The Virtual Gigolo

Why do some people go out of their way to prove others right?

A bishop who claimed Islamic extremism has turned some communities into no-go areas for non-Muslims has received threats against himself and his family.

Does this remind us that racism is still alive and well in the world:

Key to Mr Obama’s victory was the support of African-American voters, who made up about half the electorate and four-fifths of whom supported him, according to exit poll data. About 17% supported Mrs Clinton.

Mr Obama also won about a quarter of the white vote, compared to just under 40% each for Mrs Clinton and Mr Edwards.

This is an issue that has come up again in the last few days thanks to Gordon Brown’s enlightened comments on the subject. As a result of the news around the issue, the predictable complaints have appeared using such dirty phrases as “set a dangerous precedent” or “the thin end of the wedge”. One writer appearing on the letters page of today’s Metro here in London even goes so far as to say “Presuming Consent is dangerous and not consistent with the values we often talk about in this country.” The only value that modern Britain epitomises and that this concept is inconsistent with as far as I can see is that of selfishness. Surely that’s all that refusing consent for organ donation is? I realise many people feel they have good reasons, but when they are refusing to allow something to happen for other peoples benefit, what other word is appropriate?

The most bizarre argument, however, appears to be that presumed consent is “an infringement of our freedom to practise our faiths”, and similar wording that appears elsewhere. How can that be? It is true that it is an idea that doesn’t follow the way of thinking of every minority, and is not likely to be agreed on by everyone, but it is hardly a policy of enforcement either. When a policy is created that follows the thinking of the majority, benefits a vast number of people, and only requires those who disagree to sign a form to say they opt out, with no stigma whatsoever attached to that, how on earth can the policy be seen to be infringing on anyone’s freedom? This sort of argument surely is religious selfishness gone mad. One’s own freedom to be able to practise one’s religion does not require that no work at all has to go in to that. Would a Muslim try to argue that having to ask for leave to pray during an extended meeting would be unreasonable, rather he should be able to simply walk out of the room?

Of course, it is important that, given an opt out scheme, the individual opting should not be required to specify why he is opting out. At that point it is reasonable to believe that people are being forced to share information that they might wish to keep private.

To ensure that no working day passes without its own degree of surrealism today’s discussion has reached the important subject of the Incendiary Pig. These noble creatures charged headlong, with no thought for their own safety, towards hordes of marauding war elephants. Set on fire, the squeals emanating from the mouths of the pigs would scare the elephants and cause disarray among the ranks.

Peace and quiet, you’re lying dozing happily in bed during the early hours of what will surely be a sunny Turkish day, and then, all of a sudden, out of the blue some nut case starts shouting from a loudspeaker at the top of a tower a few hundred yards away breaking you from your slumber. Clearly I have no real right to complain, given that it’s their country and I was just visiting, but I have a right to moan!

My real issue with this is at two levels, the first is that they use loudspeakers, and are therefore cheating. The people who do that should go to hell for laziness in the provision of the call! To my huge disappointment, even at the giant almost tourist mosques loudspeakers are used. It would seem not to be an unreasonably suspicion that they don’t even have a person at a microphone and instead use a tape recording (bought from “Imams ‘r’ us”, presumably) to make it particularly easy on them.

The second issue that bothers me is that the call appears to be in Arabic (though maybe not always, it’s hard to tell). Clearly not a problem in an Arabic speaking country, unfortunately Turkey is not such a place. During the early years of the Turkish republic, one of the changes their forward thinking leadership made was that the call to prayer should be in Turkish, not an unreasonable request, you might think. Why, after all, call people in a language foreign to not only foreigners but locals as well? Unfortunately this law was rescinded later in a concerted effort to make sure that no one has any suspicion that Allah might not be an Arabic god.

Taken from here:

An 8-year-old Morris-area boy died late Sunday evening when the ATV he was driving near his family’s house rolled over several times. Graham’s father and mother, Wes and Sherri Siemens, gave him CPR, but he died in their arms. Siemens said his son was a born-again Christian with a good personal relationship with Jesus Christ. He added that the message of Graham’s death for Christians is to “get real before God” and for non-Christians, to examine where they’ll spend eternity when they die.

I can’t help but feel that the message from his death was “don’t let 8 year old drives dangerous motor vehicles”, but that’s just me…

Or so says the BBC, the rest of the article is slightly clearer as to the meaning, though.

In a true act of fairness, the Texas state legislature has decided to support the highest possible principles and edit the state pledge in such a way as to exclude large sections of its population. What kind of ridiculous person would need the word “God” in their pledge to feel an attachment to their state? What kind of arrogance does one require to feel that it’s perfectly ok to assume that the population will either enjoy the addition, or be willing to opt out and, as a young child, feeling you have to follow or opt out can only cause division.

That’s without even considering the pledge as a whole, an idea largely maintained in dictatorships and something that simply shouldn’t be necessary in civilised society. Land of the free indeed…

A difficult decision has been made, according to various news sources (notably the BBC), Prince Harry will be sent to Iraq. This decision is apparently according to his own wishes, but has been made personally by the head of the army, General Sir Richard Dannatt. Time will tell whether or not this is a good decision. It seems to me, however, that sending Harry to Iraq is much like giving a matador a red flag when his task is not to draw the attention of the bull. Surely the most important decision to make, and it may be one that has been made, is that were the Prince to be captured, no rescue attempt should be enacted other than that which might occur for any other captured soldier. Most important of all is to not have Harry endanger other soldiers unnecessarily by his presence, and any suspicion that his capture or death would cause particular worries for the hierarchy will lead to his being targeted with particular concentration of effort.

Another question one would like to see answered, is that of whether the British public would be affected greatly by his capture or death. How much monarchistic feeling is there remaining among the public. I like to think he would be thought of as any other soldier, the death of whom is always sad, but merely in a general unattached sense, but I could so easily be wrong.

A few minutes of fame for us. Nice to see. Thanks to Ash and Ivanka for the capture job.