The BBC’s bullying tactics

I actually find myself applauding Simon Cowell’s diplomatic approach to this silly battle between ITV and the BBC.

The BBC is funded by the general viewing public, with the TV license fees.  Therefore, it does not rely on commercial advertising.  It has a distinct advantage over its competitors and it knows it.  Despite being taxpayer funded, though, it does not seem that the BBC is serving the people.

First, the BBC prevented Barbara Windsor from appearing on Piers Morgan’s show on ITV (afraid of competition).  So, in revenge, ITV banned Ant & Dec from appearing on Jonathan Ross’ BBC show.  Now, the BBC are putting Strictly Come Dancing in direct competition with The X Factor, the two most popular TV shows.  For the record, I couldn’t really care less about any of these celebs or shows, but the actions of these rival networks are childish.  And, in the BBC’s case, it is almost a monopoly.

The BBC does not need TV ratings.  It will survive regardless.  ITV is in trouble due to the recession.  It’s almost like the BBC is out for blood and trying to destroy its closest competitor.  They’re even trying to woo celebs like Dec & Ant to join them after their ITV contract expires.

It surprises me to find that Cowell wants to avoid a clash and suggests that ITV (his network) back down.  That’s one way to avoid being torn to pieces by a bully.  But, it also makes you more vulnerable the next time.  The BBC should be accountable to their viewers and behave in a more dignified way.

Hair straighteners to encourage girls to participate in PE?

What is this about adding hair straighteners in schools to encourage more girls to participate in physical education?

Isn’t PE required of all students?  Can girls really opt out just because it would ruin their hair?  Why hair straighteners?  Is that the new fad?

When I was in school, you had to participate.  Depending on the sports involved, you also had to shower.  Of course, that was in the US.  But, my husband’s experience on this end was similar, or even more intense.

I’m not complaining about the expenditure.  It wasn’t much for a trial run.  But what will this lead to?  I know schools want to do everything to promote a positive self-image for everyone, but the idea that allowing girls to primp themselves after PE will get them to participate is silly. 

My daughter is in gymnastics.  All the girls there have to tie their hair back.  In their workouts, their hair will come loose and they will have to fix it.  But, they bring in whatever they need to take care of it.  I’m sure if “hair” is the real excuse for these other girls, they would do the same.  However, if the motivation for avoiding PE is something different, adding hair straighteners will not solve the problem.  It may take away one excuse.

But, if PE is required, why do schools need to encourage more girls to participate?  Why is there so much obsession over looks?  Generations have had to deal with that and they got by. Everyone knows that the more strenuous the physical activity, the more likely that your hair will be messed up; and no one can criticise your hair if you have been working out. On PE days, don’t dress your hair like you’re going out on a hot date.

Maybe the best way to promote positive self-image is to encourage girls to accept their looks and not doll themselves up.  After all, it can be a shocker for some people to discover what’s under all that makeup and hair.

Is Osama bin Laden really ready to talk?

I’d like to believe that Al-Qaeda is willing to sit and talk.  It seems somewhat hopeful, even if they are still suspicious of Barack Obama.  I know you don’t negotiate with terrorists, but would it be considered negotiation at this stage?

We seem to have reached the point of stalemate with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Though the Iraqi war is “over”, there are still hostilities and Afghanistan is nowhere near a position of stability.  It’s a tug o’ war effort.

The message that Osama bin Laden has supposedly sent to the US seems to imply that he may have come to realise that all this warring may be fruitless to both sides.  Many of us have seen that light for a while, even if we still hold on to our stance of support for war, because to do otherwise would be to give in to the terrorists.  However, if the other side is showing signs of relenting, should we not reconsider?

Any steps should be carefully measured though.  The Islamic extremists want Israel on the table.  Quite understandable – it has been a raging battle for generations.  The Israelis and the Palestinians both belong to the region.  Something does need to be done to give the Palestinians their own land and their own government.  However, there needs to be some guarantees of Israeli safety in a region that is predominantly Muslim.  Unfortunately, the Middle Eastern world sees the western support and protection of Israel as a direct opposition to them.  Furthermore, the new Israeli government appear to be entrenched in the old mindset and rigidly unbending.

So, would it be wise to call a truce and discuss moving onwards with peace in the region?  I would gladly welcome the day when we can be able to do that, because I believe that the Middle East as well as Afghanistan/Pakistan could benefit greatly if both sides were to work together and improve conditions for the peoples there.  The hardest part would be to put aside all the prejudices and suspicions on all three sides: the western countries, the Islamic world, and Israel.

Rights and Responsibilities Part 2: Travel

No one will deny that everyone has a right to the pursuit of happiness.  One of those pursuits may be travelling.  However, with that right, there should be some responsibilities.

Take, for example, the British woman (Samantha Orobator) who was caught in Laos with too much cocaine.  Never mind the legality of using or transporting cocaine, which she admitted to.  She had the right to choose the life she led.  However, when she got into trouble through her own fault, she expected her country to come to her aid.  Of course, that is why there are embassies around the world.  But, charities working on her behalf, rushing to her aid, getting everyone worked up about her rights, when she put herself in that predicament, was unbelievable. It wasn’t as if she was innocent and needed people to stand up for her.

Then, there were the two Americans (Laura Ling and Euna Lee) who crossed into North Korea and arrested.  They were reporters, so they should have understood the tensions in North Korea.  Heedlessly, they entered and it took Bill Clinton, the former US president, to intercede on their behalf.  Perhaps, the diplomacy involved may have helped not only Clinton, but US-North Korea relations as well.  On the other hand, it may have given North Korea an upper hand.

And, very recently, we have the British-Irish New York Times journalist (Stephen Farrell) who was kidnapped by the Taliban.  He had been kidnapped previously and rescued.  He was warned about entering the Taliban stronghold, yet risked his own as well as his translator’s life.  And, in the end, his rescue effort cost three people their lives.

None of these people took responsibility for their actions.  They do not seem to understand the adage, “You made your bed, now sleep in it.”  I have absolutely no sympathy for people who create their own problems, then expect others to bail them out.  They might think they were being heroic, they might think they were invincible, but I think they were all idiots.  When people do stupid things, they deserve to suffer for their irresponsible behaviour.  I have no sympathy for them.  I won’t say I’m perfect.  In fact, I’m not.  I make mistakes, do stupid things, and I face the music.  Why can’t these same people do likewise?  Instead, they get their fifteen minutes of fame.  And they make their governments look ridiculous.

Vetting volunteer parents is going overboard

This idea of requiring parents who voluntarily drive children around for clubs, schools, and other organisations to be vetted properly is utterly ludicrous. 

Yes, I agree that preventing paedophiles from having access to our children is important, but isn’t this idea rather extreme and an over-reaction to an incident where a school caretaker murdered two children?  In that particular case, it was the school’s fault for not investigating allegations against the caretaker.

Some authors have already felt insulted enough by the idea that they will stop making school visits.  How many parents will be turned off so that they will not volunteer to help with transportation?  It is the principles of the plan that is absurd and insulting.

The plan does not cover informal arrangements by parents, so why can’t the government just leave the parents and schools to work out these informal arrangements rather than expecting regular parent-transporters to be registered with the Vetting and Barring Scheme? 

And how will this scheme be enforced?  Will there be additional people employed at schools to guarantee that the procedures are followed?  Will there be additional people employed to register the millions that will need to be vetted under this scheme? Is this part of the government’s job creation scheme?

In science and medicine, studies determine how many people need to be treated or screened before the benefit justifies a medication or test.  If we were to apply the same principles to government, will the Vetting and Barring Scheme be worth the cost?  How many people need to be vetted in order for us to prevent one case of child murder or catch a paedophile? 

Paedophiles and murderers do not commit their crimes so obviously by kidnapping a child when everyone knows that the child was in their care.  Of course, proponents will argue that this scheme will prevent such criminals from having access to vulnerable children.  But, the case above excepted, how many paedophiles and murderers in the past actually had easy access to children?  The majority of cases will be committed by strangers who may have been stalking or taking advantage of an opportunity.  Had we had a rash of cases committed by school visitors or parents, I would be the first to argue that such a scheme would work.  But, as it is, this is just another example of unnecessary government interference.  Why can’t they come up with more useful ideas?

Public nudity is legal?

A man posed nude on a plinth in Trafalgar Square as part of an arts exhibit.  When a complaint was made, officers decided not to intervene.  The complainant was told that the man did nothing illegal.  Very interesting.

The man had checked to make sure before he undressed in public, so it’s highly likely that there is no law against public nudity.  However, I find that shocking. 

I have nothing against the human body, but modesty should be preserved in public.  How could it be wrong for nudity to be present on TV during times that children may be watching, yet it’s okay for someone to be nude in public?  How could it be wrong for people to be nude on the beach in Brighton, except in the designated naturist beach, but okay in London?

Will suing the BNP accomplish anything?

The BNP is going to court.  Though I am not a supporter, as I’ve stated many times before, I still do not see the point of all this.

If the BNP are illegal, why were they granted the right to be a political party in the first place?  And, once granted, why were their members discriminated against in the job market?

And, let’s say that they lose their court battle and are forced to change their stance against other races.  Will any other race want to join?  Their political aim is for the advancement of the White British race.  Will members of other races work to support that?

What is the real purpose of this court case?  To eliminate the BNP as a political party once and for all?  What will happen to the two seats they’ve won in the EU Parliament?  Is this another instance of wasting taxpayers’ time and money?

If they want the BNP to include other races in their workforce/membership, that should be easy for the BNP to comply.  If they want them to change their political agenda, that’s intimidation.  No one is forcing any other political party to accept or reject a particular agenda.  And, the BNP is a minor party with a nil chance of ever forming a government.

And, once they’re done with the BNP, will they go after other groups, like the Christian Alliance? Maybe the Christian Alliance doesn’t discriminate against race or anything else; but would Muslims and Hindus join the Christian Alliance?

Lesbians’ rights on birth certificates is ridiculous

Equal rights is a good thing.  But, sometimes, I feel as if it gets completely out of hand.  There are certain rights that are indisputable and everyone should be treated equally in accordance with those rights.  But, there are other things that everyone needs to accept that will never have an equality.  And one of those things is parentage.  A woman will never be a father, nor a man a mother.

That is not to say that they cannot be accorded certain privileges that they are now entitled to, in accordance with many of the equal rights laws that have come into effect.  But, those laws need to be defined in better terms.  For example, a lesbian should be given her maternity leave as appropriate.  Her partner should be accorded similar parental rights as a father – that means paternity leave, not maternity leave.  Similarly, when a gay couple adopt a baby, both may be able to get paternity rights.  Why not maternity?  Because, neither gave birth and neither can breastfeed.  They should be treated the same way as a single father.

But, to allow both partners of a homosexual relationship to declare themselves as parents on a birth certificate is beyond belief.  A birth certificate serves as a legal document, detailing the natural parentage of the child.  In this day and age, when people have a lot of interest in discovering their lineage, it would be impossible for a child to discover his/her ancestors when this document only serves to further the rights of the parents.  (How will the kids reconcile this when they learn about sex and procreation when they grow up?) The rights of the lesbian partner takes precedence to the rights of the sperm donor on the certificate.  The partner can assume this right, even if she is not even in a civil relationship with the birth mother. 

What next?  Will homosexual males who ask a woman to be a surrogate mother then be able to have both their names on the birth certificate, excluding the birth mother?  After all, if it’s to be equal rights, what’s good for the lesbians should be good for the gays.

Rights and Responsibilites Part 1: Healthcare

We hear so much about “rights” in the media.  Somebody fighting for some basic “rights”, debates about personal “rights”.  But we hear so little about “responsibilities”.  When you apply for jobs, or get a bill, or get statements about accounts, you see a section called “Rights and Responsibilities”.  That is because the two go hand-in-hand.  Yet, it seems that most people don’t think about “responsibilities” when they think about “rights”.

Most people can’t even differentiate because rights and privileges.  That is because there really is no such thing as privilege anymore.  Anything seen as a privilege is instantly shot down in this politically correct world. So, everything has become a “right”.

With that in mind, let’s just look at some of these “rights”.  We all have rights to health care.  Fair enough.  But, how much of it is a right?  Some would argue that all health care is a “right” and that no one should be turned down for anything just because of lack of funds.  That is a noble stand.  I agree that it is a shame to withhold medical treatment for purely financial reasons.  But, is there enough funding to continue with that stand?  Residents are entitled to free NHS care “because they pay their taxes” is an argument for free healthcare.  But, what about those who have never paid taxes?  Surely, they are not excluded?  Don’t they have a “right” to free healthcare?  And how far can we take treatment?  Is it a “right” for anyone and everyone to get life-extending treatment even when it is futile and costly?  These are ethical questions that then become legal battles.

On the flip side, what about responsibilities?  If you have a “right” to free health care, shouldn’t there be accompanying responsibilities to ensure that you maintain your health?  Such as following instructions by your doctor to take medications, follow treatment plans and follow-ups, and proper diet and exercise.  There is flagrant abuse of the system when people destroy themselves and then expect the healthcare system to fix everything. 

Case in point (an extreme case): recently, a young man was hospitalised for acute liver failure after a binge-drinking session.  While in hospital, he walks out and enters a pub across the street, attempting to order alcohol.  He was not served alcohol and authorities were alerted and he was taken back to hospital.  His father is understandably upset by the incident, and furthermore, as a good father, he is fighting to overturn a recommendation that liver transplant patients must abstain from alcohol for at least 6 months before getting a transplant.  This young man’s life is in acute danger.  Doctors have given him 2 weeks.  Therefore, he would be dead before he can get a transplant.  He is a binge-drinker, not a chronic drinker, and he may have been suffering some confusion related to the acute liver failure.  Or, he may have some psychiatric disturbance.  Either way, he has no idea why he left the hospital and attempted to get alcohol.  I feel for the father.  It is obvious he is concerned enough to fight for his son to get a liver transplant to save his life.  But, does he have a “right” to this transplant?  The number of liver donors is low; With alcoholism being a serious problem in the UK, that number becomes even lower.  Is it right to give a transplant to someone who may not be able to live up to his responsibilities to protect that transplant?

Of course, the answer to this case is not to make it available only to those who can afford it.  That would only lead to black market transplants.  But, the reason that recommendations are in place is to ensure that those who receive these scarce but life-saving measures are the best candidates. Too many people die waiting for transplants as it is.

Another case in point: An American woman has been granted a rich payout from a tobacco company, on behalf of her mother, who died from longterm tobacco use.  Or, in other words, tobacco abuse.  Of course, the argument was that the tobacco company was liable for the effects of tobacco and fraudulent in its advertising.  Though I would never defend the tobacco industry, is it right that they should pay out to survivors of those who smoked?  The health effects of smoking and tobacco have been highlighted for so long now, that those who really wanted to quit, could have sought help.  Smoking is addictive and it may be very difficult to quit.  Furthermore, lung damage from smoking takes years to reverse, if at all.  So, tobacco companies may be liable for some of the problems, but $13-million worth? 

Some people assert their right to smoke, or their right to decline medical treatment, or their right to make poor choices.  Where is the responsibility in that?  Then, when they run into trouble, they expect that medical treatment will put them right again?

Despite what one believes about fundamental rights to healthcare, it should be acknowledged that many specialists practice outside of the NHS and receive higher pay from private insurance and individuals.  This is an attractive option for many specialists who are at the top of their field, so is access to medical care really equal for all?  Should it be?

English proficiency required

I know that people responding to blog articles may not necessarily spell-check everything they write, but they should at least read over what they’ve written before posting it.  It is very irritating reading a bunch of misspellings and incorrect words and trying to get an understanding of the writer’s thoughts.  If this is what the English education has churned out, it’s no wonder people complain about the standards of education declining.  If you think Americans speak pidgin English, you should read some blogs and their responses.

Typos are common.  Even the best typist can sometimes interchange letters while typing very fast.  Not all these mistakes can be caught right away.  Incorrect usage of homophones are also very common, but they are usually quite apparent if you read over it once.  Some common mistakes are “their” and “there”, or “your” and “you’re”, or “its” and “it’s”.  However, sometimes when I read some of these blogs and responses, it appears that the writer doesn’t even have a clue that they’re using the wrong homophone, because they are continually making the same mistake.  Another mistake is the incorrect usage, or lack thereof, of the apostrophe.  One of the biggest mistakes I’ve read involve the word “of” when the correct word (whether the writer knows it or not) is “have”.  Examples: “they should of” instead of “they should have”.  The correct contraction is “should’ve”, pronounced “should of”, but is really “should have”. 

I’m not an English teacher, and I learned American English.  So, of course, there will be differences in spelling and pronunciation of many words, not to mention the differences in vocabulary.  But I cannot believe that some basic English rules, such as the above, could possibly be that different.  For other things, such as, “noone” and “no one”, I still don’t know if the British accept alternate spellings.  No one in the US would spell “noone” on purpose unless it was someone’s name, and it would be pronounced “noon”.

Why do I bother?  Because English was not my first language, but it has become my primary and only language.  I can understand if someone is learning the language and genuinely makes a mistake; but for native speakers to make those mistakes is aggravating.  If they don’t bother to learn it well, why should a foreigner?  If I have to prove to prospective employers that I can read, write, speak and listen in English proficiently, just because I’m an immigrant in this country, I’d like to see that the natives can do even better.