An insane voice in an insane world

The comedy of errors – the new play by Theresa May MP

Apr19
2012 Leave a Comment Lee Written by Lee

“Mrs May”, as my friend comically likes her referred to as, has perhaps been the most useless of cabinet ministers. Yes, Andrew Lansley lives on another planet in terms of thinking he is organised and good with communication, but he has been DOING things. Yes, Michael Gove is the most dangerous, pious and arrogant SS of Education, who is doing his best to make schools elitist and marketised (and I’m still fighting him, every day). But Auntie May has taken lack of understanding, lack of research, poor communication, lack of action and inability to listen to new heights.

From her farcical attempt to sound tough by claiming a cat stopped deportation of an alleged criminal, to her recent handling of the Qatada case, she is showing she is totally out of her depth. Out of her depth as a human being in terms of logic, reason and a dose of intelligence. Oh, no, I forgot – everything is down to her apart from the signing off of an appeal to the ECHR, that’s the civil servants fault, of course.

I cannot think of a single thing that she, as Home Secretary, has done. At all. The biggest thing was to re-establish a border police control force, but that was a manifesto pledge from both parties in the coalition anyway. She’s had bumble after bumble, and her latest rhetorical nonsense on how Abu Qatada apparently represents a huge “threat” to the UK is beyond funny, it’s embarrassing. Whilst her kind-of counterpart Hilary Clinton has been going around the world trying to tackle bigotry, racism, homophobia and trying to calm down the hysteria of nuclear-based states (come to the UK, please), Theresa May has been fighting hard to make the Olympics secure.

Making the Olympics secure by saying peaceful protesters can’t protest as it would make the UK look bad (as if banning them doesn’t make her look like a foolish dictator). Making the Olympics secure by spending a vast amount of money on RAF, Navy and Army coverage of the south-west, with Typhoon jets patrolling the skies and a warship on the coast, or perhaps the Thames. Soldiers and police who are going to turn areas of London into no-go areas, when it’s free space, so I fully support Occupy members who will peaceful challenge that, as it’s our right to walk where we like (save MoD bases, of course).

The latest shambles over the Abu Qatada case and the handling, or not, of the border police force and controls shows that not only has Theresa May no real understanding of UK and EU law, she has practically no ability to manage people. A Secretary of State needs people management skills as well as knowledge of their subject area. She has neither.

I’d struggle to accept this person as a good MP, never mind a Secretary of State, and least of all the perhaps 3rd most senior position in government.

I’d ask the government to get rid of her. I doubt they’d listen, and they’d like my follow-up question even less – which is to get rid of all Tory ministers.

Please, though.

Posted in Coalition, Conservative, EU, News, Politics, Social issues, UK

I might be a politician, but I’d like to work with #Occupy @democraciareal and I support a peaceful #M12

Apr09
2012 Leave a Comment Lee Written by Lee

I’ve had a revolution in my thinking over the last few months. My mind has fought to reconcile the key question of how can I be in the political system that I don’t fully support?

The conclusion I’ve made is not so support either side really. It’s to say that I will carry on working within the “system” as it is, in the hope to change it from the inside-out. The hope mentioned here is not just a meek wish, it’s an active, vocal and passioned fight.

The other option, is to join a group, such as Occupy or ¡Democracia real YA! and fight from the outside of the system to change society. Currently, I’ve chosen to stay within, but on two premises -

  1. one that I still support revolutionary change and will fight hard for this, not just a mere “tinkering around the edges” of the status quo
  2. the conclusion mentioned above is that I’m now happy in my open mind to leave and join something else, or leave everything and fight alone, if I choose that option at some point

Whilst this to some may not seem a choice, let alone a radical one, it is the case that at 33, I’ve been part of the society as it is/was for a long time and thus it can be harder to pull out of certain ways of thinking. I’ve often thought that we need revolution, and support it, however I’m not calling for a violent one. Considering how some people on the far left who join in with the Occupy movements however, and considering how some view that violence is the only answer (the French at Bastille may have gained a lot, however they didn’t go to seek peaceful conversations) I find myself in an unfortunate position of supporting the upcoming May 12th protests, in the knowledge that some people will be turning to violence to strike out. I’m completely anti-violent, and believe most of the protesters will be, and that they can seek to convince those who wish to use violence to rethink.

Quite what “direct action” means, is a worry for me, as I’m not sure how “direct” you can be without some form of physical action, be it towards property or people. This sways one to a view that the protesters want anarchy. Well, some do – but I’d like you to consider that Anarchy is not the torch-bearing, petrol-bomb-heaving, mindless violence and murder all around that current thinking will have you believe. I once referred to a friend’s view of Anarchy (without state or borders, wider participatory democracy) as Anarchy +1. However another friend pointed out that Anarchy itself is the view of no state etc, so the common view of it (the crazy world) is actually Anarchy +1. So, thanks to discussions with those two people, we can just stick to Anarchy being Anarchy, I we can correct those people who have an outlandish view of it.

I argued recently that the current review of boundaries in this country is undemocratic, based on the wish to remove 50 constituencies. We already have one person who allegedly represents tens-of-thousands of people, now we want to increase the number she/he represents? Nonsense, total nonsense. I believe that we need smaller, more localised democracy, and the model of general assemblies is a good one. The one flaw of general assemblies, which is no fault of Occupy or anyone else using them, is that that they will still only attract those of us who are interested in taking part in democracy, and thus decisions reached on consensus (which won’t happen 100% of the time) will still only benefit a portion of society. The difference in an Anarchistic society is that decisions reached can be ignored anyway, and it’s a key debate to look at how things like murder and burglary can be dealt with in a society with no organised system of dealing with these issues; not that I’m suggesting for a moment our current system of prison and non-rehabilitation is the model we need…..

The case put is that we need change. Only those hardened in the “system” (usually those who gain financially or status-wise from it) don’t want change. I don’t agree with the 99% message – mainly because many of us in such 99% also had debts and mismanaged our money, we are NOT blameless in the world economic crisis – however it’s true that a small amount control a large amount.

We need change in all areas, I just add a note that history shows us that societies don’t have a revolution on a Tuesday, and a better world on a Wednesday. I want to work with Occupy (as do others) in seeing how we can fight for better ways of doing things and still think ahead to what may come, and how we ensure the world doesn’t descend into violent Anarchy that some people fear.

Whilst politics may be a dirty word, but general assemblies are political too – in that they involve people thinking of other people in a way to benefit society. It may be the case that some don’t like to think that general assemblies are a “system”, or that they are political, however they are both, I just choose not to attach the negative connotations to the language.

I’m confident that society is changing, as it always does. Some may wish to stay in the system we have as it benefits them. Some may wish to go on a hysterical suicide mission in the attempt to destroy and maim in order to get a point across. I sit with those of you in between extremes and let’s build the better world we want. Society and individuals are changing every day, it has always been, and always will be the way humans are. We can steer the direction of where society is going, and I have total confidence that change is already happening in lieu of current governments fear of the people and how money at the top is slowly changing.

Yes, we’d all love instant change. but with instant change comes “oh, crap….we got what we thought we want – what next?” Countries such as Libya and Egypt have shown what a “Spring” can do to free people, but then what? Those countries are free of tyrannical dictators, but they are now hardly beacons of representative democracy, and some elements are turning to the Anarchy -1 so feared.

Society is changing. No-one can get all the change they want, all at once, and assume the world will wake up tomorrow swimming in rainbows and unicorns. However, like some of you, I WANT the rainbows and unicorns, so let’s get to it!

Posted in Europe, Government, Movements, Politics, Psychology, Social issues, World events

Politicians are only a third of the problem with politics.

Mar29
2012 1 Comment Lee Written by Lee

The other two thirds are the media, and the public (which includes me).

The  media like to act as if they are the arbiters of morals and decency every day they print. In some cases, they are  – expenses, phone hacking, corruption etc – we need that to long continue.

In other matters, they bash politicians when they claim they are interviewing them. Whilst print media is guilty of incorrectly paraphrasing, or using misleading headlines, the TV and Radio is another good example. The likes of John Humphries, Andrew Neil and Jeremy Paxman are all extreme versions of the problem. They all ask questions they want to ask (to either further their own career, buff their older, white, male egos or just make a name for themselves) and then chastise the politician if they try and answer a different question, or make another point.

Now, of course, many politicians are also at fault; Tony Blair famously begins a response with “Can I just say…” which actually means “I haven’t a clue on the answer, or I don’t want to answer as I’d begin to squirm, so I’ll talk about something else to detract from my inadequacies” – I guess it’s sensible to cut that down to 4 words for the sake of brevity.

The issue lies in the notion that NO politician EVER answers ANY question. Journalists, and the wider public forget one possibility – the journalist may be asking a stupid/wrong/nonsensical question in the first place. If I were to be asked about the “Pasty Tax”, but said I’d rather talk about something important, such as Environmental Affairs or the current atrocities in Syria – of course that’s skating around the question, but then I’m painted as not being responsible, because the journalist asked about something that’s completely a non-priority. Then I’M made to look stupid because of the idiocy of the journalist who thinks they are being clever.

During a training session on having TV interviews, I was told to always remember “You’re not there to get one up over the journo” – but the irony is that many (but not all) journo’s are there to get one over the politician, so is it not understandable who some of them sometimes get a bit persistent with a point they are trying to make?

The wider public have to accept a portion of the blame too. Firstly, many go along with this approach of journalism, and then many more blindly accept wot-the-Sun-sed or  the wild protestations of The Daily Mail (I don’t care about any ire I receive from them, I’m a left-wing environment-loving, Human rights-supporting man who prefers the company of men to women, so they hate me anyway). Lack of research into voting could mean that many votes cast have just as much worth as a vote that isn’t cast. To really, honestly, completely believe that voting a certain way because “That’s just what my dad did” really has me struggling to find words to debate with that person. I don’t think the debate is possible.

I vote for one party, as I’m in that party, but I do so solely because I still believe in them. If one day I don’t, then I’ll stop voting for them, it’s simple. I don’t vote blindly (nor do I blindly stay in the party and accept everything they do as perfect). I researched the party I joined before I joined it too – I didn’t join due to parent’s membership or seeing a slogan they put out and then joining because of that. As I’ve argued before, polarisation overtaking debate in this country means that it’s very difficult to have a reasonable discussion with many people, on virtually any subject. Now that “people” believe politicians are not to be trusted, they just assume they are all bad, and all up to no good. That is a ridiculous position to start with, by tarring all with the same brush, but then it’s even sillier when you realise that people who say that kind of thing, then wouldn’t want to be generalised by other parts of society. I did accuse myself of being partly to blame too – clearly I need to do more to help convince people to research their vote (or non-vote) and be more active in helping people understand “politics” – which is really just every day life!

Finally, the politicians. Some lie. Some are too partisan. Some fiddle expenses. Some are immoral. Some are extreme socialists or fascists who won’t engage with a consensus. Some do avoid answering difficult, genuine questions put to them by journalists. Some break the law. But many are also hard-working, decent people who believe in you. Even those who are in a party who have opposite views to your way of life can still support your right to freedoms, liberties and choice.

The media, society and the politicians themselves have a lot of work to do before politicians can start being trusted again. It isn’t down to just the politicians. Democracy, fighting for positive, radical change and ensuring civil liberties are also the responsibility of everyone. Not a “big” society, but “a” society. And it’s about time we used our agency to make society what we want, instead of complaining that it’s somehow gained a mind of it’s own, and we can’t do anything about it.

Groups, such as ¡Democracia real YA! fight for political upheaval to bring in (not restore, as that suggest we had good processes in the first place) truer, accountable democracy in politics and society in general. Hopefully in the UK we can more to more hung parliaments, which means more coalitions, in-time hopefully with more than 2 parties, and move towards a system of increased consensus (i.e. 4 parties in coalition will have secured a large number of votes and have a larger mandate to govern). Better systems of voting, such as proportional representation will effectively force more consensuses.

The future is bright, even if at the moment the hopes for a better world are glowing embers. Providing that the politicians, the media and WE choose to continue breathing onto the embers, the fire that ensues will help to cleanse the systems and processes we use and be re-born into consensus politics. Perhaps on the way to a completely new way or organising society altogether.

Posted in Coalition, Conservative, Government, Labour, LibDem, Liberal Democrat, Media, Politics, Social issues, UK, World events

All political parties say they want a coherent society – it’s a shame politicians now make most of the divisions.

Mar13
2012 Leave a Comment Lee Written by Lee

I wrote an article arguing that reasonable debate is fast going out the window, in return, we’re getting a heels-dug-in, polarised set of views where those of us who occupy the myriad of grey in-between are attached from both sides.

None such more of a view than the current debacle of the Health and Social Care bill about to receive Royal Assent.

The two camps (of “left” and “right”) are entrenched, fervent and refusing to listen to any notion that isn’t their own. The left argue that the NHS is going to be half-privatised and thus shouldn’t go through, the right argue it’s needed because the NHS is crap and needs changing. Why must both groups be so unable to debate?

Now, for those of you who feel you sit on one side of the argument, but do listen to debate – I’m not fed-up with you. Of course we all take a view on something, but we should be prepared to change our mind – most people see that as such a weakness of their ego, they daren’t entertain it, when listening and acting is actually a major strength of character (in the same place as being strong in accepting you were wrong, and moving on).

So where do I feel the problem with the polarised NHS arguments are?

Firstly, Labour didn’t “cap” at 5%, in fact Polly Toynbee said the 2006 Act said the cap should have been 2%, thus suggesting the then-government broke the law on allow 3% more than this.I also don’t accept that overnight we will end up with 49% of the NHS privatised to greedy corporations (did you know, for example, that Great Ormond Street Children’s hospital needs around 25-30% of private investment to actually operate?)

On the other side of the “debate”, I don’t argue that to drop the bill means we preserve the NHS in aspic because there is nothing wrong with it. That is an argument created simply to try and push those who offer an alternative argument out of the way.

I say we need a new bill, which can start with the consultation feedback from all parties, groups and bodies, and make it work properly – if the bill had never existed, and I suggested in 2010 “Hey, let’s make a bill that everyone can make work, and improve something”, I’d have been told to shut up and stop being silly because that’s so obvious. Now I’m being told to shut-up and stop be silly because we don’t need to do that. Confused, much?

All I ask is that people (on BOTH sides of the spectrum) get TOGETHER and make CONCENSUS. Stop mud-slinging accusations, most of which are now going down the very personal route.

Labour argue the Tories hate the NHS, not all of them do. The Tories argue that Labour don’t want any change at all, most of them do. Then, as usual, the LibDems are stuck in this quagmire of the middle-ground, because, despite some people in the party on both sides being quite OTT in their responses, we are a democratic party – when on earth will we as a party realise that disagreement is OK and that it WILL happen?? If we can’t get over that, we can’t blame the media for not getting excited about it too.

The funny thing for me is that whilst the polarised people in a debate feel they are worse off for being screamed at (literally or figuratively) by the other side – I have that from BOTH sides, because I dare to question both and try and come up with a reasonable answer between the two elements.

So how about you treat me, and each other, like an adult, and work together, rather than ranting and raving over the hills? Conflict never gets anyone any further in a dispute. I seriously wonder sometimes about the argument that “there will always be war” – because that applies to partisan, ruthless politics as well.

No political party can argue for a coherent society, if it is the very politics that creates divison on such a large, nasty scale. So, please, put down your swords and let us all work together and reach consensus on the issues that face society. Please?

Posted in Coalition, Conservative, Government, Health, Labour, LibDem, Liberal Democrat, Media, Politics, Psychology

The real reason why Cardinal O’Brien’s thoughts on same-sex marriage are worrying…

Mar05
2012 2 Comments Lee Written by Lee

 …because he appears to be insane, or at least losing the plot, so we need to ensure he gets help.

One of his arguments is the old argument against same-sex marriage, and this other is just, well, bizarre.

His first argument is the classic “well, if same-sex people get married, it spoils marriage for the rest of us”. Of course, this is nonsense. The institution of marriage is one where couples get together and “commit” to lifelong love. Whilst there are some very valid reasons for divorce (leaving aside whether you believe in lifelong commitment to one person or not) the fact that divorce happens, and many reports suggest the Western world is at an all time high rate, then marriage isn’t working in many places.

The belief that only marriage can bring love and decent upbringing for children is also misplaced. There are even some psychologists who claim that a child staying in a marriage which is disruptive, even violent, is better than a child leaving such a marriage, such as going to a hostel (which of course have their own issues, but as a psychologist myself, to suggest that it’s ok to stay in a household where the man or women beats their opposite is shocking).

This is not to say marriage itself is the problem. Like religion and money – it’s what you DO with the marriage that makes a difference. It’s clear to many (especially due to the wonderful posters flying around Facebook) that if marriage was a perfect, decent system, then Joan Collins and Liz Taylor wouldn’t have had so many marriages and then…and THEN….there’s Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian….

To argue, as O’Brien does, that same-sex marriage is “against human rights” is the complete reversal of the truth – arguing, as some do, “oh, well, you gay lot have SOME equality, surely that’s enough, right?” Well, no, you fool. Either equality is equal, or it isn’t; you can’t grant someone equality by picking and choosing which things they can be equal on. Let’s be blunt – men (and women) who don’t want same-sex marriage are against it for one reason – they want to keep the power imbalance that says a straight relationship is paramount, and the best LGBT+ can hope for is civil partnership, because then that ensures the straight couple are slightly higher up the ladder in terms of commitment and their place in society.

It is NOT about spoiling marriage for anyone else, despite what is argued. Although, that’s the issue – this point is never argued, it’s just said. I’ll accept any debate, if you have points to a debate over the subject. To say “it’s just the case that marriage is only between a man and a woman” and then leave it there simply isn’t good enough. I disagree with you if you say same-sex marriage is wrong, however to say that I disagree with it, I need to present reasons WHY, and thus a debate is formed. If I married a man today, the love my mum and dad have for each other (along with the piece of paper confirming their marriage) would NOT be destroyed or affected in any way at all. If same-sex marriages happened, the arguments against it struggle to sound coherent because they aren’t. People don’t admit, or don’t actually realise, they are arguing it on a basis of social standing, and can’t argue from a point of “it’s wrong”, because there are no arguments to back that up, which is why people arguing such a point get so angry, because they know for some reason that they can’t back it up, and so begin to flounder and get flustered.

As for O’Brien’s other point – that legalising same-sex marriage would obviously lead to legalising slavery in the UK…..well, what in God’s name is he thinking?

Posted in LGBT, Men, Politics, Religion, Social issues, UK, Women

Consensus government – the new political spectrum

Feb21
2012 2 Comments Lee Written by Lee

In the UK, we are nearing 2 years in of the first proper coalition seen in over a generations. I will not argue here about the merits of specific policies, or how the coalition is managed (or not!) and will also ignore issues like tactical voting; I will assess the need for this type of government to not only continue, but to expand.

For too long, we have been left with the option of 1 side or the other, the red or blue team. The US still has such an issue, and we see both the Democrats and Republicans fight the same way the Conservative and Labour parties do – our “side” is best, vote for us to run the country.

The problem with that is that, if we take a (made-up) view that 40% of the country votes Labour, 40%  vote Conservative and 15% vote for Liberal Democrats and 5% for “others”, and we also assume that every voter agrees with every policy of each party they vote for, it leaves anywhere between 60-95% of the country un-represented. Simple maths shows that our governments do not represent the country at large (ignoring the fact that the current system can favour one party more than the others, and that two parties with the same %age of votes can mean a landslide for one party, and a minority-government or no outright majority for the other).

So we have a coalition based on the maths of the last election in May 2010. The two parties combined gained nearly 60% of the national vote. This still leaves over a third of the voters unrepresented, however adding Labour to the government too would have given nearly 90% of the voters representation.

Of course, it would mean that trading of manifesto policies would take place. We see already that Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have had to drop some of their policies (in some cases, BIG policies) in order to gain in other areas. Labour often tout it as an “excuse” when either party doesn’t get 100% of it’s policies in, but that’s the fact – any successful relationship you have works only because you accept you can’t always get your own way, as that means sometimes you’ll get what you want too!

The problem some people might see, which is what a lot of LibDem and Conservative members still struggle with now, is that a government can’t work when you get the “right” and “left” together. This is an argument often given by some Labour and LibDems who argued we should have just gone into coalition with Labour and be damned with the messy way to may up extra numbers as the parties are both on the left. However, we’ve seen some Labour policies in the last decade that don’t sit on the left completely, and some argue that LibDems like the “Orange Bookers” are more centrist than leftist, perhaps sometimes creeping slightly over in to the right.

Therefore, the traditional spectrum, such as the below diagram (from this website) showing the American system, shows a Left, to Right, with all the various elements in between: 

Some argue, like politicalcompass.org, that left-right horizontal spectrum is paired with a vertical spectrum too. Below, you can see my understanding of the spectrum, in that left and right almost (but don’t quite) meet each other, rather than being at opposite ends:

 

I know some of you may be screaming “That’s ridiculous!!!” at your screen now, especially if you sit at either extreme, however both extremes lead either into a free-for-all, or a complete brain-washed dictatorship – both of these forms of society lack process, procedure or any coherent sense or society (one could argue that Anarchy means people are “free”, as opposed to a fascist state - but it also means people can be subjected to any treatment at all, with no recourse for fairness or justice). Our traditional views of Anarchy with no government, and Fascism with one government which everyone follows don’t quite fit into this new spectrum, however I argue that we rely too much on the traditional views of the left, the right and even a traditional and slightly skewed version of Anarchy.

Using some examples of Dennis Skinner and Nadine Dorries (two politicians who so rarely speak their mind) I can evidence that some people do sit very much on a certain part of the spectrum:

However, I would offer the suggestion that most voters (if not people) tend to sit in the section highlighted in yellow. I hear increasingly (interestingly, more so since the formation of the current coalition government) “I quite like the idea of some of their ideas and some of the other ideas to get consensus to a better policy all-round”; better in that it may serve more people, rather than make one side happy and the other unhappy.

So how do we achieve this? Clearly our current democratic system supports, and really promotes the notion of one side or the other. We’ve seen over countless generations the main issue with this, in that on side will change society towards X, the other party will then try and change society towards Y and we end up a with tug-of-war or ideologies every 10-15 years or so. Not that for a minute I’d suggest this leaves every major establishment, such as education, health and public services, with no actual ability to be run properly, as they are being reorganised every 5-10 years….

We therefore need a new system. A new way of voting, and a new culture of how we see representation of people within a government system, and how policies and laws are formed and enacted.

I’m going to suggest one thing to start our march to this new way. I’m already giggling at how it will make many people of all parts of the spectrum shiver with fright, as I prepare my new badge and banner.

Yes to Proportional Representation!

Posted in Coalition, Conservative, Government, Labour, LibDem, Liberal Democrat, Politics, Social issues, UK

I argued Boxing can create damage to society; thanks to Chisora and Haye for helping me out

Feb20
2012 6 Comments Lee Written by Lee

In a previous blog I suggested that Boxing can help create wider problems in society, in that violence can be seen as a readily acceptable tool to aid in resolving disputes (or to act as the first response).

The recent scuffle (bordering on potentially criminal) between the boxers Chisora and Haye this weekend cause a media storm.

A dear friend of mine argued that boxing is better to be a sport, as it can be regulated and thus cause less issues (especially less injuries or deaths) than if the sport was banned, and thus went underground. This, of course, is a very valid argument is both logical and sensible.

I would add that despite this having merit, we still see this weekend’s scuffle was that violence ensued from competition. The even more worrying thing is that it highlighted what can often happen in Boxing – the competitors rose from competitive spirit, to actually HATING each other. Why? Simply because they were opponents.

Now, it’s of course totally visible that all sports can get fractious. The rampant chants and minority-caused violence in football, the rants on tennis courts when a decision goes against you and even in the sport I love, motorsport, I’ve seen a few scuffles following badly-timed overtaking manoeuvres!

With Boxing, however, you have the added element of people setting out to beat their opponent, literally. Whilst you can argue that in all sport you have a rise of adrenaline and/or testosterone, which sometimes causes you to instigate certain behaviours not normal to your every-day routine, Boxing has the added feature that behaviours of violence are also a standard. Did Nigel Mansell grab Ayrton Senna by the throat, and Serena Williams scream at an umpire in disagreement? Yes. Did they do this because their sport deliberately incites physical and verbal conflict? No, that’s the difference – competitors from all sports can get very….excited, but no other sport promotes using violence to fix issues through such actions.

Whilst it’s clear I’m still no fan – I want to give fair recognition credit to the Boxing authorities for swiftly announcing they found the whole situation unacceptable, and may well strip the 2 people involved of their license to box. I recognise this, and hope that it continues on any future behaviour, so credit where it’s due.

Will this firm hand stop any future problems, and teach society is not to view violence as a means to prove who is better? Well, perhaps if the people stop being paid inordinate amounts of money to do it in the first place, this would be a better place to start.

Posted in News, Social issues, Sport

I’d like boxing to be banned. Some say it would then go underground – and the problem with that is…?

Feb13
2012 3 Comments Lee Written by Lee

Boxing is the only sport in the world where the intention is to deliberately cause harm to your opponent. It’s a “sport” based on the concept that you are the better person if you can beat the crap out of your rival.

Many in society seem to accept that a way to resolve differences it not by sorting it out in the car park – drunk or not – and that fighting is generally seen as the last resort, which shows lack of control or a lost argument rather than an argument decider.

So why, then, are there millions of dollars spread around boxers and promoters for pushing the notion that violence IS acceptable? Of course, pro-boxing fans argue gloves and training stop injuries. But they don’t. Gloves may be worn, but if it’s going to be argued that medically there is no chance of harm then I’m not really sure how to respond to that (this is alongside seeing the blood, bashed ears and mashed faces).

I’ve had it argued that you can’t ban it, as then it becomes underground. Leaving aside the fact we already have pit-fighting and other illegal fights, I can’t see why this is a problem. If two guys (or girls) want to get into a ring and beat the crap out of each other to “prove” they are best, why should they then accept taxpayers-paid medical support (and potentially using stocks of blood that could be used better elsewhere)?

I don’t deny that lots of people like boxing, which is why my call won’t wave it away. Asking people to think logically and maturely about it also won’t work, as reasonable thought-process would accept that beating someone up to prove your worth is not only damaging to the combatants, it’s damaging to wider society – as it opens the prospect that violence IS acceptable to resolve a situation.

I box (with kit, not people) in the gym, as it IS a great source of fitness. I also like how some people have used the sport to help kids off the streets who were in gangs or drugs, and give them discipline and fitness. It’s therefore difficult to simply wish it away when some great things come out of it. The people who run such clubs are certainly decent people who want to help. However, in the grand scheme of things, those kids could do other things, and get just as much benefit, so I still argue that the wider social benefits of no boxing would be ideal.

Of course, boxing isn’t the only sport that creates/promotes social divisions. Arguably, football creates more hate-filled divides than any other sport, however the point is that violence is confronted in football. Other issues like racism and homophobia are finally being looked at too. So whilst football is still lagging in terms of attitudes and behaviours, the sport itself is not designed to cause deliberate harm to their opponents.

The attitudes and behaviours of some of the top boxers seems to be fuelled by arrogance, presenting nonsensical revulsion to opponents. Amir Khan (well regarded as an arrogant…..boxer) recently stated he hates his upcoming opponent. Let’s get this clear…hating Saddam Hussein, or Osama Bin Laden or Adolf Hitler may have grounds, but for one person to “hate” another, just because they are an opponent (and clearly winning in mind games) and possibly might be beaten by them, is this really how we want people in wider society to start acting? The competitiveness in games of Monopoly and Poker I’ve seen over the years could have easily spilled over to violence, EASILY! However people playing those games understand that it is just a game.

If all boxers realised they are just playing a game, then I could argue to them it’s not a life or death situation just to get in the ring and play.

But, I can’t argue that, can I, as for some that’s exactly what it is. Life or death. For a sport.

Posted in Social issues, Sport

It’s about time we recognised SOME male bishops for what they are – misogynistic, scared little men.

Feb08
2012 Leave a Comment Lee Written by Lee

The Church is changing. A large number of people are finally realising that they don’t follow the ultimate word of God – love for all. Love for all does not mean you have the right as a man to oppress women.

That’s it. Nothing to do with God. Or scriptures. Or Jesus. Men who want “traditional” male-only bishops are sexist. That’s it. I’m not being shocking, or rude. That’s as simple as it gets. The notion that sexist male bishops claim it’s right to hold down women start with “Oh the bible says…” clearly forget the bible was written in the 3rd century by, guess what? A completely male dominated society. Such a surprise, then, to find the bible heavily against women.

The Church doesn’t follow “the word” of God or the bible anyway, because if it did, every bishop, worshipper and member of the synod would have exactly the same view of everything. But they don’t. Why? Because they are part of society, and society is varied and ever-changing. Some male bishops (and seemingly all but 1 senior female cleric) agree that God’s love is equal, and thus people are too, and have no issue with bishops of any sex.

Those men who are describing the notion of the Church needing to stay “traditional” are simply holding on to the last bastion of power that they hold. To suggest that some feel OK with women bishops, providing a man can come in and share the parish (or whatever geographical term is correct) is completely ludicrous. “Oh, I support the female bishop, but I’m going to work in the same area so the poor dear doesn’t struggle to cope”. Sexism. Raw, carnal, obvious sexism.

The other funny part is how the men with a problem are going completely on their own will. They aren’t discussing with their whole congregation to get their feelings, they are just spitting feathers because they finally, and rightly, feel their sole power base beginning to slip away.

Thankfully, like the rest of society, things are changing for the better. Issues such as those faced by women, LGBT people and white and non-white alike are of course not consigned to history, but we are further on than we were. The battle is not won, and civil liberties are not extended to all, so please remember not to feel complacent in thinking “ah that’s better, everyone has rights now”. Very much like the good work that many straight people do on LGBT issues, I’m pleased that lots of men, including bishops, and those of “no faith” are supportive of women bishops too.

The issue raises the most obvious of questions – why on earth are we still having a debate over what women should or shouldn’t be allowed to do in 20-fracking-12??

One day, we’ll move on. One day, in the future, people will look back with despair and disbelief that the debates about which humans should have human rights, and which shouldn’t, and rightly our society will be scorned for being so lethargic and troublesome over such rights.

There are many parts of the bible which denounce women as a “dog”, “whore” or other type of worthless, male-doting subject. The bible is therefore hardly the place to turn to for moral guidance on the treatment of women as equals. Unsurprisingly, the councils of Nicea and Carthage (which some argue effectively put the bible together) had no women in their synod.

Ecclesiasticus 26:25 states that a “….. woman…..that is shamefaced will fear the Lord.” All the shamefaced male bishops against women should also fear something much greater – the rest of society.

Posted in Men, Movements, Religion, Social issues, Women

Let’s end the bonus culture. For EVERYone.

Feb06
2012 1 Comment Lee Written by Lee

Bonus payments are very much in the news lately, as senior bankers and CEOs of companies are being offered cash and/or share bonuses. Rightly, people are questioning this and thankfully the people power is taking precedence, and bonuses are being refused on social pressure alone (in the case of RBS).

Bonuses are often seen as bad, but only if large amounts of money are offered. Many people in managerial or sales positions, in the private and public sector, are given bonuses every year, and this is not seen as an issue. It is.

Accepting, and expecting, a bonus is part of the greedy culture we have formed with the model of capitalism we have. I’m not being rude by saying you have been greedy for accepting a bonus – I’ve had them in the past and accepted them, which means I was greedy to – it’s simply the case that wanting more of something (a bonus) when you already have some of that something (a wage or salary) is greed, purely a technical point.

I’d do away with bonuses everywhere. Some will scream “but what should I be given if I hit my targets???” Simple answer – you already get something, it’s called employment and pay. Bonuses are often given (and usually only to those not on the lower tiers of employment) for achieving something, however I’ve yet to come across a system that takes that same lump sum of money AWAY for failure.

I’d create a better system of sliding wages. You’d come in for a job on merit, and come in at point Y, which is halfway between points X and Z. Point X is the lowest wage amount, which is at least minimum wage (or “living” wage) and point Z is the highest you’d be prepared to pay that role. If a person does well and over-achieves, their salary goes up. If they fail and do less than expected it goes down. Not only does this allow for a fair balance (more for over-achieving and less for under-achieving) it would incentivize a lot of people to ensure they stay at least at their median entry point.

Whilst it could be argued that greed is still present in this new system as one wants more (as in the bonus-culture we have now), this new system of pay would mean that the “more” here is earned on pure merit. It also allows for a fair balance by having financial loss for failure as well as financial gain for over-achieving (an even crazier bonus is the one where you get given it for doing your job). Also someone who has a reduction in pay still then has the chance to stay in employment and work their way back up the scale.

Another side-effect of this new system should be that all the extras you get for being “a manager” are not needed, or are shared around. Special car-spaces, iPads, company cars (whether part or fully funded) and special trips to dinners and events are not needed to get a good manager for two reasons – 1) the perk of being a manager is being paid more, and 2) if a person joins your company for the perks, they aren’t the quality manager you think you’ve hired…

I know some people will argue that being paid more as a manager is because they have more accountability; however I argue that most managerial roles have little accountability. A reward is currently given as a bonus for achieving targets, and failure is….left alone (unless something REALLY bad happens). Failure to achieve targets is often excused by managers as the people who work for them have failed. Yet success is somehow the manager on their own! (Yes, I’m generalising but I’ve only met one manager in 14 years who thinks like I do).

Let’s strive for a fair system of pay that rewards success and punishes failure. The bonus will then be social – improved fairness by putting everyone on a level playing field, with a chance to use their skills and abilities for personal gain (and improved productivity for the organisation).

You like fairness? You like the chance to earn more? You like the chance to see those around you who you feel are doing less of a job actually have their pay docked?

Yeah!! Let’s do it! Now, let’s start by all of you taking a stand and refusing that bonus you have coming up….

Posted in Economy, Employment, Social issues, Work
← Older Entries

Welcome!

Welcome to my blog! All comments are welcome - even if you disagree with me!! Bear in mind that I do have some standards (just some) so comments are subject to removal by myself if offensive, abusive, illegal or containing any unjust "isms". Now get commenting!

Category list