Links
-
Blogs, in vague order of updatedness/niceness
- Funny Lonely Life
- Something about a future God...
- Dave's Blog
- Penny Arcade
- Bash
- Questionable Content
- XKCD
Other links
Archives
- June 2003
- July 2003
- August 2003
- September 2003
- October 2003
- November 2003
- December 2003
- January 2004
- February 2004
- March 2004
- April 2004
- May 2004
- June 2004
- July 2004
- August 2004
- September 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- February 2007
- June 2007
- March 2008
It's only semi autobiographical
Friday, January 13, 2006
I take my hat off to you
Does this ring any bells? Perhaps only two people (aside from my housemates, who were also present) will know what this post is about.
I live but a few houses away from where you were, so I went back and left a note. The apology is genuine, I was the one that shouted as we went past. That was wrong of me. Nevertheless, I am impressed by the situation, and can not help but wonder if it was a one off or a regular occurence.
P.S you have no idea how tempted I am to write more about it here... But I suppose I should respect privacy, such as it is.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Notes
But more importantly I have found this cool note thing to play with.
Expect to see more of it in my forthcoming posts.
Lesbians
Also, I have worked out why I am not seeing the Google Ads, I use Firefox. Firefox blocks all kinds of popups and advertising, I would heartily recommend it.
Monday, January 09, 2006
Yet more on the armed forces
It also makes an interesting example of armed forces mentality, which is key in this debate. This is the idea of unquestioning obedience to authority. In the military, this is essential, in general. You do not want a group of soldiers to ask “why?” when you say, “Take that hill!”
As it happens, I think questioning someone who provides you is valid though. If you were to live at home while a partner brought in income, for whatever reason, I think you have a right to know whether that money is coming from robbing banks for example!
I am not going to go into this debate however, for I have a long, dull evaluation of this situation, which no one needs to be bored with.
D, you say, “Please do post your ideas for a new civilisation without conflict.” But I do not have any. That was kind of my point, the armed forces are necessary, but are they simply a necessity, or a necessary evil? I am also not saying there is a problem, and I agree that humans will always fight; it is part of our nature, and our evolution to defend ourselves. It is also part of our nature to take what we want from others, by force if needed, but our cultural evolution is reducing this.
Mr K, fighting to support your education is a choice, fighting to feed yourself (or your family) is not so much. I would also say that I do not wish our boys and women (you are not allowed to say “girls” in reference to female members of the forces, as this has been decided to be sexist. (This is bullshit in my opinion, but you know that.)) to come to any harm, but if I am honest, I feel the same about the people on the other side.
Wow, I really thought this debate would slip under the radar of all buy Andy and Lisa.
Matt, say something.
I’ll get to the clubbing eventually!
Friday, January 06, 2006
Clarifications
Had an ace night out involving scandals last night, and there are several things I would like to write about, including the 150% comment, however, I think I shall first take a moment to talk about my last post, and the comments following it.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
The crime of war
The armed forces are an organisation that brings, by and large, suffering to the world.
Funny thing is, many people were saying, at the outset of the war in Iraq, that they did not support the reasons for going to war, but now that the troops were out there, they supported our brave lads. I do not know why they said that, perhaps it was because they did not want to be seen as uncaring, or unpatriotic. Perhaps they had genuine empathy for those whose lives were at risk.
I, however, have come to the opposite conclusion. There is a clear need for our armed forces, they provide us with safety, and work as a fulcrum for what leverage we have in the world today. In the current world climate, having an army, navy and airforce is no luxury, and I understand why some people insist on pouring public money into it. It is a tool we need, just as America needed its nuclear weapons in the cold war.
This does not make it a good thing.
The people who serve in the forces are needed, not all weapons of war can be automated after all. We need people brave enough, disciplined enough to lay down their lives on demand, to protect just an inch of our soil.
Are they heroes because of this? Would they still be heroes if they did not serve in the forces?
Just look at the situation with the United States Army, torture, beatings, a degrading attitude to the Arabic people, prisoners and, given the latest information I have seen, one another.
I can only hope that the same is not true in our own forces, for that would stretch the limit of my patriotism far past its breaking point. I do not know anyone serving in the current conflicts, so I can not pass judgment.
When you ignore the fact that you have a loyalty to your own troops, and look at it objectively, what do you have in a war? You have two (to keep it simple) rival factions fighting, with lethal force, over an issue, be it territory, honour, ideology, resources, or any other reason you care to name.
It was the word territory that made me think "gang warfare" which is, essentially, the same thing. Yet the same people who tell you that what we are doing with regards to war is right, will surely tell you gang warfare is wrong.
If it is wrong to hold each soldier to acount for each of his actions, then perhaps it is also wrong to attatch merit to them.
Reductively, think of it like this. Two men are fighting over something, a strip of land in their back gardens, say, and it may well be valuable, perhaps it has an old oak tree in it. The men reach breaking point, both go to their houses and take out guns, shoot, and...
Who do you hope wins? Is this situation right? Lets make it easier, man A is legally in the right, man B is not, but feels morally right, perhaps his great grandfather planted the tree in question. Now who is right?
Everyone hates lawyers (in general) but they seldom operate outside the law. Robin Hood was an outlaw, but loved by many. And yet the excuse for going to war is that a country may have broken international law... What decides which morals we should follow.
As normally happens, I have written this in pieces, interdispered with discussion, over the course of several hours, so I reserve the right for it to be disordered and making little sense in places.
This is clearly a longer debate than I have time to write about now. But think about it. I know I will.
