Atheists aboard the Milibandwagon!

Following the disastrous (for the Labour Party at least) Crewe bye-election, there has been open speculation on the future of our Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Will the Torys win the next General Election? Will Brown survive as leader until the next General Election? Who will succeed Brown as Labour leader and Prime Minister?

Naturally that has been the order of speculation, with attention now turning to the third. Polically minded people across Britain are now eyeing up Brown's cabinet to see who would make a half decent Prime Minister. And so the Times has turned its attention to the young (42) David Miliband, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs - a job he has held since the June 28th 2007 reshuffle. Miliband has apparently declared that he is willing to "save New Labour".

I don't know about anyone else, but I seem to recall that this is what Brown was supposed to do? Back in June 2007, weren't we told that Gordon would rid the party and the government of the worst excesses of the Blair years? That it would be the end of spin, the end of sofa government? Admittedly, Brown has been more a victim of circumstance than anything else. Current economic problems are global (or so i am led to believe). Nevertheless, it is the government which must carry the can when finances go tits up.

For the sake of argument, leds imagine that the Labour Party has, en masse, called for Gordon Brown to resign. Gracefully, though not to pleased about it, he does so. Then what? Numerous names have been thrown in the air, other than that of Miliband, are Jack Straw, Alan Johnson and James Purnell. Naturally no one will currently admit wanting the job:

Alan Johnson on the chances of him leading Labour into the next election: "None whatsoever, absolutely none".
David Milliband: "I'm not in the market for any job other than the one I've got at the moment"
Douglas Alexander on Brown: "I don't think there's anybody better qualified "
Ed Miliband on Brown: "He's the right man for the times" Naturally things may change.

To quote the Times "Among the ministers said to be ready to desert Brown are Alan Johnson, the health secretary, Ruth Kelly, the transport secretary, James Purnell, the work and pensions secretary, Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, John Hutton, the business secretary, Hazel Blears, the communities secretary, Jack Straw, the justice secretary, and Tessa Jowell, the Olympics" and "Brown is also losing the support of Alistair Darling, the chancellor." That would leave quite an empty cabinet one would imagine, seemingly made up of Harriet Harman, the Miliband Brothers, Balls and Cooper, Denham, Hoon, Alexander, Browne, Benn, Woodward and Murphy, as well as a lot of hastily promoted backbenchers.

"I'll get my coat"

Assuming the Times' prediction is correct, and that Brown has just left Number 10 (possibly taking notable Brownites such as Harman, Darling and Balls with him). Is it possible to imagine a leadership contest? For the first time in 11 years, the Party hasn't had a leader in waiting. No one potential Prime Minister looms out over any other. Let's suppose the ballot of Labour Party members has opened and the choice is between either David Miliband or Jack Straw.

All other issues aside, I'm actually quite fond of one of these candidates. Miliband is an Atheist like myself. While the Daily Mail naturally sees this as a bad thing (Godless PM! Shock Horror!!) I feel it could only be a good thing for Britain. The UK needs an Atheist government, secularism needs to be strongly defended against constant attack. If the recent debate over abortion has taught us anything, it's that right wing christian fanatacism is on the rise. Across the country, there are people who will argue that discrimination is ok if it's based on faith.

Once PM Miliband has sorted out our economic problems (perhaps with a little help from Chancellor Byrne?) there are a few areas of national policy i'd like to see him sort out:

-End any privalege accorded to minority groups on the basis of religion
-Close down ALL faith schools, be they Christian, Muslim or whatever
-Ban religious dress in schools -End worship in schools -Force schools to teach evolution in science classes
-Enforce a decent standard of sex education in schools
-Kick the 26 unelected bishops out of the House of Lords -Enable police forces to seriously investigate hate crimes and incitement from religious groups
-Protect the right to criticise religion
-Block all attempts to lower the abortian time limit
-Bring in tough anti-homophobia laws
-Legalise marriage for homosexual couples
-Maintain the equality of all citizens under the law (No to sharia).

The Rt Hon. David Miliband, PM?

I can only hope that as a Prime Minister, David Miliband would be as openly proud of his Atheism as Brown has been of his Presbytarianism and Blair is of his new Catholicism. I should probably point out that Jack Straw has been almost as committed to secularism, having at one time asked Muslim women in his constituency to remove their veils when talking to him - before being forced to back down by a party that depends quite heavily on the muslim vote in its inner city constituencies. As long as Ruth Kelly doesn't get the job, there's enough homophobic right wing nutters in the Tory party, we don't need one in charge of Labour.


All said and done, I sincerely hope that Brown survives the current blip in the polls. But should the writing really be on the wall for the Brown era, I'll be there on the sidelines cheering on fellow godless heathen, David Wright Miliband.

'Ciderite'

"The summers seemed to last forever"

Apparently the Institute for Public Policy Research has suggested that the traditional long summer holiday be cut, since apparently "pupils' reading and maths abilities regressed because the summer break was too long."

Um.... whats wrong with getting the little sods to read over the summer??

Am I missing something here? When i was in school, 6 weeks off was a joy, it enabled me to devour countless books. Every trip to the library i'd load up with 7 or 8 thick hardbacks, then spend hours of the day just reading, the more liberal 'bed time' over the holidays meant i'd stay up till gone 11pm (!) trying to finish 'just one more chapter'.

Now call me an intellectual snob (I see it as a compliment), but i believe that anyone who chooses not to read for pleasure, or believes that reading is 'boring' deserves to be thick.

From Russia with PR

Apparently the release of a new Indiana Jones film has caused quite a controversy in Moscow. I have very little idea what it is about and probably won't see it.

However, i am led to believe that a basic plotline involves Indy struggling against "Cate Blanchett's evil KGB agent." [1] Needless to say, Communist Party officials aren't best pleased:

"St Petersburg Communist Party chief Sergei Malinkovich told the Reuters news agency it was "rubbish".

"Many Russian cinemagoers [who are] teenagers would be "completely unaware of what happened in 1957", when the film is set."

Khrushchev - cameo unlikely.

If i remember rightly, 1957 was the year Sputnik 2 was launched, and when Anthony Eden resigned. Quite what Mr Malinkovich is worried about, i'm not sure. Anyone with any intelligence will understand that Hollywood doesn't always offer the best portrayal of historical fact. Is he worried that people might think that the KGB weren't nice people? Or that the Soviet Union wasn't the workers paridise we all thought? If an unfavourable film portrayal of its past is the biggest issue affecting modern day Russia, President Medvedev must be laughing.


Never mind all this, spare a thought for the poor old Nazis. They never even had the chance to complain about their portrayal in 'The Lost Ark'

'Ciderite'

(For the benefit of the terminally thick, I should probably point out that the last remark was a joke. The Nazi's weren't nice people, ok)

And the latest from the religion of peace....

Well, following on from Dispatches; "In God's Name", I tracked down and watched and earlier episode made up of undercover recordings at 'mainstream' mosques across the UK (notibly Birmingham's Green Road mosque). I don't know whether this is an Atheist perspective or not, but i sometimes forgot which program i was watching.

Sometimes I'm greatful for the beards, always helpful in telling one mad fundamentalist from another entirely different mad fundamentalist of another faith.

In this one, the clerics have a go at insulting and inciting hatred against pretty much every minority, indeed every human being on the globe. Not bad for a 50-minute runtime. Even ideas such as democracy and freedom of speech aren't safe from the madness imported from Riyadh.

It's interesting to note that the undercover journalist - operating at enormous personal risk - handed over this vast body of evidence to West Midands Police. They went on to launch an investigation into..... the program, accusing it of:

"misrepresented the views of Muslim preachers and clerics with misleading editing."
and
"inciting terrorism or racial hatred"

Thankfully, the CPS dropped this ludicrous prosecution and may now actually seek to charge the real criminals - the Islamofascists in our midst. Good to know the Old Bill has our best interests at heart.

'Ciderite'

In God's Name

Ok, Channel 4's Dispatches series has wound me up again. This is not a bad thing for the program itself - i absolutely love it. Rather, it's what was portrayed in their most recent edition (still available on '4 on-demand'). Right-wing Christian nutters. In the UK.

The first 2 word of that description do it for me, the third makes it 10 times worse. Knowing it's happening in my own country just takes the piss. You expect this sort of thing in the US, sure; it's Islamic parallel in Iran goes without saying. But in Britain?

A brief synopsis if i may. The program follows the efforts of numerous self-righteous religious pricks as they attempt to limit a woman's right to choose as part of the Human Embryology Act was going through parliament. Now I am pro-choice, but as far as I'm concerned, that isn't the issue. What i take issue with is the general attitude of these people, and many 'people of faith'. The program showed bigot after bigot as they elaborated on their numerous personal hatreds - ranging from gay rights, to womens rights, to the fact that some people have the nerve to worship a different god. The main points that this group of evangelical 'born-again' christians seemed to agree on, are as follows.



-Britain is a 'Christian country'.

-Christians should be in charge.

-Anyone who disagrees with them is a bad person, or sinner.

-The Christian religion should be the basis of government.

-Muslims are evil for not following Christianity.

-Muslims are evil for wanting to be in charge.

-Muslims are evil for thinking Christians are evil for not following Islam.

-Gay people are evil and gay relationships are wrong

-The Earth is only '4,000 to 10,000 years old' (taught in their faith schools this one)

-Nobody has the right to a private life

-Their beliefs and 'values' should be imposed on everybody else.



All of the above are, of course, complete bollocks as far as I am concerned, so much that I won't even bother arguing against them. Personally I find the views and 'values' of even 'moderate' religious types a throwback to the dark ages. I'm certain they would think of me as evil, or at least 'wrong'. The point is, I don't mind people having opinions, no matter how vile, so long as they KEEP THEM TO THEMSELVES.



You may feel that gay people should be stoned to death for the 'sin' of loving another person, but I don't. I don't want to hear the bigotry of Christians and other faith-heads, I certainly don't want to live my life according to it. Religion should have no place in government, or in public. keep it in your head!



Oh, and Britain is not a Christian country, I live here.



'Ciderite'

Potential Swing Voter

Less than 24 hours after losing the Crewe bye-election, Gordon Brown has been involved in talks with Tibetan leader-in-exile, the Dalai Lama. One has to ask if maybe our Prime Minister is considering the pro-Tibet protesters as possible swing-voters.

I for one see know reason why such a meeting should take place. Admittedly from an idealist point of view it would be fantastic if our Dear Leader could facilitate a gradual handover of power to the Tibetan people by acting as an intermediary with their masters in Beijing. Hey presto, la la la la la, free Tibet, etc, etc. This clearly isn't going to happen. Any Tibetan independence will happen long after Gordon has left office (so ......next week?).

Why therefore, knowing the futility of such a plan, would he consider meeting the Dalai Lama worthwhile. I'm not entirely cynical (not yet), and would like to think that GB has at least a little sympathy with the Tibetan cause - he made a distinct decision not to touch the Olympic torch as it passed by Number 10 in April. Maybe like me, he has a genuine hope for a long-term solution to the problem. Or maybe it was just opportunistic electioneering.

Tibet was occupied by the People's Republic of China in 1950. There was no Chinese miliatary presence before this date, quiete a lot afterwards. There was also what could lightly be described as 'significant regime change'. To suggest that Tibet has always been an integral part of China is like suggesting that Iraq has always been a US state. Since that date, ties have been made increasingly strong between the himalayan kingdom and the PRC - continental scale railways for mineral extraction, colonisation by Han Chinese, cultural marginalisation, etc.

And nobody quite knows what to do now; 'Free Tibet' groups demand full indepence, the Dalai Lama himself wishes for only autonomy, and Beijing continues the 'always here, always will be' line. China would like to keep occupying the nation for all manner of reasons - economic, strategic, political- and there would seem to be little ground for negotiation or resolution.

So what was Gordon up to? If anything he was irritating our friends in China. Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang was quoted yesterday as saying:

"This is interference in China's internal affairs and also seriously hurts the feelings of the Chinese people"

Well well, we wouldn't want that would we. Interfering in the internal affairs of another nation? cough.. Zimbabwe... cough... arms.... Yes. Lets bear in mind that many Tibetans consider the Dalai Lama their spiritual leader and natural head of state and government... hmm... I'm not a big fan of theocracy but nevertheless, the one thing i'd expect a head of government to be doing is taking some interest in internal affairs. As for hurting people's feelings??

To steal a catchphrase from that vile creature Richard Littlejohn, 'you couldn't make it up'

Having your feelings hurt - PRC style

Truth be told, there's absolutely sod-all Mr Brown can do for Tibet. Any remotely pro-Tibet foreign policy wouldn't go down too well in Beijing; young Milliband would get a less than gratious reception. Even if a united EU and US agreed to take a pro-Tibet stance, it would have little effect. Such is the economic power of the PRC that it doesn't have to care what the world thinks of it. So we boycott their products? There are plenty who wouldn't. Also, selfish though it may seem, your average Brit probabably prefers to have a job, income, and new fridge, to Tibetan independance. Such are the unfortunate realities of a world with an authoritarian superpower.

Besides which, it might spoil the Olympics.

'Ciderite'

(I note that my source for this, BBC news, is treading a very thin tightrope on this issue. Short of a single quote - 'cultural genocide' - from the Dalai Lama, it avoids mentioning any alledged Chinese atrocities. It is also interesting to note that a certain news website was recently unblocked in China for the first time since its inception 18 years ago)

Knowledge Brings Fear

Like many politically minded people of all parties, I have also been watching the progress of the Human Embryology Bill. Believing as I do in autonomous liberation, I have thus far refrained from commenting (one cannot put of revision forever). That said, I cannot help bringing up something which has been heard a lot as this Bill has progressed through the parliamentary process. It is a basic untruth which does an enormous amount of harm to everyone’s reproductive rights, and not just those of women. It is that young women treat abortion as: “just another form of contraception.”

This lie is one which is constantly spouted by the anti-choice lobby. It assumes that couples simply don’t bother taking precautions during sex because “hey, if something goes wrong, you can just get rid of it right?” This assumption is an insult to those millions of women who need to take a difficult decision under what almost certainly aren’t circumstances of their choice. At least consider those women who don’t even have a choice about having sex. If I were to be devoid of all humanity, I’d go so far as to say that abortions don’t even sound that convenient, (what with the 2 signatures and the jumping though hoops to prove need…), I’m not a women so I don’t know, but I’d assume that taking a pill daily, or using a condom is far more efficient and infinitely less stressful.

But abortion isn’t the issue I want to discuss. The issue with me is the root of the ridiculous statement above. The Daily Mail and other tabloid newspapers, so keen to support the 20 week limit, are also very keen on publishing stories on ‘Britain’s record teen pregnancy’. Said tabloids are also very fond of expressing ‘moral’ outrage whenever plans are revealed for sex education in schools. It’s usually some utter rubbish, suggesting that telling pupils about sex will ‘only encourage them to be promiscuous’. This conclusion is usually based on the faulty logic that if one, for example, hears a beautiful piece of music; one will want to learn to play for oneself. The suggestion is that it is obviously the same with learning about sex.

Usually the letters will flood in from indignant parents (‘My daughter is only 14, she’s far to young to learn about sex’, etc, ad nauseam). Always the conclusion is the same; better sex education = promiscuous teenagers = higher teen pregnancy rates.
Firstly, this conclusion is utterly incorrect. In fact, it is so absurd I can assume most of our readers are intelligent enough not to need it pointed out to them. Secondly, levels of sex education in this country are appalling.

Now admittedly I’m only speaking from anecdotal evidence, but quite often that is scary enough to suggest that something needs to change. Personally through my schooling, the standard from a biological point of view was quite good, even if parents were allowed to remove their children from the class for those lessons (‘well we can’t have our child actually learning anything’), at least we were told the mechanics. For the social side of things we were kept mostly in the dark with no time officially allocated for teaching, and no specialists. In fact, I’m told our old headmaster actually prevented the school nurse from supplying free condoms (“teenage boys actually having sex?? Not my pupils!”).

That said, I’m quite sure I got the better part of the deal. While I went to a middle class suburban comprehensive (though this came with problems of its own), inner city schools are obviously in a much worse state for sex ed, not even having adequate resources to spare on it. All manner of myths surround sex when you are a teenager, no matter how much the ‘moral’ right would like to keep us in the dark. What bothers me is not that young people won’t know anything about sex, its that they won’t be in possession of the facts or the accurate information. When you hear a 16 year old girl (physically kept by her parents from knowing or learning anything about sex) ask if it’s possible to get pregnant from oral sex, you have to ask if we as a country are doing enough through education.

Supposedly ‘moral’ parents (often the hardcore conservative Christian variety in my experience, but one doesn’t like to generalize) would love to stop their children being taught any of the facts of life –presumably under the misguided impression that what they don’t know won’t hurt them. Yes it will. You aren’t keeping them innocent, you’re keeping them vulnerable. After all, would you avoid teaching them about road safety, because it might tempt them to cross the road? Basic health and safety in the workplace anyone? No, anyone who falls off a ladder obviously had it coming to them.

The point I’m trying to make is that, chances are, a girl who knows how contraception works, where to get it from and how to use it, is probably less likely to end up needing an abortion than a girl who believes (or is led to believe) that you ‘can’t get pregnant if you do it standing up with your socks on when it’s a full moon’. That is why I despise the right wing lobby that is both anti-choice and anti-sex-ed. Call me cynical, but it seems to me that if this lobby really believed in ‘the rights of the unborn’, it would surely give full support to a decent and fully funded program of compulsory sex education in all UK schools and thereby help to reduce the number of unplanned and accidental pregnancies.

Its only hydrocarbons

I’m taking a break from geology revision to blog about…. Geology.

So with my declared interest out of the way, its time for a rambling rant about something that has a tendency to irritate me. This is the oil industry, or more precisely, the reaction most green eco-warriors have towards it.

Not a popularist argument then?

I, along with most people of my generation who have some sort of political consciousness, have grown up with one simple equation in mind: Oil=Evil. Isn’t it about time we dispelled this overblown simplicity?

First let’s get the big one out of the way - Global Warming. I don’t deny it, anymore than I deny evolution or isotope fractionation or any other scientific fact. I don’t deny that atmospheric CO2­ is a major cause, or that the current rise in CO2 is a result of human activity. CO2 causes Global Warming, burning hydrocarbons releases CO2. Simple.

Or it would be, if burning crude oil was the only worthwhile thing to do with it. Well known, but often overlooked, is that hydrocarbons are one of the most versatile chemicals known to mankind. Looking round the room I’m in now, I’d estimate that it’s 50% hydrocarbon, if not more. Plastics make up the bulk of this, but then there’s other derivatives including waxes, cosmetics, lubricants, medicinal products, agricultural pesticides and fertilizers that have gone into the production of food….. (not all found within my room). Indeed, hydrocarbons are of infinitely more practical value as these other derivatives. While electric cars could be utilised immediately, nature has not provided anything like an alternative to these beautiful molecular chains.

It’s worth remembering, that before the internal combustion engine, petroleum from oil fields in Pennsylvania was just burnt off as a ‘waste product’ – how might our oil-poor decedents react to learn what we did to perfectly good molecules. “All those lovely hydrocarbons, and they just burnt them???” I don’t think I’m being too unrealistic to predict that there may come a time when peak oil approaches and we as nations have to be a little more conservative about how we use our reserves. This isn’t to say oil as a fuel will phase itself out – The world should definitely take steps to cut emissions drastically – I just want to end the fallacy that it is Shell and BP who are melting the ice caps.

Now I don’t drive. I have no reason the visit petrol stations. That is why when I do pass them on visits home (irregular), the prices advertised surprise me. The basic rate per barrel of crude has gone up, the price at the pumps has gone up. Oil companies are making record profits (Shell $7.8 billion, BP $6.6 billon, both 2008). So are they profiteering? Start up costs in the industry are very high, and interests are highly protected – as would be expected when there is so much to gain (even if at a risk – companies have to have global interests to minimise local catastrophes).

We live in a free market, if a company wishes to supply a product; it is free to set a price. This is true of every product from oil to golden syrup. If we keep buying, they’ll keep selling. Going back to the 50% of a room hypothesis, is it really so surprising that oil companies should have such large turnovers when, chances are, we as a planet buy far more of a product from someone like Exxon than from Tate and Lyle. And what if the government set limits on oil prices, or told the companies that their profits would be capped? I certainly hope we’d hear uproar from the right wing economists who claim to stand for ‘the free market’. Maybe the Daily Mail, known to print headlines such as ‘Oil companies make record profits!’ would accuse the government of the day of ‘Soviet style economy planning’. I would also hope to see a protest outside No 10 by Greenpeace: ‘Lower prices encourage Gas guzzlers’ or something like that.

Another thing I hear often enough is the geographic ignorance of anti-war people. “The only reason we are in Iraq is for the oil!”, “I bet the west would take a keener interest in Zimbabwe if there was oil there!”, etc, ad nauseam. The answer to the first, I don’t know and won’t attempt to answer one way or the other, (since I don’t have access to the same information as our former Prime Minister, I feel it would be unfair to criticise him). The second is a half truth, Zimbabwe has no natural oil or gas reserves, it does however have a substantial mineral wealth in iron, gold, nickel, chromium and others – all increasingly valuble metals. Before the decline under Mugabe, Rhodesia was ‘the breadbasket of Africa’- the continent’s Ukraine.

None of this has any bearing on the oil companies though. Politics isn’t always respectful of geology and the oil companies can hardly be blamed for going where the oil is. I’ll repeat that point for some of the thick eco-fascists; most oil companies prefer to drill in places where oil is to be found. It is unfortunate that a quarter of the worlds reserves (264 billion barrels) are found in Saudi Arabia, with another 136 billion and 115 billion in Iran and Iraq respectively, but what happened in the Palaeozoic 4-6km below the surface has little bearing on the fact that these areas are now a hotbed of theocracy and ignorance.

That European and American companies are taking huge risks in assisting these countries’ development (known to nationalise reserves at a moments notice) is something all to often ignored by the average Green. That states such as Saudi Arabia have lessened their dependence on the west and could be taking steps towards democracy and liberalisation is something also ignored.

Commentators are always trying to find ways to label our present era, be it the ‘Nuclear Age’ or the anthropocene. Another one thrown about is ‘the oil age’, owing to the fact that oil is to the modern world what copper was to the people of the Bronze Age. Without oil derived agro-chemicals we as a planet could never hope to feed 6billion+ people. But as I predicted, this won’t always be the case. Once oil stops being a fuel to be burned, our dependence will fall. In Turkey there is a popular saying ‘Iraq has oil, we have water. Let them drink their oil’. Local animosities aside this has a ring of truth in it; the global balance of power is shifting.

Whereas most people in the UK could name a major oil company or two, we’d be hard pressed to name the big players in the water industry. My knowledge stops at local providers. We as a society could live without oil, but not without water. In California, bottled water now costs more by the litre than gasoline. Petrol is (or should be) a commodity, water is a necessity. Quite why the green lobby see the oil companies as evil, evil, evil, while leaving the bottled water lot alone is beyond me.
To those who think the oil lobby is too powerful, consider this; In the 19th century, coal was king. A far more polluting fuel than either oil or gas (though very cheap), mine owners in northern England became very, very wealthy, flash forward to 1970 and it was a different. I know I’d probably be laughed out of the room for saying this, but I can see a time when oil wells have to be shut down as ‘unprofitable’, I could even see workers striking, if Saudi theocracy afforded such a privilege.

As a final point; the green lobby have for a very long time brainwashed us with images of the apparent evil of oil. One of their favourite stock images has to be the oil slick; they love ‘em. Such images are often to be seen on the front of a direct debit envelope sent by Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, et al. Yes, crude is a killer for wildlife, especially birds, and I believe that oil companies should pay for the clean up (provided the z-list celebrities who jet in having reserved a seal can cover their own expenses). Unfortunately, supertankers are the only way of transporting the stuff, its that or thousands of kilometers of pipeline (the green lobby aren’t to fond of these either). As long as the sea is unpredictable, accidents will happen. If the captain is alleged to have been drinking (Exxon Valdez, 1989) this doesn’t help matters. In 1996, Milford Haven in Wales suffered a massive oil spill. Today the area is as clean as before. Pure crude is biodegradable.

Before I receive an angry letter from the RSPB, can I also say that birds have far more frequent hazards to watch out for than the odd slick 300 times as many birds are killed each year by flying into windows (90 million) than by oil slicks, but hey, maybe we should all live without windows – it’s clearly SiO2 that’s the killer, not good old C5H12. One wonders if, were it not for the emotive images, would we ever hear about these ‘catastrophic’ events? Wind turbines aren't exactly benevolent either.

To those with a competence in grammar and prose, I apologise for a badly structured rant. To those who would still attack me for the industry I love and the job I desire, I make no apologies.