any adult male can become a priest but ban females and o ky allowed black men to become priests in 1976. They believe there are multiple heavens and multiple worlds, each with its own God. And the list goes on and on.
But hang on a minute....
While rational people will find Mormon beliefs and practises peculiar, if not outright bizarre, but why are they any more odd than the beliefs of all the other religions?
Why is Mitt Romney's Mormon belief any more lunatic than Barrack Obama's Christianity?
The answer, of course, that it isn't.
Both Mormonism and Christianity, and all the other faiths, rely on a good story, lack of evidence, gullible and stupid people, and a "priesthood" happy to abuse the stupid, feckless and at risk.
What we should be asking, instead of attacking Romney's Mormonism, is why anyone with religious faith should be elected to a responsible office?
Does it make any more sense to give power to a man who believes a person came back to life after their death, or that the world was created in six days, or believes our souls will be judged and some will go to heaven and others to hell?
And how does it make any sense to have a President who holds dear to his heart blatant bigotry?
These are, of course, the beliefs of lunatics and the mentally ill. People who believe in imaginary super beings should not be trusted to run local councils, let alone superpower nations.
Sadly,however, through the all-pervading cancer that is religious indoctrination, there has never been an atheist President of the USA and, in all likelihood, there want be for many generations to come. All of the Republican candidates for the Presidency are extremist fundamental believers and they will be standing against another extremist fundamental believer to try to depose him of the White House in November.
It is time for the skeptical, rational, logical and sane to stand up against the monster of religion and snatch power away from the churches because,ultimately, it is the churches who will be President. It's just their face that changes.
Tuesday, 6 March 2012
Monday, 5 March 2012
Sunday, 4 March 2012
Saturday, 3 March 2012
Friday, 2 March 2012
Thursday, 1 March 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)