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.

African Tyrant to face justice

No, not that one.

"The ex-vice-president of the Democratic Republic of Congo has been extradited to The Hague to face trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity" BBC

Interesting that this should occur in the same week as Mugabe declared himself the winner of the Zimbabwe presidential election. You know, the one with only one candidate. "crimes against humanity"? Sounds familiar that. While I'm not denying that our Congolese friend should be in front of the International Criminal Court (ICC), I'd be more than happy to see Mugabe alongside him.

Rhodesia* used to be the breadbasket of Africa, so much so that it exported food across the continent and across the world. It has abundant mineral reserves just waiting to be exploited. Now it's people starve and inflation is at god-knows what level. I cannot doubt that Africa has fared worse under its home-grown leaders than it ever did under colonial masters. Liberal interventionism isn't exactly popular post-Iraq, and Britain doesn't exactly have the means to launch a full scale liberation of Rhodesia. All that the West can really do is sit and watch the African nation implode, slowly dragging the rest of the continent down with it.

I'd dearly like to see Mugabe on trial; held to account for his crimes commited in the name of sovereignty - not to mention the economic genocide carried out against white Rhodesians. But given his advanced age, and the tyrants that have gone unpunished before, I won't hold my breath.


* On a side note, I've never been too happy when uppity regimes take it on themselves to rename older establishments. Hence my preference of Rhodesia - honouring Cecil Rhodes after all - over the ridiculous revisionist Zimbabwe. Same goes for Bombay-Mumbai, etc.

Obama aiming for the Faith-head vote

From the BBC News site:

"US presidential hopeful Barack Obama has said he would expand George W Bush's programme of involving religious groups in government initiatives."

Just brilliant. So not only have the Democrats (supposedly the US' more liberal party) picked the candidate least able to beat McCain, he's getting into bed with the same fundamentalist lunatics as the Bush administration. Why is it that not one US politician can seem to remember that the United States is supposed to have a complete seperation between church and state? It's written down in the Constitution after all, not to mention countless other pieces of paper (Treaty of Tripoli anyone?). Jefferson himself was an Atheist, or at least a Deist - at any rate he clearly didn't envisage a US where religious groups set the national agenda.

I believe politics students have a word for states where faith determines policy - they're called theocracies.

A question I'd have to ask about this 'council' of religious groups that young Barack is planning. Will all groups be given equal representation? I mean, you could just have all Baptists, the dominent denomination in the south. Let's not forget the Methodists, or the Lutherans. What about the Catholics, I imagine they'd need representation too. Better not leave out the Jews (Orthodox and Reformed, naturally) - or the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Scientologists, etc, etc, etc...

O-barmy

Obviously this could get very very complicated. Well, if they all claim to be the One True Faith, I guess they'll have to be given some representation. Then there's us atheists and agnostics - obviously atheist citizens in the US can expect to be properly represented on this council (though since this is the US, maybe not). Yes, this make take some thought...

To be entirely honest, it's not as if I wasn't expecting this. Religious fundamentalism would appear to be growing so rapidly within the United States' interior that you would be forgiven for thinking that the entire nation is intent on throwing itself back into a dark age - one with cars and fast food, obviously. Therefore we see the inherant flaw with democracy; the winning candidate will only ever be as good as the electorate. Right now the members of the electorate Obama is trying to appeal to are the conservative religious types - hence this new statement suggesting that one of things I hated most about the Bush administration may not be disappeaing for good come November.

Sitcom of the Week: Peep Show

Given my newfound fondness for watching TV through any medium other than actually useing a real television, it could only be a matter of time before I discoved one of Channel 4 on demand's special features - the archive. That's right, unlike boring old BBC iPlayer, 4oD allows me to download programmes from years before. As you can imagine, i'm up to my neck in old Dispatches and other Doc's that i've downloaded but am yet to actually watch.
Another programme that has made my acquaintance is Peep Show, a Channel 4 sitcom that has been going for several years apparently. It's got that lovely David Mitchell in it - often seen on panel games such as QI and HIGNFY. In Peep Show he plays a character called Mark Corrigan, someone I can very much identify with. The BBC has described this character thus:

"As Mark Corrigan, David reached out to all those middle-aged men in a twentysomething's body, who believe drugs are boring and systems are necessary if society is to function at all."

If only we had more people like myself and Mark Corrigan. I have often thought that making peace with the establishment is an important part of maturity and despise much of 'popular culture' - an oxymoron in itself. To my fellow twenty-somethings who wouldn't agree, well, you can stick two fingers up to "the system" as much as you like, but being rude doesn't pay the bills.

So the "slant-eyes" got it right?

I have somewhat mixed views regarding our Royal Family. While from a Leftist meritocratic point of view I naturally find their positions absolutely impossible to justify, I am nevertheless quite fond of them. Though hard for me to pick a favourate, at the moment Prince Phillip seems to be doing it for me. A television interview this week shows how he believes overpopulation has put too many pressures on the world (Times article). This is something i have long belived in.

Call me a neo-Malthusian if you like, but to me it doesn't take a genius to work out that this Earth of ours can only hold so many people. Yes, we can use technology to increase that number and cram more and more of us on this rock (actual quality of life being another thing entirely) but ultimatly there has to be limits to growth.

World population has rocketed in the last 50 years for the simple fact that people are still being born, but seem to be dying less often. Thats why there are (at time of writing) around 6,757,871,300 of us. That's 6.7 billion to be approximate., and rising rapidly - an extra 200 since I wrote the line above.

And when we reach the limit? A huge population crash, more devestating than any other man- made disaster, and it's likely we'll take the global ecosystem with us. So it's endangered? So what, i'm hungry. That's what it'll boil down to in the end. Since I first started reading about demographics, I have firmly believed that as a species we need to control our own fertility. The Chinese one-child policy is not a nice way for any nation to deal with the problem of too many people, but it is a necessary evil. I for one would be happy to see it rolled out across the whole African continent - the place where the population explosion is most horrific. Should that be successful, it could be rolled out across Latin America and the Middle East (excluding Israel obviously), possibly southern Asia too. With luck we could eventually see global population at 1900 levels.

Of course, it probably won't happen. No government in Africa is anywhere near strong or stable enough to implement such a policy. To have it forced upon the underdeveloped world by the developed nations - despite being entirely for their own good - would probably cause incredible PR problems such that no nation on Earth has the sheer guts to do it. The best we can probably hope for is a plateau at 9 billion in 2050. Though what sort of world it'll be, i shudder to think.

In the course up reading up on this subjuct, I stumbled upon the site of the Optimum Population Trust. Apparently, world population now stands at 6,757,874,151.

And before everything gets too serious, heres an old Duke of Edinburgh related clip from the classic that was Spitting Image.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=IAGOIGVC_VU

Eco-Criminals disrupt fuel supply

Earlier yesterday morning, this story caught my attention. Apparently a bunch of self-righteous ecowarriors has taken it upon themselves to intercept a train delivering coal to a North Yorkshire power station. This act of trespass was made by members of imaginatively titled greeny group "Leave it in the Ground". Having climbed aboard the train, they proceded to use spades to empty its contents all over the ground nearby. Sounds more like on the ground to me.

In my eyes, the people who have carried out this act are no more than common criminals and should be treated as such. They have not only trespassed onto the railway lines, but effectively hijacked the train and stolen its contents - coal which they then used to despoil the surrounding land. They have caused inconvenience to many - not least other rail passengers whose trains were diverted, as well as rail staff and the poor workmen who no doubt have to clean up their mess.

If there is a silver lining in this incident, it is that the plant the coal was destined for will not be impacted and will operate "business as normal". Good for them.

I remember thinking at the time that these criminals (or 'campaigners' if you insist, though they don't deserve the positive connotations of the term) should be round up be the police and given a nice stretch at Her Majesty's pleasure. It was with glee that today I read a follow-up article informing me that police had removed all the protesters and that arrests went "into double figures".

"Those arrested face possible charges of conspiracy to obstruct trains, obstructing trains and railway trespass, police said."

Lovely.

That said, part of me had visions of militia moving in and dealing with each of them swiftly. One bullet each if you catch my drift. Still, i take my hat off to the police officers involved.

If you aren't happy about Britain's energy policy, there is an established and proper way to amend it. Either write to your MP, or if you really aren't satisfied; join one of the three main political parties, stand as an MP, enter the Commons, and influence legislation that way. Ok, if you're really angry, you can sign a petition. What we don't need is highly illegal activities carried out by greener-than-thou tossers which disrupt the ordinary flow of life and increase the tax burden (through higher police costs) on the average person.

Right, I'm off to burn some coal.

Are all cultures equal?

No

That's the short answer. The question comes up often enough, or the topic is raised. It has become oh so trendy in recent decades to label the cultural practices of far away lands as 'different but equal' to our own.

I don't know where this particular piece of loony left dogma comes from, but I'm pretty sure it has something to do with the culture of the self-hating westerner. After all, anyone growing up in modern day Britian knows that to be European is nothing to be proud of. Ok, so Europe may be the birthplace of democracy, freedom, civil liberties and humanism. It may be responsible for the greatest scientific and technological discoveries in history. It may also be the place where some of the worlds best artwork and literature was produced, but never mind all that. As any so-called intellectual will tell you, collective European culture is no more superior to that of tribal people living in mud huts and worshiping the sun.

This is the one part of New Age bollocks I tolerate least. It has given us one of the prime reasons behind the fragmentation of the British state - Multiculturalism. In general, multiculturalism is based on the premise that all cultures are equally 'good' and that all should be celebrated. This I won't stand for. Western Parliamentary democracy is so much superior to Islamic theocracy. Civil liberties and respect for the human being is far more intelligent than stone age 'Holy scriptures'. The great classical muscians are without doubt infinately better than the tribal drumming of darkest Africa.

So the next time someone tells me I should be more open minded about a society which still practices ritual slaughter, 'traditional' herbal medicine, or the genital mutilation of it's own children; my first instinct will be to tell them to piss off. Secondly, i will point out that as a European, I am heir to the greatest culture to have ever existed on Earth and that it is not chauvanistic or 'rascist' to remain true to that fact. Queen Victoria once declared that she wanted Britain to 'civilise the world'

If only we'd finished that job.

Cultures are not all equal - some are just better.

Green Lane Update

I've always been a bit of a fan of Ian Hislop, and the wonderful satirical organ that is Private Eye. Indeed, it was that fine publication that inspired an earlier satirical blog of mine. (Free subscription for the plug please Ed.)

And so it was from the current issue (No 1211) that I first saw an update on the Channel 4 dispatches programme i blogged about recently. If you remember rightly, having been shown the film that clearly showed the local religious loonies in full anti-West hate mode to the police, it was none other than the film-makers that were hauled before the court. The brains that are West Midlands Police (or more exactly Anil Patani) made a complaint that selective editing had unfortunately portrayed this particular group of hate filled theocratic nutcases intent on destroying British freedom and democracy - as hate filled theocratic nutcases intent on destroying British freedom and democracy.

Its not every day that you get in trouble with the CPS for actually telling the truth.

Unless its the truth about religion of course. Or more exactly, about Islam.

An old friend of mine once complained that while you could say whatever you liked about Christianity, Islam seemed to be protected by a collective vow of silence. While i didn't entirely sympathise with him - believing that you should indeed be allowed free speech with regards to Christianity - the hypocracy is quite apparent. In the documentary, the invariably bearded sociopaths (i.e. preachers) expressed multiple times thier anti-semitism, homophobia and mysogyny. Were any true British citizen to express such backward opinions (backward for the civilised world at least) they would surely have their collar felt.

Quite rightly so, but if Jonny Imam says it, the Old Bill 'respectfully' tiptoe away. Wouldn't want to offend muslims would we - even if it comes at the cost of condoning murder, domestric abuse and treason to the British state. Sometimes it feels like there's a little game of minority Top Trumps going on - maybe the police have a pack so they know who should be offended under which circumstances.

If West Midlands Police were doing their job properly, Green Lane mosque would have been closed, its preachers of hate locked away for a very long time indeed. Anil Patani would be thrown out on his heels for not realising that there can be no greater threat to 'community cohesion' than a bunch of deluded man men preaching hatred in our own back yard.

With Policemen like this, who needs Al Qaeda...

You're the one who needs counselling!

Northern Ireland assembly member Iris Robinson has just added herself to my long list of religious tossers by calling for all members of the LGBT community to seek psychiatric help. She believes that homosexuals can be 'turned around' with the help of 'a very lovely psychiatrist ' she happens to know.

Well then. I'll begin by stating the bleeding obvious. Homosexuality is NOT a psychiatric disorder. If you don't agree with that try asking the Royal College of Physicians. If anything, it is Mrs Robinson's blatant bigotry and irrational homophobic hatred that is the disease. Prejudice is the disease of the mind. In the case of Mrs Robinson (and her 'lovely' psychiatrist friend) it probably stems from christian 'principles'. Stone age desert cults are what we, as a society, could do with being cured of - not our innocent fellow humans.

As for turning homosexuals 'back' into heterosexuals, well, utter BS. Firstly, it would suggest that sexuality is a matter of choice. Anyone with half a brain cell would realise that this isn't and could never be the case. When LGBT people across the world are openly persecuted and discriminated against, can anyone really suggest that being gay is a choice anyone would make? It's also obvious that Mrs Robinson feels that being gay must mean you have something wrong with you - that Heterosexuality is 'the norm', and that anything else is somehow 'deviant'.

I mean, really? Why do we still put up with such self-righteous religious bigots like Mrs Robinson. That this woman is in regional government should be scary. The people of Northern Ireland, of all people, must be aware by now that religion and politics don't mix. Trying to 'cure' people of being gay?!? While you're at it, why not have a go at curing those people who happen to prefer tea to coffee! Lets remind those that favour dogs over cats of the error of their ways! How dare anyone have a different sexual orientation to that of Mrs Robinsonk, or to the recommendation of her favourite 'holy book'.

Before i go, i may just book an appointment with that counsellor. Not for me of course.... for Iris. Poor woman is clearly quite deranged.

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.