This week’s rather scrawny crop …
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign – that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
[Jonathan Swift]The more we learn about irrational beliefs, the clearer it becomes that they are perfectly normal
[Editorial, New Scientist, 13/11/2010]You can’t have a light without a dark to stick it in.
[Arlo Guthrie]You are not what you were born, but what you have it in yourself to be.
[From the film Kingdom of Heaven (2005)]
I’ve just come across this interesting contrast between (mainland) European** and American attitudes toward sex – especially teenage sex. It says a lot about the relative incidence of teenage pregnancy and STIs between the US and Europe. Check out these adverts for a visual demonstration of the differences and decide for yourself which approach is the better and more healthy (for mind and body) – you might find an arousal of your interest.
** Sadly the UK is more in line with America than mainland Europe.
Hat-tip: MySexProfessor.com
Several friends have today posted this on Facebook:
Yesterday a group of Muslims broke the 2 minutes silence in central London, with banners “British Soldiers Burn In Hell” & the burning of a poppy. If you don’t like us English people paying respect for our brave fighters, then you know where the airport is. Disgusting, disrespectful b***ards. Copy and paste this if you’re English, and proud. RIP all those who lost their lives.
Much as I dislike the current sycophantic “poppy-fest” (see here) I too find such reactions (by anyone) disrespectful and even obscene. However the objectors have every right to their opinions and to voice them – however distasteful it is to us. Just as we have every right to call them (probably untruthfully) “b***ards” etc. – however much they dislike it. It is called “freedom of speech” and is what we pay our “brave fighters” to defend and uphold. Freedom of speech works both ways! And to see it thus makes me no less proud to be British.
Let’s keep in mind the words of two old-time great Americans, perhaps two of the world’s greatest ever statesmen …
Love your enemies, for they tell you your faults.
[Benjamin Franklin]Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?
[Abraham Lincoln]
… and finally …
The best thing to give to your enemy is forgiveness; to an opponent, tolerance; to a friend, your heart; to your child, a good example; to a father, deference; to your mother, conduct that will make her proud of you; to yourself, respect; to all men, charity.
[Benjamin Franklin]
Bah! The season of humbug and sycophancy is upon us. No, not the looming presence of Christmas but the even nearer Remembrance Day.
The whole thing is a politically correct sycophant’s delight. “Oh, you’re not wearing a poppy?” – so you’re not patriotic and don’t care about those who were sacrificed in two world wars. Work for TV? No poppy, no job, it seems – even football pundits are made to wear poppies! If those who were sacrificed died for anything it was to free us from such tyrannies.
I’m not unpatriotic. Nor am I ungrateful to those who were sacrificed: much as I abhor the idea of war I concede it is occasionally necessary. I likely wouldn’t go as far as my father: a conscientious objector in WWII, who played just as valuable a part in the war effort by working on the land and in hospitals. And certainly not as far as my grandfather: a conscientious objector in the Great War but who volunteered for the RAMC as a stretcher bearer at the front; probably a whole lot more gruesome, and no less dangerous, than the lot of any cannon fodder squaddie. (I’m much prouder of my grandfather for this than if he’d towed the line and been cannon fodder.) But Remembrance Day, and everything associated with it, makes me sick.
While we’re here let us remember three other things about Remembrance Day:
Yes by all means let those who wish remember the fallen. But, as with all belief systems, don’t ram it down other people’s throats after the style of so much of Christianity. (Oh, I thought Christianity was supposed to be anti-violence?!) What is maybe worse is that the whole charade is so backward looking; it focuses on the past and almost yearns for the “good old days” to return – forgetting that the “good old days” were once known as “these trying times”. It’s like someone grieving for their dead child or spouse: sooner or later one has to come to terms with it and move on; go forward. But with Remembrance Day we don’t move on – it has been set in stone as forever sacred and gets an extra coat of gilding every year with poppies going on sale ever earlier (it’s become Remembrance Month, not Remembrance Day).
Stop it! Let go! Especially now there are effectively no survivors of those who fought in the Great War. Sadly though I suspect to be able to let go of the Remembrance Day sycophancy we will have to kill off the British Legion first; now there’s an organisation looking for something to do if ever there was one, and in Remembrance Day they think they’ve hatched a golden goose egg. By all means remember if you need to, but cut the sycophancy and the tyranny; let’s move forward.
None of this means I’m not grateful to those who fought (and in many cases died) to give me the freedom to write this. I just find the whole thing very sick and would rather we look forward as most of the fallen (having secured us “a better life”) would I’m sure have wanted. So I will not be wearing a poppy, making a donation or observing two minutes silence, whatever the day. Remembrance should be a question of individual conscience not some politically-imposed public tyranny. Bah! Humbug!
I came across the following a few days ago. I had to think hard to grasp exactly what was being said, but having done so I think the message is powerful. It relates to false life, as propounded on my Zen Mischief website. Sentimentality is a manifestation of false life, through false emotions. True sentiment (“what one feels with regard to something; mental attitude; an opinion or view as to what is right or agreeable; a mental feeling, an emotion; those feelings which involve an intellectual element or are concerned with ideal objects” – OED) is part of a considered reaction to and engagement with real life in the raw. There is a rather large difference …
Sentimentality creates the CAFO [Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations] farm – the sentimentality that says we are too weak to bear the pain of knowing animals and watching them die. This is what turns our food into Styrofoam packages and allows CAFO agriculture, where animals are carefully hidden from our view, and the relationship of our purchases carefully concealed. Sentimentality allows us to care about the extinction of the preferred charismatic mega-fauna of our choice […] but that we see no connection between our purchases, our acts and the habitat destruction of the animals in question. Sentimentality enables us to care about the child Pakistani-flood victim on nightly TV enough to send some money – but not enough to try and reduce the number of climate-related natural disasters by giving up some of our privileges. Sentimentality enables the patriotic fervour that allows us to not know how many Iraqi or Afghani civilians die in the interest of our national “greater goods.” Sentimentality is the emotion that emerges from the condition of not knowing – and it is what you have left in a society that conceals at every level real knowledge. It too is both cause and effect – it permits great evil, and it facilitates lack of knowledge of the real.
Sentiment – love, anger, attachment, affection – real emotions – these derive from knowledge, and they can’t be faked. And when you know things, the choices you make get more complex. The realities you live in get harder and greyer. Sometimes love means you have to kill something. Sometimes one love means that another loved thing get sacrificed. Sometimes you have to go against your feelings. But the only way that never happens is when you substitute sentimentality for real feeling.
We live in a world where sentimentality poses as real emotion, where we are often actively discouraged from understanding consequences, from developing real love for people and things, and from paying attention. It is easy to miss the distinction between the two entirely – because we have blurred so many things together.
[Sharon Astyk at Casaubon’s Book Weblog]
This week’s weirdos …
Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
[Bill Watterson]Don’t worry about the world coming to an end today. It’s already tomorrow in Australia.
[Charles Schulz]The human body can remain nude and uncovered and preserve intact its splendour and its beauty … Nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness … Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person … The human body is not in itself shameful … Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of a person.
[Pope John Paul II]Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.
[Philip K Dick]Here I amgetting on for seventyand never having gone to work in ladies underwear[Roger McGough, Here I Am]
LadyGod1va has recently written about the opportunities which naturism currently has for expanding in the UK. You can read her complete post here and I would encourage you to do so as it is a well balanced and thoughtful analysis. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything she says – largely because I view the world through my eyes and not hers, and there likely are no completely right or completely wrong answers: horses for courses and all that. So here are my comments, observations and opinions on a number of LadyGod1va’s more salient points.
The problem I see in the UK is that there are far too many independent organisations supporting naturism through clubs, social gatherings, social networks, personal blogs, membership sites, holiday services and so on whilst there is a very small target audience who are openly able to enjoy the naturism life for various personal reasons or beliefs.
Can’t disagree with that. Naturism is still populated by small enclaves of people hiding in the bushes, mostly out of fear. This has to change if progress is to be made. Naturism needs a single, powerful, voice representing the spectrum of naturist beliefs. As LadyGod1va says …
The number of naturists in the UK probably grows or shrinks over the years in relation to the population numbers aged between 40-60 […] We are enjoying the highest numbers of naturists in the UK probably because the population aged between 40-60 is the highest for a long time due to the baby booms of the 60s […] I see it as now being the best harvest of suitable naturism candidates for the naturist organisations to increase their numbers. However I don’t believe that it is being done successfully because there is just too much choice for what is still a limited number of naturists.
Yes there are a lot of choices, but I don’t see this as a problem if everyone worked together towards a common goal. What I see is the wrong choices for many of the target audiences, or indeed no choice at all. Take our situation (and we can’t be alone):
We are not really club people, so clubs don’t appeal. We don’t drive, which while it isn’t usually a problem and is very eco of us, does mean we have a challenge getting to anything which is remote (in space or time) from public transport. This means we would struggle to get to a remote club, even if we wanted to. And late night swims (and our nearest swim is a late evening event) are impractical because of public transport schedules. We are not people for spending holidays roasting in the sun, so beach holidays don’t greatly appeal. Which leaves us with … not a lot!
So what do we want. Probably what a lot of other not very active nudists want. To be able to go nude in our garden and our local park/beach and to be able to swim nude at our local swimming pool (even if that is only once a month).
Living as we do in a small terraced house in an ethnically diverse area of London, garden nudity is a problem. Our garden is overlooked by neighbours who (due to age, religion and culture) are unlikely to be sympathetic to nudity; and screening the sunny spots in the garden from their view is difficult as they are right by the house. Because of the same puritanical attitudes amongst the local populous (remember ethnic and religious diversity) our local swimming pool is highly unlikely to offer even clothes optional sessions; and certainly not if only odd-balls like us ask for them. Would they be more willing if we were backed by a strong national organisation? Well who knows, but it couldn’t be more difficult. The same applies to parks and beaches while the current ignorance of the law persists.
Which leaves us stuck unless or until there are some paradigm shifts. Paradigm shifts in our brains (there must be other alternatives) as much as in anyone else’s. But those paradigm shifts can be hard when, despite the actuality of the law, there is complete ignorance amongst the populous of what is allowed and frequent disregard of the law by the powers that be. [Photographers are facing a similar challenge at present over the anti-terrorist laws but are slowly winning because photography is a non-contentious and popular hobby and thus they collectively have a strong voice.]
There are many more naturists amongst the general public who just do not have any reason to join any club or organisation because their form of naturism doesn’t require it. [… A] greater number of females are opting not to have children until later into their 30s, these females are quite confident and go topless and some obviously go nude but mostly when on holidays, so why are they not more visible in the naturist circles? I would suggest the following to be the main issues;
1. Because being seen topless in the local park by anyone they know is likely to cause them embarrassment […]
3. Lack of role models, someone has to make a start and others could follow.
Possibly true until there is a critical mass and “everyone is doing it”.
That makes two key target audiences: the 40-60s and young couples and singles. Actually there is a third target audience (although maybe a more difficult one to win over): the late teens and students, who have surprising power and that all important rebellious streak – just as long as you can make it “the in thing”. Get the young enthused and signed up and there’s a future.
2. The UK naturist movement still have a seedy association with sexual activities and perverts of one kind or another.
I’m not so sure about the seedy sexual activities, though maybe LadyGod1va is right. But certainly the perverts wrongly associated with naturism is definitely a worry.
4. Lack of understanding of the law
It isn’t just a lack of understanding but also attempts to erroneously enforce the law – see comments above.
5. Personal or religious beliefs
I don’t buy this as a reason for nudity on holiday but not at home, except as a variant of number 1 above.
My fear is that with pressure from the USA, the religious righteous, influences from the Eastern countries, the UK naturism could suffer.
This, together with the legal position (see above) is to my mind the biggest stumbling block. And it is a battle which I believe is only going to be won by a strong, united and vocal national organisation. British Naturism (BN) is the obvious candidate to take on this role (as LadyGod1va points out) but it is still considered by many to be nothing more than a marginal player with a dubious past. In my judgement BN now has the will, and the willingness, to take on this challenge, but it doesn’t (yet) have the critical mass and the muscle to be powerful enough. That will only change if one of two things happens: either everyone gets behind BN and takes it in the direction we want it to go, or all us naturists become individually and collectively vocal (regardless of what BN does) in the way that the photographic community are kicking back against erroneous attempts to curtail what they can do in public. Both are paradigm shifts; and paradigm shifts are hard to enable. And no, I don’t have any magic answers; I wish I did.
There needs to be 100s of people like me, girls and boys who don’t need to go around demonstrating about lack of freedom etc. but just do it […] If we are to encourage these people to try and do what they believe in without fear or reprisal, we need more than just clubs, web sites, social networks etc. […]
They need the support of a credible organisation that has the respect of the country’s legal and political and ethical organisations […] There needs to be more than just middle to old aged people making noises about
naturism. There needs to be something more than what we have now. It is only through increasing the numbers that greater freedom will come.
Yes, although see comments on the photographic community above who are largely acting independently of (although supported by) their various national organisations.
However you look at it we need to act …
If you support these views also, then you can help to tackle these problems […] the best way to do so is to become a member of BN and let your friends know that you are a member (whenever possible), this will give you confidence that you are a member of an organisation that is focused on pure naturism and fights all that is unacceptable in naturism […] if you are a member and you run into trouble, you have someone to seek support and guidance from […] if you hold BN membership, you are more likely to be advised correctly and there would be someone who knows the law well enough to keep you out of trouble and media if necessary.
Yes absolutely. We allowed our BN membership to lapse many years ago, when BN lost its way and was riven by internecine wars. But we have recently rejoined because it was clear that in the current environment not only do we need BN but the movement now needs our support, and BN, having reinvented itself, are now up for the challenge.
You can find more about BN at www.british-naturism.org.uk where you’ll find information on the benefits of membership and a membership form. What are you waiting for?
Here’s one of those longer quotes I mentioned earlier. I leave it here, without comment, for your consideration.
Religions are always stridently opposed to the world of the Supernatural. Alleged paranormal events represent competition for the miracles [aka paranormal events!] necessary to any religious belief system and thus compete for the allegiance and contributions of their believers […]
We can observe many members of society who appear to be intelligent and rational in the pursuit of their daily life. However, on Sundays they go to their church or temple. There they participate in incomprehensible and irrational rituals involving magic, prayer and other activities demeaning to their rational minds. Their rational mind tells them that a god does not exist and yet, there they sit and pray to him […]
[…] people tend to associate in communities of like-minded people. Believers restrict their circle of friend and family to other believers. They surround themselves with mirror images of themselves.
If people wear blinders successfully, then the young and naïve among them hear nothing but the desired belief. No reputable person in his or her sphere of life ever disagrees with or objects to the tenets of their common belief system. As time goes on, people in a mentally incestuous society consider it normal that all seemingly intelligent people believe as the community believes […]
[…] the believer sees non-believers as abnormal and undesirable. Thus, religious belief maintains itself through self-affirmation, insulation and demonization of non-believers.
[cliffkirtley at http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/]
This year’s Nobel Prizes are being announced this week. In general the Nobel Committee makes good decisions on who deserves recognition in the sciences and it isn’t often that I would quarrel with their choice. I’m not really competent to judge when it comes to the Literature prize. And it seems to me the Peace prize is always something between the doings of the court jester and a political football.
The first of this year’s prizes, announced on Monday, was the prize for Medicine which was awarded to Prof. Robert Edwards who devised (and with Prof. Patrick Steptoe developed) IVF.
I apologise in advance if my view upsets anyone (I know it will some) but this is one science award I will quarrel with. In my view IVF should have been strangled at birth.
I take a basically “egalitarian” view of our relationship with Nature: “Nature must be interfered with as little as possible. There are no safe limits so we must always show caution. Nature is fragile. Any risk is unacceptable.” (OK like all these generalisations that is a slight exageration of the detail of what I believe, but I certainly tend more towards the “egalitarian” view than any other.)
In consequence I feel that if a couple are unable to have children naturally then Nature has some good underlying reason for this and perhaps we should not be playing God. To me IVF is not a step forward but something which we should not be meddling in; it is the medicalisation of a normal part of normal life. Not being able to have children isn’t a life-threatening, debilitating or even disfiguring disease. Compare it with, for instance, on the one hand elective cosmetic surgery and on the other type 1 diabetes. (It is also the first step on the path to eugenics, but that’s a completely different argument which we won’t go into here.)
As such to me IVF is not something worthy of a Nobel prize. That is in no way to belittle Prof. Edwards’ and Prof. Steptoe’s undoubted medical and technical skills and their vision of how to solve the problems from which much has indeed been learnt. (For example, Prof. Steptoe was a pioneer in the development of laparoscopy as a surgical technique.) But just because we have the technology to do something does not mean we have to do it.
Prof. Edwards is on record as saying “The most important thing in life is having a child. Nothing is more special than a child.” All I can say is that if he thinks that putting another mouth to be fed on this planet is the most important thing ever, well I despair. Where are his ethics? Where was his Ethics Committee? Oh, hang on, back in ’60s and ’70s when the work was being done there probably wasn’t an Ethics Committee. Hmmm.
Here, in random order, is this week’s rather rich helping of amusing and insightful quotes.
The first two are from Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert; right on the money as always:
A CEO has something called a “vision.” That is a view of the future that is not supported by evidence.
[Scott Adams at The Scott Adams Blog]The primary function of a CEO is hurting other people, specifically the stockholders and employees of competing companies. He wants to take their market share, their wealth, and their happiness. And a CEO isn’t too affectionate with his vendors and employees either.
[Scott Adams at The Scott Adams Blog]
I can think of many who won’t like the next, but again it is so true:
Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told regardless of what is right.
[Found on Tumblr]
And this was from a video clip of an interview with a couple of gays; it cracked me up!
Love at first innuendo.
[Dan Savage]
This one is for Katy …
Eat cake. Change lives.
[Macmillan Cancer Support advertisement]
I couldn’t resist this wonderful critical put-down on a paragraph of absolute scientific mumbo-jumbo:
That paragraph reads like he authors were cobbling together a braille sentence using the random distribution of acne on someone’s back.
[Jesse Bering at www.scientificamerican.com/blog/, 22/09/2010]
If only I’d been told this next many years ago!
The only disability in life is a bad attitude
[Quoted by Kittypinkstars at Flickr]
How the other half live:
Glamour model Katie Price has been found guilty of not being in proper control of her pink horsebox after veering into another lane in Sussex.
[BBC News]
Needless to say it was the very idea of a pink horsebox which got me! And so finally an interesting “off the wall” take which again contains a huge element of truth:
I have heard many times that atheists know more about religion than religious people. Atheism is an effect of that knowledge, not a lack of knowledge. I gave a Bible to my daughter. That’s how you make atheists.
[Dave Silverman, president of American Atheists]
That’s all for this week.