xkcd does it again: this one has the classic alt text on the other hand, physics is to maths as sex is to masturbation



Hat tip: professoryaffle

---

Daily Kos has some handy cut-out-and-keep pledges for any Americans thinking of voting for McCain. raven_oreilly, hope you weren't drinking anything when you read this... ;)

Hat tip: my homey Douglas at LC.

---

When anti-abortion campaigners go for an abortion... Some of the cognitive dissonance in this made my brain want to explode. If you're going to be anti-abortion, at least have the courage of your convictions, you know? FFS.

Hat tip: my lovely (if slightly snory) fiancématgb

---

Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall is campaigning for Tescos to treat their chickens like chickens. Sadly, Tesco wants him to pay more than £86,000 just to get the motion on the table. Now, I know Hugh isn't the most poverty-stricken person, but the more of us who contribute to his costs, the more he can tell Tescos he has the support of people who are willing to put their money where their mouth is. Bonus points for you if you're a Tesco shareholder and you contribute!

Hat tip: Lynne Featherstone.

---

The Torygraph makes an overinflated claim shocker! Terry Pratchett says he was rushing down the stairs one day... it was very strange. I suddenly knew that everything was okay, that what I was doing was right, and I didn't know why. It was a thought that all the right things are happening in the circumstances, and I thought, 'Well that's all right then.' I don't actually believe in anyone who could have put that in my head - unless it was my dad, and he's been dead a few years.

So, he's had a moment of peace and come to an acceptance of his position, yes? How the Torygraph got from I don't actually believe in anyone who could have put that in my head - unless it was my dad, and he's been dead a few years. to Terry has found God and is going to convert to Christianity Cthulhu alone knows, but there you go.

Hat tip: discworld

---

Labour activist makes silly post shocker. All my petrolhead friends? Go over and leave a comment, will you? Not that I'm touting for trolls or anything...

---

In the light of John Major's comments re: the 42 days issue, I'd like to remind everyone of one thing.

The debate before the house is not referring to the total period a person can be kept inside before they have to be released. This is, in fact, about whether or not we should have 42 days of imprisonment for people before they are even told what they are supposed to have done wrong. Once you have been charged, once the rozzers have deigned to tell you what they think you've done, you can still be kept locked up for an almost indefinite period, up to and including your trial, given the consent of the judiciary.

The sole reason that this measure has been introduced is that when the police bring charged suspects before the courts, a lot of the time the courts say this man is clearly innocent, let him go, and the government wants to stop innocent people being released because they think it makes them look soft. Does anyone have any doubt at all that the three (yes, THREE, such a huge proportion of our 60,000,000+ population!) people who have so far been kept to 28 days under the current legislation before being charged would have been allowed to be detained post-charge by a court? FFS... What sort of country are we living in when someone can be locked up for any significant length of time without even being told what they are suspected of doing? How the hell have we come to having our government piss wantonly and indiscriminately all over habeas corpus without a peep from most of us about it? I'm sorry, I'm becoming incoherent. This just makes me SO ANGRY.

Given that you can be detained almost indefinitely post-charge, do we really need to have a limit of more than a week? Or even a couple of days? America manages with a two day limit...

Yesterday, for various reasons, I went to Tesco's. I looked around the fruit and veg, but didn't buy much, partly because it was almost empty, and partly because of some of the prices. This morning I went to post a couple of parcels (sorry, Renae, I know it's late, but your Stephen is finally on the way. Also, sovietkiki, expect books) and had a look round the little fruit and veg shop on the high street.

The melons that were £1.79 each in Tesco's were two for £1 in Dyson's. The cherries that were £4.99 a punnet in Tesco's were £1.99 a punnet in Dyson's.

Tesco Value? My arse.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you're skint and looking for cheap food, avoid the big four supermarkets.

First things first, happy birthday briargate!

Secondly, we just got in from a nice pub lunch and a long dog walk with our two dogs and our friends and their two dogs. And this inspires a poll.

Poll #1159124 Dog walking Etiquette
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 13

You have a large, aggressive German Shepherd dog, and you wish to stand and chat to a friend for half an hour or so. Where is the best place to stand with your dog?

View Answers

?In your house, with all the doors and windows barred
2 (15.4%)

In a deserted field, where it can run and play while you chat without upsetting other dogs.
10 (76.9%)

in the middle of the narrow footbridge over the beck that pretty much everyone entering or leaving the park with a dog has to cross
1 (7.7%)

If you chose option three, was this because you are...?

View Answers

stupid
7 (53.8%)

ignorant
5 (38.5%)

aggressive yourself, and think that having a big dog that causes trouble makes you look hard
6 (46.2%)

a complete twat
11 (84.6%)

a special snowflake to whom all the normal etiquettes of dog ownership do not apply
5 (38.5%)

Between the guy on the bridge and the other guy who just would not let his poor spaniel off the lead to play when it desperately wanted to in case its pedigreeness was sullied by our dogs' mongrelosity...

* headdesk *

Thirdly, the first of a bunch of things I want to link to today, here's an American data set about abortion. Yes, it's an American data set, but our stats are closer to the American ones that the rest of Europe, so it's worth looking at. Some of it I find quite worrying - like the number of women going for an abortion who hadn't used contraception at all (46%) as opposed to those who had had contraceptive failure - but some of the reasons given to the why have you come for an abortion question are quite interesting. I think it possibly gives ammunition for both sides, but the main thing that comes out of it for me is the woeful amount of properly used contraception. Education, education, education, you guys.

Fourthly, and on the same subject, Why I Am An Abortion Doctor. The tone of it is distinctly North-American-continent but, again, it's worth reading from a UK perspective too. I can understand why people are disquieted about abortion. I am disquieted about it. I am unlikely to ever have an abortion, because of my disquiet. But that's my choice. I would never force that choice on somebody else. Abortion is a difficult enough decision to make, without adding Slippery Elm Bark complications and back street abortionists to muddy the waters further.

Fifthly, Ten Things Every Adult Should Know. Definitely not for the easily offended (the title of the website should be a clue to that one), although it would probably do the easily offended good to read and inwardly digest...

Sixthly, PeeZee and Richard Dawkins have a good laugh about some silly creationists who tried to misrepresent them on film and then ban them from attending the film afterwards:



Seventhly, a step by step guide on How to Pack Up and Leave LJ without losing anything you don't want to lose, should you ever actually want to.

Eighthly, lastly, and shamelessly copied from innerbrat, Mitch Benn on Grammar:

I know there's a rule about starting sentences with "but", but screw it, it just means you end up starting them with "however", and since "however" at the beginning of a sentence just means "I really wanted to start this sentence with 'but' but I'm not allowed" , and everybody knows this, then frankly you may as well just start with "but", so I just did

&hearts Gotta love the big geeky fella.

Via von_geisterhand (again): Penn and Teller's Bullshit has an episode on profanity (which really does contain lots of swearing) in which Penn Jilette and his silent partner give idiot pro-censorship types just enough rope to hang themselves. If you've got half an hour to spare this fine Sunday, have a skeg at this, (especially if you're the anonymous commenter from my last post who felt the need to censor him/herself on the word "bloody". Assuming you've found the font size setting on your browser, and can read this, anyway). Watch for the cute little doggie in part one.

Part one:



Link: http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=ojEpASQi_7o

Part two:



Link: http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=C61mC-d8vFA

Part three:



Link: http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=20EPn4hOrR4

von_geisterhand says in their post:

One slightly more philosophical point that does not get covered in this is that those who wish to limit the range of your verbal expression are essentially trying to also limit the range of your emotions and ideas. If this sounds a little bit like the efforts of the government in "1984", that is because it basically is. An emotion/concept/idea which cannot be expressed in speech will find it very hard to spread in the population.

Penn does obliquely refer to this, if not explicitly. Lots of the talking heads skirt around it too. Really, what it boils down to is this: a state which says that you cannot use some words because they might offend somebody is garnering power that it should not have. If you don't like the words that someone uses, tell them you don't like their words. This is the beauty of free speech: if EVERYONE has it then nobody can force you to not be heard.

In this regard I completely agree with Rowan Atkinson, and what he said when he was campaigning against SOCPA and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act. He said that in my view the right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended. The right to ridicule is far more important to society than any right not to be ridiculed because one, in my view, represents openness - and the other represents oppression. And he's completely right. Completely and absolutely correct.

I have things that offend me, everyone does. Religious fundamentalists offend me. Hazel Blears offends me. The BNP offend me. But I don't want to ban any of those things. I want to debate them. I want to drag them kicking and screaming into the full light of day and make sure everyone can see their flaws, their inconsistencies, their lies, and their stupidities. I abhor the "no platform" stance lots of people take to the BNP. If you don't allow the BNP to speak publicly, you give them power. Paranoid tinfoil hat wearers will see this censorship and say to themselves Well, there must be something in it, or They wouldn't be trying to shut them up. The proper response to people like the BNP is to let them spout their illogical claptrap in public, pick out all the logical inconsistencies, hold them up for everyone to see, and then point and laugh.

Freedom of speech is important. It's important for big things like racism and homophobia and sexism, but it's also important for little things like the right to say "fuckety bollocks" when you stub your toe without fear of being arrested. To curtail the right to swear in public because somebody might get offended is to erode our right to protest, to express our feelings, to engage with society in a meaningful way. So next time you hear someone swear, don't bemoan the decline and fall of civilisation. Be glad that you live in a society where people can freely express ideas, even if they are ideas that other people don't like.

It's a beautiful thing. You cunts.

Some time ago puddingcat pointed me towards the excellent pc_bloggs, which is the anonymised blog of a serving female police constable. I don't always agree with pc_bloggs, by any means, but even when she says something I disagree with I can see how she got to the conclusion she did and she is cogent and intelligent. She also provides a valuable insight into modern policing which all of us, male or female, can benefit from reading.

Today's post? Today's post is one that I think should be disseminated as far as humanly possible, so this is me doing my bit. It's called The Truth About Rape. Go read it.

I'm a big fan of the requirement that people should not be convicted without good evidence, and that it's better for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent person to be imprisoned. I believe passionately in the rule of law, and the jury system, and all that good stuff. I hate myself for typing the following, but type it I must.

Most rapes are not stranger rapes. Most rapes are between people who know each other. Most rapes involve a perpetrator and a victim, and no other witnesses. No CCTV. Nothing. It's the perpetrator's word against the victim's. If the proper standards of evidence are in force, and all else is equal, in this situation it's entirely proper that the perpetrator is acquitted. Because the other option is diluting the principles which protect us all, in all circumstances. Rape is a horrendous, horrifying ordeal. No person should be forced to perform sexual acts against their will. But that's not a reason to lower the standards of evidence for a conviction, because that would be the thin end of the fattest wedge of all.

Oh, and the first person to say you wouldn't say that if you'd ever been a victim of sexual violence yourself!... Well, let's not go there, shall we?

Am listening to a debate on radio four about these human/animal "hybrid embryos", and THEY ARE ALL DRIVING ME MAD!!! OMFG HUMANS ARE ANIMALS, YOU STUPID FUCKWITS!!!! Oh, Great Cthulhu, save me from Norman Soddit and his stupid slippery slope arguments. If it's going to save lives, and only involves messing about with a few cells, what's the problem? The sciencey lady is right, it's not even an embryo. Just because you're too stupid to know the word blastocyst, doesn't mean that you should be using imprecise terms to push people over to your side. It's like all those "pro life" people who use the word "baby" all the time.

Honestly, Norman, the only ethical distinction between humans and OTHER animals is one of them and us. We are stronger and smarter and more technologically advanced, yes. But we're still just mammals so lets do it like the do on the Discovery Channel. Oh dear. I wish that image hadn't popped into my head. Eurgh. Norman Tebbit. Eurgh.

Seriously, perhaps it's because I grew up with a biology teacher for a daddy, but I can't believe the level of scientific illiteracy in journalism (and Doctor Who writers, for that matter *coughcoughRustycough*). I mean, I don't pretend to be a scientist by any means, but it's a matter of necessity to have some knowledge of how the world works, isn't it? How do people survive when they are so bloody ignorant and superstitious?

The winners of 2007's Darwin Awards have been announced. *sporfle* I love the guy on his laptop.

Anyone still undecided on the ID Card database thing? You're happy to give your biometric data to the secret police of a foreign power, then? (with apple-ogies to Uhmericin readers for inflammatory language)

Jesus and Mo dissect circular argument. I adore Jesus and Mo, heretical as they may be, for their clever demonstrations of the silliness of various aspects of organised religion. And not because the provider of wisdom is the barmaid in their local pub. Not at all.

Also, for those of you who have been following the organ donation row and wish to get one over on Gordon Brown before he nationalises your body, and stop the NHS from using your organs to save people's lives, click here. You register for that, and even if you don't trust the opt-out the state will still not be able to "steal" your empty husk body and use it to give other people a chance.

Heavy sarcasm aside, it's something I'm seriously considering. As I said on innerbrat's journal the other day, it gives me amusement to think of a bunch of medical students using my intestines for necklaces and playing catch with my kidneys. I might have to specify that they refer to my corpse as Doris, though.

So many people are bitching about Uncle Gordon's plan to make organ donation opt-out instead of opt in. I really, really don't understand. The state won't own your body when you die, because if you don't want to donate YOU CAN OPT OUT. Jehovah's witnesses won't be forced to donate if they don't want to, because THEY CAN OPT OUT. Anybody who has an objection, however slight, to their organs being used after death can opt out. Even if you just want to opt out to make a political point, you can (although, to be fair, endangering other people's lives to make a stupid political point seems a little churlish to me).

I would agree with the position that the individual should have final say over what happens to them. This proposition does not take that right away. You still have final say over what happens to you; the only difference is that for those who can't be arsed to make a decision, the presumption will be that they do want to save lives, rather than that they don't.

Somebody explain to me what the problem is?

So, some of you might be wanting to switch to a slightly more secure bank account after Clarkson's exciting news, and realising that your account number and sort code are freely visible to lots of people and stuff. My old Midland (HSBC) account has the sort code and account number as part of the switch number, for example.

Far be it from me to be preachy, but you could do worse than smile. They do the whole ethical investment thing (being the internet version of the Co-op bank), and are all green and cuddly, but most importantly you get a really high rate of interest on your current account. And yeah, the security is great. They have dropdown boxes for your security numbers so they can't be got by keystroke loggers. They let you select five security questions from a list of lots, and you are always asked a random one before you can even check your balance.

In other news, what is it with boys using the word "adequate" to describe my physical attributes as if it's a compliment??!

* headdesk *

Seriously, who would be grateful for being called adequate? Anyone?

* eyes tumbleweed rolling past *

Hello...?

It's rather disturbing when one's theoretically heterosexual fiancé gets invited to a Facebook Group called "Nick Clegg is More of a Hottie Than David Cameron Any Day" by another theoretically heterosexual male. I know that Lib Dems are enamoured of using FaceBook as a campaign tool, but really, even if you're taking the mickey (as that group clearly is), some things are not going to make you look good. And do you guys really think that yet another comparison of your glorious leader to Cameron is a good plan? If everyone thinks they're the same person then that weakens you catastrophically, surely?

Still, at least Facebook have listened to my earlier whinge and changed "fan of" to "supporter of" for politicians. Which means I'm getting loads of invites to become a supporter of X person... I'm with Mat on this one; if you're a Lib Dem and you value localism, you want your supporters to be local. This means that I still won't be becoming a supporter of any Lib Dem councillors in, for example, Ealing. Even if they buy me a really good birthday present ;)

Devil's Kitchen has whined about MPs pay. He kind of has some good points (I think MPs should spend less time legislating too, although not so they can spend time in other jobs, but so that they can spend more time doing constituency work and becoming more accessible to the electorate). But the assertion that we end up with the dross and the crap who can't actually make £60,000 plus £136,000 expenses in their normal professions if that is what we pay MPs is extremely offensive. Firstly, the assertion that everyone who earns less than £200k is dross and crap is something that makes me want to punch the right wing twat on his pompous nose. Secondly, as I said in the comment to Aaron Heath's entry, I get uncomfortable when people complain that other people are not worth the money they are paid and that their jobs are easy when they haven't actually walked a mile in their shoes, possibly because I have been on the receiving end of such accusations myself more often than I would like. I also think that the suggestion that MPs only do 160 days work a year is not only inaccurate, but dangerous. MPs might only sit in parliament for 160 days, but that doesn't mean they don't have surgeries, local campaigns, etc, to do in their constituencies. Asserting that this is not the case simply furthers the endemic disillusionment with politics which has been stalking abroad in this country for ages. I, personally, think that MPs should be paid more. That way we'd get people attracted to the job who have some measure of intelligence and talent, and less people like Hazel frigging Blears.

Speaking of accusations I have been on the receiving end of... Well, it wasn't really an accusation, but a friend of mine mentioned in an f-locked post his moral discomfort with a friend of his having a large age gap relationship (I'm not giving any more detail than that, since the post was locked, and I'll thank readers who are also on this friend's f-list for respecting that confidentiality also). I've been in a large age gap relationship. It didn't work out, but it lasted ten years, produced one child, and ended on friendly terms which remain friendly to this day. I was the initiator of the relationship. In fact, in my late teens, I went through a long phase of going for men in their thirties. Most of them were mildly uncomfortable about my age, because they thought that they would be on the receiving end of precisely the kind of moral discomfort my friend has. It annoyed me then, and it annoys me now. The younger person in a relationship might well be being exploited, but so might the older. My rationale for choosing older men was because they were 1, richer and 2, more grateful. *I* was exploiting *them*. On the other hand, maybe there's a genuine attraction and the relationship will be a happy one. Either way, if all parties are above the age of consent, I firmly believe that not one single person has the right to judge. Nice people don't judge others for having interracial or mixed religion or mixed weight or mixed height or same sex relationships, so why is it still acceptable to judge others for having an age gap larger than we, personally, are comfortable with? I suspect that position will not make me popular, but there it is.

Finally, something that's been bugging the lovely matgb and I, in a low level way, for a while now.



Why is there one corner of the Houses of Parliament which always remains unlit at night? It can't be that the bulb has gone: surely they'd have changed it by now?

ETA: actually, looking at that photo, it's two, isn't it? Weird.

Today, for no apparent reason, I made a resolution to give something up.

Yes, I know, it's not Lent; but nor am I Christian. And yes, I know, New Year is 63 and a bit days away (or more, if you're Chinese, or a completely different number if you're of various other cultures/religions), but I felt the need anyway. Perhaps it's down to my vague interest in NeoPagan things; although I'm militantly agnostic, I still find some comfort in ritual and tradition, and Samhain feels like new year to me. So, yes, I'm making a New Year's Resolution.

Today, I Are Be Mostly Givin' Up Chain Stores.

I had a bit of Stuff to Do in town today, and I thought I'd pick up some shopping while I was there. And it struck me: I don't actually NEED to go to the supermarket at all. I can buy bread from the bakery, and cheese from the cheese shop, and meat from the butcher, and there's a little organic and wholefood shop where I can get milk and extra veg... And to do this wouldn't be any more inconvenient or time-consuming than it is to get to and walk around Sainsbury's.

And then I thought about all the ethical benefits of supporting local business, and reducing my carbon footprint, and all that stuff. And I wondered why it has taken me so long to reach this decision? I think of myself as a fairly ethical shopper, I get my organic veg bag, I don't eat much meat (I think I've eaten more meat in the past week at matgb's Mum's house than I did in the previous five or six months LOL)... So why has it taken me this long to decide to do the obvious thing? What is the mental stranglehold that Sainers has over me, that makes me think of it as easier than going round town? It's not. It's further away, harder to get to, and it's not like it's any quicker to get around.

And then a further thought struck me. It's not just food. It's not just supermarkets. It's everything. B&Q. Woolies. Boots. Argos. The list goes on. All of them have little local equivalent stores that are as good, if not better, for most things. B&Q is a case in point. Yes, B&Q is huge, but that just means you have to carry things further to get them out of the shop. At the charmingly-named Oddjobs, they have a little man in a brown coat who does that for you. And they cut things to size free of charge. And anything they don't stock, they can get. The only reason I go to Boots is to get points on my card. But when was the last time I even LOOKED at the points total, never mind went to spend it?

If I buy the Ecover washing up liquid from Sainsbury's, I spend 3p less than if I buy it at the little organic wholefood shop. BUT, once I've bought it once at the wholefood shop, instead of throwing the bottle away, I can take it back there and they will refill it, charge me less, AND I'm being environmentally friendly by refilling the same bottle instead of a new one. This makes sense.

SO.

I have decided to give up chain stores. This means that, in the name of supporting local business and being green, I will not shop in any store that has more than five branches (this will allow me to keep buying things in the local bakery, which has four branches - two of which are in my home town LOL - but will prevent me going into Ninja Games, which will save me money).

Also, in other New Year-ish news, I have the urge (prompted but not caused by idiot neighbour, but the least said about that the better) to re-arrange the house. It's an odd sort of spring cleany feeling... Go figure.

NB: any links which may have been in the original entry are no longer there. Sorry.

( Originally Posted 10th December 2005 )