SMALL TALK AT 125TH AND LENOX (LEWIS)

“Love it, love it, love it! How do they get away with it?”

“Who? What?”

“Them. That thing. Ya know.”

“What thing? Jesus.”

“Oh, them government types. Them that some vote for to represent us. Moses.”

“Oh, them k-noots. What have they done now? Abraham.”

“Well, it’s all been one of them big summits in Poznan. Joseph.”

“Been discussing stuff, have they?”

“Yes, Mary. It’s all been about taking action on climate change.”

“Action? And what’s come out if, pray tell, you young Victorian pip-squeak, you?”

“Yeah, well, it’s been all finely balanced and that all week, but it’s all concluded an’ that now, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad.”

“Conclusions and outcomes, like mushrooms and light-shades.”

“Yeah.”

“Buddha, Buddha.”

“I saw a little silhouette of a man.”

“And what have they decided to do, Mark, Matthew, Phillip, Luke and Chewbacca?”

“They’ve decided that ‘discussions will enter full negotiating mode’ at the next big summit in Copenhagen next year.”

“Wow, can’t wait to see what they decide then.”

“Yes, you Confucian spoon-bender, it’s knife-edge stuff.”

“So what do you think’ll be the impact of this great decision, Chapter 3, Verse 10?”

“I have no idea, but I can’t stop talking about it.”

“No, me neither. No-one can.”

If you'd like to know what these guys are talking about, click on this: http://realenglishman.blogspot.com/2008/12/outcome-of-climate-change-summit-in.html

OUTCOME OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE SUMMIT IN POZNAN

1. Work plans agreed for both ‘tracks’.

OK, so a plan has been agreed. Don’t know which one we’re going to follow yet though.

2. Discussions to enter ‘full negotiating mode’.

Classic. They’ve agreed to talk seriously about doing something next time.

3. UN Adaptation Fund agreed.

Money’s available to reimburse (?) countries affected by climate change. Better than actually doing anything about it, I suppose.

4. Programme agreed to improve roll-out of low-carbon technologies.

Blah, blah, blah. National Space Centre.

5. Parameters established of agreement on reducing deforestation.

Cool, we’ve set the limits for an agreement yet to be made.

6. ‘Recognition’ that science indicates need for emissions to peak and begin to decline within 10-15 years.

Aha, and science has said some stuff about emissions or summat.

Now, I don’t know the ins and outs of climate change. I know there are arguments on both sides and I’ll leave that for them to sort out (or come back to another time).

I do, however, recognise bullshit, and the outcome of seven days talking in Poznan definitely has the characteristics of a steaming, bovine dump.

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY

“Kids today!”

“I know, I know. Did you see on the news about those teenagers that killed that dad who was playing cricket with his son in a park?”

“Oh yeah. That one where they were started shouting abuse...”

“Yeah, the dad asked them to stop and they responded by throwing stones at him. One or two of them catching him on the head before he collapsed and died as a result.”

“Yeah, I know. Terrible. They want stringing up.”

“Did you also see that report on what’s happened to articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?”

“Er, no. I must have missed that. Is it important?”

“Well, kind of. You see, these articles guarantee ‘freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, and freedom of thought’.”

“...”

“Well, at the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva on June 16, 2008, an amendment that can strangle these rights was passed.”

“Z”

“The, er, amendment was proposed and supported by the seventeen Islamic member states on the Council, and also China, Russia and Cuba. Oh, and equally complicit by abstaining were delegates representing the so-called West.”

“Zzzzz”

“Did you see that story about that woman being stoned to death in Somalia because she was said to have committed adultery?”

“Uh? What? Oh yeah, disgusting, and it wasn’t adultery. She had, in fact, been gang-raped by three men. I don’t see why nothing can’t be done about it.”

“Not really our business, I suppose.”

“Oh no, but they come over here; burning our flags, throwing bricks through windows and intimidating people when anything depicting Muhammad in a critical light is said or published. And we do nothing about it.”

“I know, I know. There definitely appear to be some double-standards at work.”

“I’ll give you double-standards! They come over here; building their mosques and authorising the assassinations of artists and authors due to criticising some paedophile from the seventh-century with a god complex. And then, and then, some teacher innocently names a classroom teddy – the name nominated by her class, not herself, by the way – Muhammad in Sudan, and she faced imprisonment or forty lashes!”

“One of the prices of freedom of speech, I guess. You have to take the rough with the smooth.”

“Yeah, well, at least we can discuss things like that, I suppose. At least we’re not living in one of those countries and subject to their laws.”

“You sure about that?”

“Aye?”

“Well, you know those amendments I mentioned...”

For the full story: http://www.iheu.org/node/3336

NEPAL: ROOM FOR OPTIMISM (FOR HUMANISTS)?

It’s nice to hear so much optimism surrounding the election of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in (ahem) Nepal, especially as the outcome of that vote seems to represent the will of a large group of previously disenfranchised people. It is also sensible for non-Nepalese organisations or governments to engage with the new majority party there in order to encourage and assist it in the implementation of policies that they support.

It being a government that sees the secularisation of society as an integral policy issue that needs to be actively addressed rather than an incidental or non-issue to be actively ignored (as the present system has served them very well so far, thank you), it is natural that the International Humanist and Ethical Association should wish to give these views an international voice and be supportive of the new regime in order for it to hopefully develop policies along Humanist lines.

In terms relating to Humanist principles, this new government appears to tick all the right boxes in terms of:

• Being rational
• Its views regarding religious dogma
• Being democratically elected

However, at the risk of being cynical, I think it wise to be cautious in view of the political ideology that forms this party and in view of some of the things that were said in an interview with International Humanist News magazine in November.

It goes without saying, but, for many, Maoism is as much a dogmatic belief system as any religion and has similarly had large amounts of blood spilt on its behalf. We only have to look at China as an example – which would be logical – to see the consequences of dogmatic political beliefs represented in the growth of undemocratic institutions to defend these beliefs. Institutions which soon betray the intentions and hopes upon which the rise of the party were based. Times, of course, have changed within China and there are no longer the purges that took place in the past, but there is a very real danger to the people of Nepal that similar things could happen there in the interest of advancing the party’s aims.

Although, of course, it always pays to be open-minded, it also pays to put your critical-thinking faculties to good use as well, especially where politicians – elected or otherwise – are concerned, and there are a few quotes that can be taken from the interview in November’s magazine to put fear into anyone’s heart who has lived under an authoritarian regime or anyone who fears for human rights when they hear the words ‘Maoist’ and ‘Government’ used in the same sentence.

Twice, within the interview, Dr. Baburam Bhattarai stated that there was a “need for a cultural revolution” and that “[e]ven after the political revolution is over, the economic and cultural revolution will continue.” I don’t think one can overstate the connotations that the phrase ‘cultural revolution’ may evoke in many people’s minds. One can only hope that lessons have been learnt from history, but history also teaches us that this very often doesn’t occur. Once mechanisms are in place and wheels in motion, where does a cultural revolution stop? Is there an agreed destination or is it just that it ‘will continue’? The road to hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions.

Which leads us to: “we would like to bring in land reform.” Again, borne of good intentions, but again, a policy with a history of high human cost. Relatively successful reforms, however, have been carried out in parts of India, for example, so there is hope that the path is more gradual and less violent than the ones that have been travelled elsewhere.

Of course, there is much to be optimistic about and we shouldn’t blatantly dismiss this new government as, aside from not fostering good relations and good will between people, this may only serve to foster the very practices that are feared, but let us not turn a blind eye to one thing if our interests are being served by another.

I guess my final sentence should echo sentiments that have been much uttered since this government’s election and that is: “The true test of democracy is not the ability to be voted in by the people, but the ability to be voted out by the people.”

Original article appeared: http://www.iheu.org/node/3257

FOOTBALL TALK: NOTT'M FOREST 2008/09

Trying to cheer myself and forget my headache I thought I’d go through our remaining fixtures and predict (based on gut-feeling only (obviously)) how many points we may end up with at the end of the season.

Has it cheered me up?

Has it pluck! Seventeen points plus thirty equals forty-seven points. Equals second bottom if you go on last season’s placings. Equals relegation four times out of the last seven seasons. But, equals safety three times out of those last seven seasons.

It’s going to be (as it is already) a season of stressful Saturdays; of hopes raised and hopes dashed, and, I fear, eventual heartache again, unless...

We do better and turn those one pointers into three pointers.

• Can we? Course we can.
• Will we? As optimistic as any football fan is, I can’t see it.

Or maybe that’s the hangover talking.

Hope so.

Remaining Fixtures

Sheff Utd: 1 (RESULT: 0-1 = 0pts : 0/3pts) -1

Blackpool: 3/4 (RESULT: 0-0 = 1pt : 1/6pts) -3

Southampton : 1/5 (RESULT: 2-0 = 3pts : 4/9pts) -1

Doncaster: 3/8 (RESULT: 2-4 = 0pts : 4/12pts) -4

Norwich: 3/11 (RESULT: 3-2 = 3pts : 7/15pts) -4

Charlton: 0/11 (RESULT: 2-0 = 3pts : 10/18pts) -1

Plymouth: 1/12 (RESULT: 2-0 = 3pts : 13/21pts) +1

Sheff Wed: 1/13 (RESULT: 2-1 = 3pts : 16/24pts) +3

Cardiff : 0/13 (RESULT: 0-2 = 0pts: 16/27pts) +3

Ipswich: 0/13 (RESULT: 1-2 = 0pts: 16/30pts) +3

QPR: 1/14 (RESULT: 2-2 = 1pt: 17/30pts) +3

Birmingham: 0/14 (RESULT: 0-2 = 0pts: 17/33pts) +3

Direby: 1/15 (RESULT: 1-3 = 0pts: 17/36pts) +2

Reading: 0/15 (RESULT: 1-0 = 3pts: 20/39pts) +5

Preston: 3/18 (RESULT: 2-1 = 3pts: 23/42pts) +5

Swansea: 3/21 (RESULT: 1-1 = 1pt: 24/45pts) +3

Watford: 1/22 (RESULT: 1-2 = 0pts: 24/48pts) +2

Burnley: 1/23 (RESULT: 0-5 = 0pts: 24/51pts) +1

Wolves: 1/24 (RESULT: 0-1 = 0pts: 24/54pts) 0

Barnsley: 0/24 (RESULT 1-1 = 1pt: 25/57pts) +1

Bristol City: 0/24 (RESULT: 3-2 = 3pts: 28/60pts) +4

Sheff Utd: 0/24 (RESULT: 0-0 = 1pt: 29/63pts) +5

Coventry: 3/27 (RESULT: 1-0 = 3pts: 32/66pts) +5

Blackpool: 1/28 (RESULT: 1-1 = 1pt: 33/69pts) +5

Southampton: 3/31

Points so far: 17

Predicted Total: 48 (53pts)

47 points equals relegation: 2007/08, 2004/05, 2003/04, 2001/02

47 points equals safety: 2006/07, 2005/06, 2002/03

Stoopid game!

BEAUTY & THE BEAST

Every day, in the mishapen, mutant masks that that morph and ming from the cinema screens to the high-street glossies, we see the results when humans interfere and try to create beauty, so we shouldn't be surprised when we hear of the consequences of the selective breeding programmes of man's best friend. Only saddened, oh, and maybe a little bit angry, too.

However, the picture accompanying the article did draw a smile across my face - you'll need to click on the link below to see it. Who the hell is she to judge the beauty of a dog - has she ever looked in a mirror?

Go on, have a look:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/05/dogs-pets-crufts-bbc-animal

WANNA BE A MONKEY?

"Britain is poised to approve China's application today to become a licensed ivory trader in spite of protests from environmental and animal welfare groups and nearly 150 MPs"

"Ms Ruddock, a highly-respected MP with a strong record on environmental protection, appears to have been given orders from No 10 not to risk upsetting China by opposing the bid"

Isn't this one of the most hypocritical governments you have ever seen. By now, I should be able to believe it, but I can't, I really can't.

Not that any other major party would behave any differently under pressure from whatever interest really has a hand on the reigns of power.

But none of us has the strength to make the 'sacrifices' necessary to remove at least our own little society from the dirty, global back-scratching that goes on in the name of economic progress, so why don't we just return to 'three monkey mode'?

The indigestion that results from swallowing the guilt caused by your feigned ignorance is uncomfortable, but return to the 'Daily Mail' and the pain shall soon be eased.

Either that or accept the fact that much of what we accept as normal is rotten, and the only people that can do anything to change anything is US!

But do what?

Quotes above taken from:http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/britain-poised-to-approve-china-ivory-licence-867621.html