The British Weather

For god’s sake, what is really the problem?

Summer is upon us once again. The sun is shining (usually), the atmosphere is sizzling (sometimes) and the sky is cloudless (if you’re lucky). Yet while much of the developed world prepares to enjoy the summer months relaxing in the sun, the inhabitants of this sceptred isle keep up their perennial complaints about that most British of subjects, the weather.

‘Typical’, they say, as a recent downpour broke the seemingly eternal period of baking dry heat. ‘The bloody British summer’, they say;  ‘only in Britain’, keeping up the eternal habit of whining about the weather, no matter what it might be. It’s either too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, too snowy, too little snow… the list goes on.

What, pray, is the problem with the British weather? Frankly, I found the recent downpour rather refreshing and cooling after a long sunny period, which, while nice in small doses, does tend to make people rather lethargic. Besides which, if the sunshine and cloudless sky had not abated, I’ve no doubt people would have started complaining about the unbearable heat, drought conditions and hosepipe bans.

To be brutally honest, I can find little fault with the British weather generally. We’re damned lucky in this country to have a climate on one of the convergences of air streams, and with the gulf stream mixed in, giving us a unique climate that is wonderfully temperate, neither too hot nor too cold, with mild winters and summers, rendering extreme weather conditions, such as droughts, tornados and hurricanes, extremely rare. The worst thing we have to experience is flooding, which you really have to expect, living on an island in the North-West Atlantic. Besides which, I’m pretty sure one hell of a lot of people in the Indian Subcontinent during the rainy season wonder what the hell we’re all complaining about.

‘But it’s so bloody unpredictable and miserable’  I hear you cry. Unpredictable? Not particularly. You can make a weather forecast with 77% accuracy by simply saying tomorrow will be more or less the same as today, and a lot of other countries have similar weather swings to deal with. Besides which, to touch upon the point of the weather being miserable, I frankly think that a little unpredictability concerning rain and shine is one hell of a lot better than a certainty of a blizzard, drought or hurricane.

So why do the British continually complain about the weather? Well, to put it bluntly, it seems that we simply enjoy complaining. It’s part of the reason we’ve never really had a revolution to completely overthrow the previous system of government, or at least not permanently: when bread prices go up in France, they revolt; when bread prices go up in Britain, we whine and grumble, then go buy the bread anyway. Complaining about things and people is inbred to the British psyche, and is, I think rather a good thing: disagreement is good, it broadens the mind, and besides which, it gives us something to do. If the price I have to pay for that is eternal bitching about perfectly good weather, then so be it. I may have to invest in earplugs and a bottle of chloroform though…

Longing for Jefferson

Another day, another helping of deliciously scandalous info from the Daily Telegraph on the abuse of MPs’ expenses. Today’s objects of scrutiny: Sinn Fein MPs’ £500,000 for second homes, all the more unjustified for their complete lack of attendance at Westminster. No-one, not Labour, the Tories or even the sometimes seemingly whiter-than-white David Cameron has emerged from this crisis unscathed.

Now, at the risk of jumping on a bandwagon (which, at least as a hitchiker, I am), I have to say I too am appalled at the frankly ridiculous expenses claims some of our representatives are making. A Mr. Eric Pickles, currently serving as Chairman of the Conservative Party, claimed for a second home allowance despite living less than 40 miles from the Commons. While I by no means doubt that the majority of MPs go into politics to help change the world for the better, the general idea that one can feather one’s nest while fighting for the working class or suchlike seems patently ridiculous. No-one is expecting MPs to live out some sort of Spartan existence, committing themselves utterly to their constituency like some Leninesque-superpolitician, never pausing to live what most of us would consider a normal life; indeed, a normal life should really be a necessary qualification to be a politician, since those born and bred in the political arena often know little about the world they are taking momentous decisions about. Yet I do feel state-sponsored wanking is taking things a little too far.

The proposed reforms don’t sound too promising either. One of Gordon Brown’s pet ideas announced in his recent YouTube appearance (a frankly pathetic attempt to be ‘down with the kids’) was a daily allowance that MPs would get; each day they turned up would get them a set amount of cash.

What a ridiculous idea! Sign in, sign out, hand over the cheque, thank you very much, I’m off. Indeed, that is what happens regularly at the European Parliament in Brussels, where a similar scheme to that proposed is in place. Yet even considering the pitifully small chance that such a system would force MPs to turn up, would they really do anything? A far better measure of an MP’s activity is the number of bills they propose, or the votes they attend, or the motions they debate, yet even that is not perfect. Besides which, do we really want to encourage MPs to stick around as long as possible? Such a scheme would encourage them to draw out matters as long as possible, completely defeating the point of Parliament: to sit and deliberate only as long as is strictly necessary to maintain the good order of the country, and then to disperse.

Such cases make me dream for a vision of pure, unadulterated, incorruptible Jeffersonian democracy. The elected bodies of a nation should embody political debate, free thinking, trying to do the best for your people, your country and, with any luck, mankind as well. The founding fathers of the US political system, including ol’ Tom Jefferson himself, had such a dream, and created one of the best-constructed democratic systems ever envisioned upon this earth: separation of the executive, judicial and legislative bodies, universal suffrage (for white men – still a huge advance for the time) and human rights to freedom of expression, association, conscience/religion all embodied in the constitution. While there are still considerable flaws within the American model (elected judges, the overbearing influence of big business and the President’s ability to interfere in the Supreme court being among the most notable), the States are nonetheless still known throughout the world, despite its ill-conceived military ventures, as the ‘Land of the Free’.

Ah, but to dream of Utopia. I cannot help but be tempted by Thomas Paine’s idea whereby MPs can, in fact, claim nothing but expenses, the bare minimum which they require to get by while taken away from their work, which immediately cease when Parliament dissolves and they all return to their various homes. Politics would cease to be a career: only those who truly cared about making a difference, who did not seek to cover themself in the wealth or glory, would take up the struggle.

Of course, considering the vastly increased role of the state since Paine’s day, such thoughts are but a pipe-dream. Yet something must be done to rip apart this entitlement culture of Westminster, and preferably change a few other things while they’re at it; I cannot help but feel there is something wrong with a system which allows an MP to barely turn up at all to his workplace and to take time off appearing on *shudder* ‘Celebrity Big Brother’. I’m looking at you, Mr. Galloway.

RIP Cheap Food

The Independent today carried the headline ‘The Other Global Crisis’, superimposed on a bowl of rice. They, like many other news agencies, are picking up on a growing problem in this world of ours: food.

The days of gluttony and waste may soon be over. According to the Economist’s food price index, which treats 1845=100, the index is currently almost, if not over, 2000. Even in real terms, food prices have risen by over 75% since 2005. Households are starting to feel the strain on their wallets.

So, why such a rise? We first need to realise that the supposedly ‘reasonable’ prices we have enjoyed for so long are, in fact, ridiculously cheap. Mechanization of agriculture, as well as imports and exports through the global market, drove prices down to record lows. As for this current rocketing of price, there are several reasons. Most obviously, there are more people, and more people need more food, yet there is only so much arable land. The rise of biofuels as a crop also drives up price, as wheat and barley cannot be grown on land reserved to make ethanol (which adds to the growing argument against biofuels). Global warming, while not a major factor, plays a part in messing around with previously predictable weather patterns. Yet one of the largest is based on society – China and India, with their vibrant economies, are enjoying greater prosperity. This is often associated with western habits, and so many Chinese people shop at supermarkets and buy wheat products, a food type long the staple only of those in the western world.

So, what can we do to weather the storm? Three-quarters of the world’s poor live in rural areas, which are unsurprisingly mainly in the second and third worlds. Thanks to falls in agricultural investment and projects which support it, such as irrigation, poor countries which once exported food now import it. Yet this trend could be reversed if we were to free up agricultural trade, in part by reducing the farming subsidies in the West. A free market would encourage competition, and in turn better supply to all the world, as well as making the world a richer, fairer place.

At last, blasphemy laws are (nearly) gone!

Ding-dong, the blasphemy laws are (almost) dead! These vague, archaic laws will likely be repealed in an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill which was passed in the House of Lords 148-87, with even some bishops voting in favour.

And may I be the first to say: good riddance! These laws have no place in our modern, free world. Anyone should have the right to say what they wish about anything, regardless if some stuck-up people consider them ’sacred’.  Surely any almighty god is quite capable of defending him/her/itself? I’m an atheist, and have yet to be struck down by a thunderbolt or speeding lorry.

It is becoming ever more important to fight for free speech in the face of Islamic (and in some places Christian) fundamentalism. Many of you may have heard of the furore in the 1980s/90s that surrounded Salman Rushdie’s book ‘The Satanic Verses’. Outrage ensued amongst Muslims worldwide around allegedly ‘blasphemous’ references, and death threats and attacks ensued after a death sentence was issued against Rushdie in the form of a religious ‘fatwa’. The book was banned in many countries, including India, South Africa and Venezuela, and its author forced into hiding for nearly a decade.

This feeling has not gone away. Many muslims voiced strong objections to Rushdie’s (deserved) knighthood in June 2007. Islamic fundamentalism lives on, not only in Al-Qaeda but also in the police states of Saudi Arabia and Iran. The ‘bible belt’ of America continues to press for anti-evolutionary and homophobic laws.

We must fight these extremists always, no matter where or in what form they arise. Our freedom and the future of a free-thinking human race are at stake.

(P.S. I should point out that I am not an Islamophobe or any other kind of maniac ; I simply despise militant religion)

Incest – is it really always wrong?

Recently, Channel 4 broadcast the Cutting Edge documentary ‘Sleeping with my sister’. It documents the phenomenon known as Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA), in which re-united siblings, such as half-siblings separated at birth, feel strong romantic and sexual urges towards each other, often resulting in sexual relationships.

Of course, if it reaches this stage it is incest. Yet the laws on incest vary widely from country to country, and in the case of the USA even between states. Though incest between a parent and child is almost universally (and justifiably) illegal, consensual adult incest is legal in Belgium, France, Japan, Israel and some states in the USA. In Sweden, even marriage between siblings is legal, albeit requiring government permission.

This raises the question: is incest between two consenting adults morally wrong? A taboo on incest seems to have developed across the world, meaning is not only condemned but not even discussed. Yet in this modern world where the old barriers on homosexuality and sex outside marriage are being lifted, it is only a matter of time before incest comes to the fore as well.

What arguments, then, are there against sibling incest? Most religions condemn it as unholy, yet give little reasoning for such. The most rational argument against it is that incestous children are much more likely to suffer severe inheritable disabilities, yet this does not deal with those couples who cannot and/or do not want to produce children. Surely, if we are to take the much-used phrase ‘consenting adults’ to its logical conclusion, and create a truly liberated society, we must repeal such foolish laws such as the UK’s 7 year sentence on incest, and take any unnecessary state involvement out of people’s private lives.

Tibet – The saga continues

To open my first blog with the current big news story: Tibet. Once again Tibetans have risen up, resentful of Chinese rule, and once again China has crushed it with its trademark iron fist, shooting, beating and arresting the revolt to oblivion ; and all the while the Dalai Lama looks on helplessly as his country is torn apart.

Is it any wonder this has occurred? Ever since their invasion in 1949, China has ruthlessly imposed its Maoist ideals onto Tibet, creating the same police state that perpetuates the whole nation. Han Chinese migrants are given unfettered access to settle and take over Tibet, in some places actually outnumbering native Tibetans.

It is true that China has brought its economic prowess with it to Tibet. Yet this is in return for oppression and the destruction of the beautiful Tibetan culture, which rejects Chinese Atheist materialism in favour of Vajrayana Buddhism. The Dalai Lama, revered as a god by his people, meditates for over 4 hours per day, and many in Tibet and from around the world follow his example (I myself am an atheist, and yet can still find peace, calm and better thought).

Here, then, is the inherent flaw in the Chinese government’s reasoning. They seem to think that these uprisings are merely the work of a few trouble-making dissidents ; they cannot comprehend that Tibetans truly want to be independent and free to practice their own, unique way of life, even if that does mean giving up economic prosperity.

All this comes before the much publicised Beijing Olympics taking place in the summer, marred in controversy over human rights issues, pollution and, of course, Tibet. Some have called for a boycott of the games as retribution for these.

While I agree with these protesters’ aims, an unconditional boycott would do little to liberalise China. Rather, we should make our attendance at the Olympics dependent on several conditions being met, such as an immediate lift of the ban on foreign journalists in Tibet, improvements on air quality and the start of a ban on torture. Since the Olympics mean a great deal to China’s standing in the world, this would be much more likely to achieve results than an unconditional boycott or attendance without demands.