I’ll keep this brief: I’m depressed that this is how 90% of the nation’s youth is going to hear the word “socialism” for the first time.

The Salisbury Review has harsh words for Singer, calling his foundations “filth” and also for the work of Bentham, dubbing his felicific calculus “crude” (perhaps the strangest insult imaginable for anything so elaborate…)

However they seem to struggle with actually presenting anyreason that their own premise is correct. It is true that “human exceptionism” is what they base their ethical code around. But has it entirely passed them by that their ideology could be rotten the core?

The answer to this would seem to be an unfortunate negative, which is a great pity. I am interested in seeing this matter debated and this promising article is a distinct failure, simply asserting their core assumptions firmly and doing nothing at all to fend off the attacks made. Indeed, it serves solely to demonstrate quite how devastating Singer and Bentham’s thought is to their viewpoint, with the absence of any adequete engagement perhaps acting as implicit admittance that they are incapable of self-defence.

In the entire paragraph in which they attempt to describe what “Humans are…” they demonstrate an immense ignorance of Singer’s work, which even with the very light reading which I have done personally I can detect. Singer attacks humanism at its weakest point: not all humans share the capabilities which are the norm.

If it is do to a certain set of traits rather than the inherency of humanity then those humans who lack those traits (those suffering from severest defect of or damage to the brain) are no longer human. If it is only our “advanced facility with language enables”, our “‘I’-thoughts, ‘you’-thoughts, ‘he’, ’she’, ‘we’ and ‘they’-thoughts” then how can those humans lacking these capacities truly be considered “us” at all?

This issue is not addressed by the Salisbury editorial, and this is immensely telling. They worsen affairs by remarking in passing that rights given to animals would be ones “which animals cannot defend themselves”. This is the case of with children and the infirm as much as it is with a bull or parakeet. I see very little heft behind this observation.

Having made a major attack upon a minor remark perhaps I should offer one of my own as a closer: if the argument that “Other animals, even our closest relatives, are incapable of doing these things” in reference to a list that includes the word “Sing” is made entirely in earnest then I (nocturnalist though I am) would advocate that the Salisbury Review’s editors start getting out of bed earlier.

Why does anyone think that bombing someone will make their neighbours better disposed to them?

Israel ought to understand this. Its civilians in Sderot have their lives made a misery by rocket fire from Hamas. They’re scared and can’t live secure lives - so demand action. Understandably.

And yet the Israeli government doesn’t seem to expect Gazans to behave in the same way. But, of course, they do; they too are scared and threatened by the bombs, and have very likely seen someone killed or injured by them. They see that Israeli planes dropped the bombs, and so blame Israel - in the same way that citizens of Sderot blame Hamas for the rockets. Someone who’s forced to cower from the bomb that fell down the road must find it very hard not to take that as an attack on them, whoever the target was.

These Gazans become understandably angry at Israel. They demand action to stop the bombs, and move towards actively resisting Israel. Some, inevitably, will be drawn to the group whose rhetoric most aggressively assaults Israel; Hamas.

So every bomb that falls acts as a recruiting beacon for Hamas. It doesn’t matter that the Israeli military hopes to decapitate Hamas. For every bomb that kills a member of Hamas, yet more join because of that bomb.

People on both sides of the border suffer the same emotions when an angry man in a uniform hurls several tons of high explosive with the intent to kill them. They don’t like it, and want it to stop. Why does doing the same back seem like a good idea, then? Those caught up in the retaliation will feel exactly the same way - because they don’t want to die, and they don’t want their families and friends to die either.

I genuinely don’t understand how that could be missed. The premise that “I am human, they are human, therefore they’re as unlikely to enjoy watching their aunt bleeding to death by a roadside as I” is simple. Either that those firing the explosives either don’t think of the others as fully human, haven’t thought at all, or actively want the slaughter on both sides to continue.

Unfortunately, I suspect all three are true to varying degrees for various groups…

Does it really surprise anyone that the young ignore the government when it moralises against alcohol? The campaigns tend to be so patronising that they’re enough to inspire consumption as it is.

I drink, regularly. As a byproduct, I know how much alcohol it takes to render myself insensible; when it happens several time, you do tend to notice the pattern.

Anyone who drinks regularly should be the same. They have been drunk, several times, and so know how it happens to them. They don’t need to be told this by a stern poster spouting arbitrary figures at them; and no doubt do feel patronised by that poster telling them what they already know.

Likewise, they’re unlikely to be entirely unaware of the impact of drinking upon health. Anyone who drinks will at least know someone who’s hurled all that they’ve drunk and more into the loo, and will likely have heard graphic stories of at least one stomach pump. To throw up is to be ill, and most people know that’s bad. So we can assume most heavy drinkers are aware of some of the risks.

If a young person gets drunk, and does so frequently, it’s thus likely (logically) to be a more or less conscious decision. They know what they’re doing, yet do it anyway. And yet the government persists in pushing out campaigns that assume the young are ignorant of both the cause (hence stark photographs of bottles ominously marked “10″) and the consequences (hence “hard-hitting” portrayals of vomit stained youth drowing in their own filth) of drunkeness.

They know what they’re doing, and so presumably want to do it (and know this), for whatever reason. The government then shoves out propaganda that effectively claims they’re only doing it because they don’t know what they’re doing.

Who would listen to that?

Apologies for the lack of posting in recent days. A combination of sleep, procrastination, and tracking fluffy Siberian Tiger toys across the Northern Line have kept me occupied recently.

And now a lack of inspiration reigns. Very little springs to mind; beyond a brief and late comment that this is vile:

The government has been accused of trampling on individual liberties by proposing wide-ranging new powers for bailiffs to break into homes and to use “reasonable force” against householders who try to protect their valuables.

Under the regulations, bailiffs for private firms would for the first time be given permission to restrain or pin down householders. They would also be able to force their way into homes to seize property to pay off debts, such as unpaid credit card bills and loans.

What constitutes “reasonable force”? It’s rather open to interpretation. And, given the tendency of firms to employ bulky, muscular individuals of the temprament which allows them to ransack a home in perfect conscious, that’ll probably be a violent interpretation. This at a time when, with soaring energy costs and ugly mortgages (oh, and the rising unemployment, don’t forget that…), the bailiffs’ ire is most likely to fall on the cold and the old. Chicken Yoghurt puts it rather well:

It’s teaching all of us to never, ever, be poor. To never, ever, have a run of bad luck. Keep your head down and keep kissing the boss’ arse. Bite your tongue over your pay and conditions. Come in a bit earlier and stay a bit later. Don’t forget you’re the smallest of cog in this economy - a little fear should keep you lubricated and in good working order a little while yet.

It all makes glad I have few enough possessions at the moment. And worry slightly for when the government decides it wants the money for my education back…

I wonder at this:

Schools Secretary Ed Balls is getting together with Britain’s agony aunts for a “relationship summit”.

An “anguish of agony aunts” - the collective noun chosen by themselves - will advise ministers on how to support children facing family breakdown.

I won’t contest the benefits of a stable childhood. But consider the role of an agony aunt. They receive letters from those who consider themselves to have a problem. Some might therefore have some insight into those caught up in family breakdown perceive their trouble; but a very specific group of those, who might consider opening their private lives to that most public of forums, the tabloid newspaper.

Nor does the receipt of letters necessarily guarantee that the replies will be of any use. The agony aunt’s position doesn’t require them to dish out advise that’ll work, but that sounds plausible to the reader. And so play to whichever prejudices and conceptions they feel their readers might have of family breakdown. Nor do we have any means of seeing whether any find their Aunts’ advice useful. They hardly make themselves open to feedback forms; and given that most write for a newspaper with wider content, aren’t subject to the vagaries of an open market which might demonstrate how well their advice went down.

So, we’ve no idea whether they’re worth much at all, and have no means of finding out. Way to find a potential cul-de-sac? Listening to those involved in break-ups would seem a surer start…

Gordon Brown is about to begin his latest relaunch.  (Is this number 7?  8?)  But, as with all of his previous attempts in the last 15 months, a relaunch will be extremely costly for the public purse.  Joey Jones, on the Sky News Blog:

Imagine you’re Alistair Darling. Right now you’re need cash for all this…

-The anticipated u-turn on vehicle excise duty.

-The 10p tax compensation package (funded by borrowing for now, but that’s not a goer forever.)

-And now of course Gordon Brown’s make-or-break/last ditch/not a relaunch, honest/”we feel your pain” energy giveaway.

Now don’t forget, the Treasury is shorter of cash than it would have been having cancelled the 2p rise in fuel duty. And it’s widely understood other taxation revenue is drying up.

So how to pay for the splurge upon which Gordon Brown is pinning his hopes of remaining in Number Ten? Goodness only knows….

The government tried non doms…. then retreated. They tried capital gains tax reform…. retreated again….

So who else has got deep pockets?

Political parties ravaging the economy to protect their own backides is nothing new.  But in Brown’s case, the economy is being ravaged to keep his backside in the Cabinet Room despite most of its other occupants wishing it were not there.  Apart from being disgustingly selfish, this is simply bad government.  I do not begrudge paying tax, but I think it should be spent sensibly.  To see Brown borrowing money that my generation will be paying for, at inflated rates, just to stay in office for 18 months longer - that’s a disgraceful misuse of an election mandate.

If only I could believe that any of the opposition wouldn’t do the same…

Apparently, the absurd policing at Kingsnorth might cost up to £3 million. £3 million, that is, to intimidate protestors, assault liberty and break their own rules beyond repair. Who’d like to start the list of where that money could’ve been better spent?

Oh no, another toss-up between my virulent anti-theism and desire to allow free expression to flourish is required. How irksome.

Complicating this matter there is the whole “Multi-Cultural” angle, with this one calling herself “A proud Welsh and Punjabi Sikh girl.” Why exactly she would be proud of being Welsh or, more seriously, feel the need to distinguish herself from others who share the affliction is beyond me. Regardless, the model I have always admired for integration is that offered by the Zorastrians while seeking entry to India. They assured their potential hosts that they would dissolve “As honey into milk” when entering their new home. I suppose that a few bangles are modest enough to be deemed appropriate remnants of such a solution.

But this ruling still troubles me. It claims that the school was guilty of “Indirect discrimination” and in breach of race laws. Exactly how does it constitute discrimination to enforce rules equally upon Sikhs to upon those of other or no faith? Surely this is the total reverse of discrimination?

Perhaps the optimum solution would be the school simply taking a less hard-line stance and relaxing uniform policy. That she was suspended for so minor an offence is the root cause of this nonsense. I see no reason, though, that the school should honour irrational leaps of assumption and their sartorial implications over any other piece of reasoning. Where precisely is the distinction between somebody who has a “Lucky” bracelet and one that thinks it is representative of some fictional creature lasting for infinity?

I have no doubt that Singh is sincere in her conviction but there is no cause to imagine that her choice in garb is any better supported besides theology. It was an immensely petty to have her so severely punished over, but the same is true of any student.

Sophie Platt, writing for The F Word, has an irritating but valuable article here.

Irritating because it is filled with typical vindictive puerility:

I would love for them to turn the tables round one night and end a sexual encounter before their partners had come. A friend of mine tried this once, and reported that the incensed rage and sulking that followed could only be likened to that of a three-year-old who has been told Christmas had been cancelled.

Also due to the prejudiced, sourceless bigotry that somehow imagines that an Austen reference that was long ago faded through overuse constitutes a valid substitute for anything beyond the most meagre of anecdotal evidence:

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that teenage boys on the whole are more concerned with their own satisfaction than that of their partners

Let’s see if I can give this a go: It is a truth universally acknowledged that Afro-Caribbean men care more about stealing car stereos than raising their bastard children. Does that sound in any way acceptable to everyone? No matter, I shall just generate a false consensus in lieu of an adequete proof and make pretence that my view is that of the entirity of universe denizens. Does this not make a refreshing change from the mainstream press and its ceaseless distortions?

Furthermore her phallus obsession is seemingly total, as well as less than benign:

It’s just that so many are made to look like a penis, some disturbingly realistic, that they seem rather sinister as a tool for us to become better acquainted with our own bodies.

Where to begin with this? Is she stating that she finds real phalluses realistic? Or is it the prospect of women using items which resemble the organ used for the act that they are stimulating with it that unsettles her? Is it really appropriate and wise to label the sexual predilections of others “sinister” in such an article? Or any article? Is it in pointing out her failure to mention the rise of the “Fleshlight” devices for men that are now plastered all over the internet?

More harmfully still she has made a deep error in her analysis of “Raunch Culture”. Platt attempts to stage a forced division, of sorts, between the elements she truly disapproves of (lap-dancing legality, pole-dancing lessons, girls wearing mini-skirts and so on) from those she can not help but muster begrudging respect for (the popularity of a programme revolving around the sex lives of a set of vapid egoist females, the mass marketing and cultural strength of an item designed purely to bring women vast amounts of pleasure, vibrators on sale at Boots).

Such a dichotomy quite simply does not exist.

Both sets of phenomenon are part of a cultural motion away from the moralistic confines of the past and towards a state of personal liberty to pursue physical pleasure via carnal means. They are not divisible and any efforts to consider them along some form of “Pro” and “Anti” patriarchy lines is bound for failure, as are all other strictly partisan assessments. Women pleasuring themselves and feeling no shame and men resorting to bandwidth over charm and discussing without generating horror their nights at lap-dancing clubs are not in the slightest phenomenon which can be held apart. Their origins are precisely the same: formerly residual Christian morality dominated Britain’s views of carnal union, but since this is rapidly disintegrating people are beginning to act far more as they please and are in acceptance of far less restraints or restrictive mores. To divide this tendency into two separate paragraphs and imagine that it can somehow be split apart is the height of foolishness: they are simply differing manifestations within near identical circumstances. But Platt becomes wound up in her tiresomely hackneyed depiction of Raunch Culture:

it has become about appearing to be sexual available simply to please men and not to fulfil their own desires or fantasies.

The rise of so-called ‘raunch culture’ means that for many girls, merely looking ‘pretty’ has taken a back seat for looking ‘sexy’: supermarkets stock pole dancing kits as children’s toys, glamour modelling is in the top five career choices for pre-teen girls and hundreds of girls all over the country are counting the days until they are 18 and are legally allowed breast enhancements. Girls are being sexualised at an increasingly younger age, and it seems to be more about self-esteem than sexual satisfaction. The pleasure that comes from sexual experiences at this age is often the feeling of being thought attractive and being desired by a male than actually getting off.

Has she no conception of the positive effects of banishing shame in exposing more flesh than our present 1950s hang-over hegemony permits? Is she unaware that the frequency of exibitionism has always matched voyeurism? Obviously not: it is required that all shifts be made somehow in favour of the Patriarchy. Thus pole dancing kits suddenly are related to skimpier outfits for young women and are entirely unrelated to alterations that increase women’s pleasure.

As flawed a view as this unquestionably is this article is valauble because Platt has hit the nub of this issue: it is simply not expected of girls that they will entertain themselves, while with boys only (fittingly paired) certain fundamentalist Christians and some extremist feminists would argue otherwise. This is a strange and harmful double standard, in that it denies half of the population the assumption that it is correct to pursue their personal pleasure. The consequences are young (and occasionally even elderly) women who have never experienced an orgasm, a highly unfortunate state of affairs that leaves the men in a strong lead.

It would seem that Platt, then, is excellent at identifying the problem before us but fails in terms of solution. She, for instance, disparrages the shift that has eradicated the near total silence on matters of female pleasuring that reigned previously, through her offensive against the surgingly popular sex toys, now sold by a variety of mainstream stores and chains. For how can something remain a taboo when it is upon the evening news? Having the act she fears girls are not expected to participate in directly alluded to on chemists shelves is surely going to break the culture which she outlines.

The silence is thus effectively already breached.