More on Miliband

So my friend Dave is back in the news again. While I don't blog on general politics much (being a single-issue man mostly) I do read a lot of other blogs/articles/newspapers on the topic.

When I blogged about Mr Miliband previously, I did so because I saw him as a potential PM in waiting. This situation hasn't changed and if anything the media are only exacerbating the situation. First he's preparing a bid, next he has supporters, then - backbenchers are telling Gordon to sack him. Of course, my personal support for and liking of David Miliband hasn't changed (so much so that I've joined this little group ). That said, I'm increasingly of the view that all this speculation really isn't helping matters. If Brown was willing (or was quietly persuaded) to go and Miliband stepped in, fair enough. Call a General Election if necessary and come what may for the party. If Brown is determined to stay on as leader for the rest of Labours term in office, with the consent of the party, that would also be acceptable to me. But if there is one thing guarenteed to do the party in, it is infighting.

Much has been written elsewhere on the potential catastrophe that is infighting within the Labour Party, so I won't dwell on it. Suffice to say that I would personally be behind Brown or Miliband, depending on circumstances; but if the party decends into constant backstabbing and rumours about leadership challenges, then there is no way it will regain the trust of the electorate before the next election.

Bi the way...

Being a bisexual male can be an interesting experience at times, certainly there are days when I feel a lot more 'bi' than usual. Why this should be the case, I'm not sure, but nonetheless it does give me the opportunity (excuse) to blog about bisexuality and the joys it brings.

For one thing, I've often seen being Bi as a conciousness expanding experience. By that I mean it allows me to experience and understand the world in a way other people are not able. Many people have the wrong idea about sexuality - they see it as a case of black or white, gay or straight, one or the other; with each category being mutually exclusive. Bisexuality has helped me to understand that there is so much more to it than that. Sexuality to me is a broad spectrum, with 'gay' and 'straight' as end members. For comparative purposes we can make 'gay'=100 and 'straight'=0. The point I am getting at is that no individual is entirely one or the other. While I agree a lot of people are 'straight', as they would understand it, by no means does that signify them being at zero on our spectrum. Here lies the falacy with our old fashioned 'black vs white' system of classification - it just doesn't work.

I'd hazard a guess that those who call themselves 'straight' may lie anywhere between, say 0 and 5 on the scale. This would mean that they aren't absolute heterosexuals, but that this side of their sexuality is so dominant that they can happily live their entire lives without noticeing the other sides. The opposite would be true of homosexuals. Bisexuality to me, would be the area between 25 and 75, with the 'not quite homo/hetero' areas labelled bicurious.

All this is of course a personal theory of mine. In fact, it is not even a theory since there is not a scrap of evidence to back it up. I'm going on personal experience alone here; that and the experiences of close friends. If anything, this system at least allows me to work out where I lie on the system - usually around 30-40 - though in the past I've probably crossed the 50 mark back and forth a number of times.

And what use is all this? Well, it at least allows me to dismiss the most hurtful criticisms of bisexuality - the 'choice' argument. I am utterly sick of reiterating and attacking it, but it basically runs along the lines that there is no such thing as bisexuality and that those who self-define as bisexual are really just 'greedy' or 'can't make up their mind'. Firstly, sexuality is never a matter of choice - anyone who can put logic and reason before personal bigotry can see that. Secondly, why should bisexuals have to choose - ignoring part of their nature and part of who they are - just to fit within other people's narrow categories.

I don't believe that there is anything wrong with bisexuality, anymore than there is anything wrong with being fond of both tea and coffee. If anything, I personally feel that bisexuality is the future. Admittedly it wouldn't be for the people at the ends of my spectrum, but that is no big deal. For everyone else, a little bit of open mindedness and experimentation wouldn't hurt would it? It would be fair to say that it is perhaps a little progressive for me to suggest we all start 'shagging anyone' (to quote a friend), but you wouldn't rule out a perfectly good potential partner on the basis of their race or hair colour would you? Is it really any more logical to rule them out for being the 'wrong' gender?

And finally, to quote John Barrowman (as Captain Jack Harkness in Torchwood)

"You humans with your quaint little categories"

Barrowman is, of course, homosexual. But he does play a bisexual (or even pansexual) character, and has I admit been something of an influence for me.

That's all for now, but I'm likely to have more thoughts on the subject soon enough (when I have a 'bi day' as I am known to do). Incidently, the title for this post comes from the name of another blog I've recently started reading. Can't remember how I found it, but I'm fond nonetheless.

'Ciderite'

Positive Racism

Ok, a personal axe to grind here.

Being in the job hunting market at the moment I have once again become accustomed to filling in countless application forms. This isn't a bad thing in itself, since one merely has to fill in the same basic facts, in addition to lying through one's teeth. Where my grudge lies is with that little section that is often attached, commonly bearing the name 'diversity monitoring'.

Now these always come with a little disclaimer, usually something along the lines of 'this information is not taken into account in our decision making process'. Bollocks it isn't. Why have it on the application form? To monitor diversity you say? Why? If 1 in 9 of the UK population is non-white, does this necessarily mean that 1 in 9 of any companies workforce should be non-white? Of course it doesn't. As I understand it, the thinking behind this 'diversity monitoring' is to make sure that companies and employers are employing people on their merits and not on their race, therefore ensuring that there is no racial bias within a workforce.

Of course, the break in logic here lies between bias and consequence. Sure, a biased employer would probably lead to an unrepresentative workforce; but does an unrepresentative workforce necessarily represent a biased employer - of course it doesn't. Let's suggest that in an interview situation, of four candidates, half were White British and half non-White. Now let us suppose that both White candidates were far better qualified for the only two jobs available - would it be racist of an employer to favour them? No.

And there lies the crux of the issue, for me at least. If we want a true meritocracy, we should accept that by the laws of natural probability, some workforces will be unrepresentative of the general population - is this an issue? It shouldn't be. Surely it is equality of opportunity we should stand for, not forced equality whereby a person can only get a job if they fit an exact specification for race, gender, sexuality, etc. and thereby fill the employers quota. It is on this principle that I oppose 'positive discrimination' - the concept on which blog's title mocks - in all forms. Take female MPs; naturally I have no opposition to having more female MPs, but at the same time I am not biased one way or the other. Quite frankly, I don't care one way or the other for the gender of my MP. To my mind, as long as both genders have an equal chance to get selected for seats, the outcome is irrelevant. The same applies to race, which is and always has been non-issue for me.

So hopefully this should go someway to explain why I was particularly annoyed at having to tick the 'White-British' box on my application form. Arguably I could have left that bit blank, but unless I change my name to Muhammed Khan, It's quite unlikely to pass as that of, say a British Pakistani. On a side note, I couldn't help noticing the strange subcategories under 'White'. They were:

-British -Irish -Bosnian -Kosovan/Albanian -Roma

Seems an odd little selection to me. British, representing a good 65 million people is a very broad category compared to say Kosovan. I don't know how many Kosovan/Albanians there are in the UK, but I'd hazard a guess that they aren't in the top 5 largest White population groups. Surely Yugoslav, or just Slav, would be more inclusive? Maybe my local council feel that Kosovans are under-represented in its local services are therefore more deserving of being given jobs.

Maybe I'm just bitter at not scoring any minority points in the application form (If they'd included sexuality of course, I could have ticked all boxes...). But to be honest, I just don't like feeling that I'm ruling myself out of employment by being white. I don't like knowing that my potential employer will be able to turn me down because I don't fit in their race quota. To me, equal rights should be equal - there is nothing positive about discrimination; and I don't just call it discrimination. No, equality is a two-way street, to me, this is racism.

'Ciderite'

Fresh from writing this post, I was quick to enlist the help of a local primary school child to develop an improved version of this type of diversity monitoring survey. The winning design comes from Dwain Pike of Scumbag Street Primary - not chosen by merit, but simply because Dwain was decided to be the most diverse member of the class (his mother being something of a 'loose woman' known for producing children rarely of the same colour of her husbands at the time). His pitiful attempt is shown below.

Possibly the most elaborate piece of procrastination ever....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7498442.stm





The video shows a group of Portugese students who have managed to engineer a robot for light cleaning duties. That sounds about right.





Personally I prefer other, similarly sophisticated methods to avoid menial housework. When dealing with mess, there's always the old; "Brush it under the fridge, noone will know"; "Put it all in that room we never use", and of course my favourate; "Well seeing as this one is so full, wouldn't it be easier just to buy another bin".



All I need is something to stop me setting the oven alight every time I use the grill.....

A Defeat for Religious Liberty...

.... by which I mean our collective freedom from religion, and in particular the Dark Age bigots who arrogantly believe they have a right to impose their backwards 'values' upon the rest of us.

The case I am referring to is that of Lillian Ladele, newest addition to my long list of religious gits. Ladele is a civil registrar of weddings who has refused to conduct civil partnerships between same-sex couples, because it is 'against her religion' (details can be found here).

Much has already been written of this outrage, the blogosphere being filled with almost unanimous condemnation of Ladele - and rightly so. But looking into her reasoning in full, it does set quite a worrying precedent, not least from a legal perspective. After all, what is religious belief other than a set of 'values' or ideas which the believer holds to be true regardless of any evidence or opinion to the contrary. In short it is an ideology, and one that doesn't accept dissent at that.

One can only assume that the type of 'religious liberty' Ladele was on about was one wherein everybody is allowed to hold whatever moronic beliefs they like, under the umbrella defence of "but it's my religion!" Under such circumstances one would presumably obey all the laws of the land - unless of course you didn't really fancy one or two of them, in which case try the 'against my religion line'.

Now lets say I have a fundamental and devout belief in not being detained against my will. Presumably this would grant me freedom from arrest and inprisonment. A sort of theologically mandated opt-out if you like. Don't fancy paying any taxes? Blame it on a god/gods - you're really sorry but he/she/they aren't so keen on the true faithful paying for the support of the non-faithful. They don't believe you? Make up some silly rituals and wear a daft hat - that should do it....

Obviously such a scenario is ridiculous, but no more so than the decision made by the employment tribunal which decided Ladele could opt-out of UK law and the responsibilities of her job. A central pillar of good democracy should be that everyone is equal under the rule of law - whether they like those laws or not.

In fact.... especially if they don't like those laws.

Bloody Brilliant Video on Evolution

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc

N.B. Some knowledge of taxonomy is vital. Even then, your head may hurt, mine certainly did.

United We Stand

Well then, today is the 4th of July; Independence Day of course. This was something I didn't realise at first, having more pressing matters at hand. Nonetheless it was about an hour ago when I first saw the fireworks.

Interesting, since I live in Birmingham, UK - not Birmingham, Alabama (even if Google Earth disagrees).

Not that I'm complaining. I visited the United States nearly three years ago and since then have become quite a fan of it. That would be of the nation itself of course - of some of its current inhabitants I have quite different opinions. Can one make a distinction between the two? Yes, I believe so. The United States I love is the one celebrated on July 4th - the world's first major democracy, the first independent New World state, the most secular nation on Earth (at the time.

The land of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, tolerance, opportunity and optimism. When I visited, I saw monuments on the New Jersey-Pennsylvania border, monuments at a place called Washington Crossing. Anybody who has studied American Revolutionary history in the slightest detail will know that General Washington's crossing of the Delaware was one of the turning points in the whole revolutionary war. It led to his surprise attack on the Yorktown garrison and eventually the 1783 Treaty of Paris, and the World we know today.

That's the brief history lesson over. To me, as a British tourist, it felt odd sitting in front of the museum's television screen (this is the US after all), watching a dramatisation of events where the British are naturally 'the bad guys'. Nevertheless, I know for a fact that I am a revolutionary sympathiser - "No taxation without representation" is a statement I wholeheartedly agree with. If I were an American citizen I would no doubt be proud of my countries rich and noble history. The folks at the museum evidently were (unlike British museums which seem to have a strong phobia of saying anything positive about Britain's role in world history*).

This brings me to my final point. In the world today there seems to be plenty of anti-Americanism, especially from the unholy alliance of the loony left and the Islamofascists. Without doubt this is due to - or at least blamed on - the foriegn policy of the Bush administration (along with his policy, or lack of one, on climate change). This has also led to an enormous amount of interest in Obama vs McCain '08 from global audiences. Given my personal admiration of the principles on which the United States was founded, I'm increasingly required to justify it against the past 8 years.

As a geologist, I'm well aware that 8 years, is a very very short time indeed (geologically speaking). 232 years seperate 1776 and 2008 - the Bush administration accounts for only 3.4% of that. Is it really right for Europeans and other people to declare that they hate America based on 3.4% of its national history? The paraphrase the comedian Al Murray, "America started as a good idea, it's just got a bit out of hand". Just because I happen to love the principles of the American Revolution, doesn't mean I supported war against Iraq. Equally, the 'war on terror' doesn't invalidate the finer parts of the American Dream.

Even if warmonger McCain gets in, and the nation implodes in a frezy of foriegn adventures, terrorist witchhunts and loony christian fundamentalism, I hope someone, somewhere, will remember those Founding Fathers and their bold dream of a land of the free.

Happy Independence Day


* Think endless slavery exhibitions and irritating gestures of apology we're encouraged to make. Anyone would be forgiven for forgeting that it was Great Britain which first banned the trade in slaves, followed by the role the Royal Navy playing in eradicating it across the high seas.