Why Are They Swarming All Over David Cameron?

I am not a fan of the Conservative Party and even less of a fan of David Cameron.  That said, I saw nothing wrong with his description of migrants trying to enter our country as a "swarm".  He was clearly using a metaphor to indicate the number of migrants approaching our shores.  There is nothing wrong with that.  Not everyone agrees, though.  For the sake of that one word, Mr Cameron has come under fire from members of the politically correct brigade.

Harriet Harman, who has said "he should remember he is talking about people and not insects" should be reminded of the idea of metaphor.  I'm sure that Ms Harman must have covered it in English class when she was at school.  She must have been taught it at some point.  "A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable".  That's what a metaphor is.  The Refugee Council could do with a similar reminder given that they have pronounced his description "dehumanising" and "irresponsible".

Mr Cameron did make it clear that he was talking about people when he said "a swarm of people coming across the Mediterranean, seeking a better life, wanting to come to Britain" so how exactly did he dehumanise anyone?  How was it irresponsible?  How many insects does Ms Harman know that seek a better life anywhere, let alone in Britain?

It's a shame that Mr Cameron's critics lack the intelligence required to understand the use of metaphor but that certainly appears to be the case here.  There are going to be plenty of opportunities to criticise both Mr Cameron and the Conservative Party before the next election but this is not, or should not have been, one of them.

If God Defines Marriage, Exactly How Does He Define It?

There are conservative Christians in the United States who are really getting their knickers in a knot over the Supreme Court of the United States making same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states.  I have seen some fairly extreme reactions on Facebook in the days since the ruling on Friday.  "God defines marriage, not the courts" is one example.  Really?  Do you know how God defines marriage in the Old Testament?  It is not all one man with one woman, you know.  There is:

• plural marriage (I could give many references here but to give just one, try Deuteronomy 21:15-17.  You don't legislate for something that never happens.)
• levirate marriage [nothing to do with baby hares; those are leverets] (Deuteronomy 25:5-9)
• the taking of a female prisoner of war as a wife [the wife has no choice in the matter, by the way] (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)
• concubines [women with a lower status than a wife] (Various people had concubines in the Bible, including an unnamed Levite in Judges 19.)
• marrying a virgin that you have raped if caught in the act [and never being able to divorce her] (Deuteronomy 22:28, 29)  {Note: if there are any conservative Christians (or, in fact, any Christians at all) who would prefer this to be law instead of same-sex marriage, then they will never be any friends of mine.}

And a few mandates related to marriage:

• the Biblical penalty for adultery (a man sleeping with another man's wife) is death (Deuteronomy 22:22)
• if an engaged woman is raped in a town and does not cry for help, she is stoned to death as well as the man (Deuteronomy 22:23, 24)
• if an engaged woman is raped in the country, only the man is put to death (Deuteronomy 22:25-27)

So when conservative Christians tell the rest of us "God defines marriage" or that it is "God's design, not man's redesign", they might just want to check their Bible on exactly what constitutes marriage according to the Bible.

There are other comments that conservative Christians have made since the SCOTUS ruling that when I read them, I don't know whether to facepalm, laugh or cry.  All three, maybe.  For example, you get people steadfastly proclaiming that no law or court will make them change who they are or what they believe.  Is anyone really asking them to change who they are or what they believe?  Or is that just their reaction to what has happened?  After all, same-sex marriage being legal in all 50 states is not about changing anyone's beliefs or even changing the minds of those who are against it.  It is about the right to marry someone of the same sex.  It is not about the feelings and beliefs of conservative Christians or any other religious group.  It is about the right to marry.  It is about putting right something that has been wrong for a long time.


Hopefully the conservative Christians will have vented their spleen enough soon and stop.

Some French Students Have Trouble Coping With English

A petition has been started on Change.org by a French student asking for a question on the English exam of the baccalaureate to be annulled or for extra marks to be awarded to those who did answer it.  Why?  Apparently the question has been deemed "impossible to answer" because they did not know one word in the question, the word "coping".  Seriously?  They want a question annulled for that?  That makes it impossible to answer?  According to the petition starter, it could only be understood by someone bilingual.  These are French students doing an English exam.  Am I missing something here?

The exact context of the word "coping" was asking how a character from Ian McEwan's novel Atonement who was falsely accused of rape was "coping with the situation".  This apparently was a source of great confusion to the beleaguered French students.  What I find odd is the claim that "coping" is "not a very common word" and requires "excellent" English.  Hardly.  It is a common English verb that does not require excellent English at all.  Floccinaucinihilipilification, on the other hand, is a perfect example of "not a very common word".  When was the last time you heard that in ordinary conversation.  I'm betting never.  And you might never come across it again.  It's just one of those words that exists but never gets an outing.  But I digress.

It is just possible, though, that "coping" was confused with another word and not recognised as the progressive form of the verb "to cope".  There is a noun "coping" which means "the top, typically curved or sloping, course of a brick or stone wall".  That could conceivably be considered "not a very common word" (but more common than floccinaucinihilipilification).  But that is not what "coping" means in this context.  It is definitely the progressive form of the verb "to cope".

So what do we learn from this?  Not all Europeans are as good at English as we think they are and not all petitions on Change.org should be taken seriously.

Gun Control And The United States

How long is it going to be before the United States wakes up to the idea of gun control?  In the space of about a week there has been the report of both a 3-year-old shooting himself and a 21-year-old shooting people in a church.  Is this really what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they framed the Second Amendment?  I have no idea what they had in mind when they enshrined "the right to bear Arms" into the Constitution of the United States, but I cannot imagine that it was a hellish reality where civilians can obtain guns and commit random killings when "the silicon chip inside [their] head gets switched to overload" and the worst thing that happens to a white cop who kills an unarmed black person is that he loses his job.

Is there some reason why America fears gun control?  If so, what is it?  I might be wrong and they might not fear it.  But the fact that America does not have stringent gun control after over 200 years does rather suggest that they have a problem with it.  So I have to ask, how many more people have to die at the altar of "the right to bear Arms" before the Land of the Free finally realises that this system just is not working for them?  After 200-odd years, haven't enough people died already?  Or is it going to take another 200 more years before gun control laws are finally passed.  I hope not.  But only America can decide that.

Talented And Northern Can Go Together

I read an article yesterday morning about "elite firms" in the UK preferring "privileged candidates".  We are halfway through the second decade of the 21st century and still the idea that talent and privilege go hand in hand persists, at least in some quarters.  Why, I have no idea.

There are elite firms that have used such criteria as "the candidate's accent and experience of travelling".  Because both of those are such valuable indicators of a person's ability to do a job.  Well, actually, no.  They mean nothing when it comes to how well they can work with others or do their job without playing about on Facebook or Twitter.  They could be absolutely useless in the job.  But as long as they have the "right" accent and have travelled widely, right?

There is a side effect of this cherry picking of candidates, though.  As if that were not bad enough, those of us who do not fit the narrow definition of the profile are defined as "disadvantaged".  Are we really?  Is it really a disadvantage to have an accent that fits in with a regional drama?  Or a disadvantage to have travelled less than someone else?  Or a disadvantage to have less money than someone else?  If you are an interviewer with an "elite firm" then I suppose so.  But that is about the interviewer's perception.  They perceive these things to be a negative in the context of weeding out candidates for a job with their firm.  But outside the context of applying for a job with that firm?  No.  Anyone of any background of any accent can make it in life if they just have the drive to succeed.  But apparently some firms do not recognise this.  Maybe they will eventually.  Probably by about 3015.

A Queer Response To Marriage Equality

I read an article this morning about a Christian couple in Australia who are going to divorce if same-sex marriage is going to be made legal there.  They have the idea that marriage is from God and, in their own words, "refuse to recognise the government’s regulation of marriage if its definition includes the solemnisation of same sex couples".  But the thing is, governments do regulate marriage.  They pass marriage laws that define what marriage is.  And those laws can be changed.  Expanding who can marry does not affect those who are currently married.  And it is just an expansion.  Instead of just limiting marriage to male-female couples, Australia, like other parts of the world before it, is considering expanding marriage to same-sex couples.  That does not affect this Christian couple in any way, shape or form, so I am at a bit of a loss as to why they should be considering getting a divorce.  But that is their choice, strange as it may seem.

That divorce, if it happens, will not involve a church, as their wedding did.  It will be an entirely legal process.  In fact, marriage itself is a legal contract which is why, if it does not end with the death of one of the spouses, it has to end in a legal manner.  Regardless of how religious their wedding was, regardless of how many times they invoked God, regardless of their belief of doing it "in the sight of God and the community", they were still entering into a legal contract.  And if their marriage does not end with the death of one of them, then it ends in the courts.  They do not go back to church to dissolve it.  So is marriage really ordained by God?  Or have people just made that connection over the years?  Something to think about.

Charities: Where does the money go?

It has been reported this week that there are CEOs of national charities here in the UK with six-figure salaries.  The largest that I have seen quoted is £240,000 (about US$368,162 at the time of writing).  How reasonable is it for the CEO of a charity to take a six-figure salary?  Charities are, by definition, non-profit making organisations.  The money raised by the charity goes to supporting the activity of the charity, whatever that may be.  There are going to be administration costs and some of those are going to be wages and salaries, but surely having such a high salary is an expense too far?  Should the CEO of a charity really command a six-figure salary?  Or should a more modest salary be standard?  Is it reasonable to say that they should have a salary commensurate with a CEO in industry?  Surely if they want that kind of salary they should work in industry.  And if they have moved from industry to be the CEO of a charity, they should have stayed where they were because charity work, even the CEO of a charity, should not, in my opinion, come with a six-figure salary.  How these charities run themselves is, of course, up to them.  But does it really encourage people to give to charity when they know that the CEO is in receipt of a six-figure salary?  Or are they more likely to pull their charitable giving and use their money in other ways?  I would not be surprised if charitable giving goes down as a result of this, even to charities that are not paying the person at the top a massive salary and that will be a shame.

Reading (Between The Lines Of) An Email

Certain phrases really should be re-thought.  I received an email yesterday that started with "You’re receiving this email because you’re one of the most active [political action group] members in your area".  To me that sounds similar to "You could already be a winner!" or, slightly worse, those emails that go straight to my bin or trash folder and begin with "hi handsome", usually purporting to be from the woman with the yellow breeches or whatever colour and style of trousers they happen to be that day.  People are always wanting something from you when they begin like that.  This email was no different.  It would actually have been a better email had it simply not begun with that sentence.  Just cut it out completely.  Okay, they want something but just cut out the flattery.  No need to butter me up by telling me how active I am.  And since I tend to overanalyse things, it distracts me.  Most active?  Me?  I might have signed some online petitions and contacted my MP a couple of times, but I am not sure how that qualifies me as "one of the most active members" in this area.  Unless almost everyone else is completely apathetic.  There is that possibility, I suppose.

But I digress.  Possibly emails like this are done to a template and no one has thought very much about how they actually read.  Or perhaps they read just fine to whoever wrote them originally.  Sometimes things do sound fine in your head.  The idea of "say it in your head first before saying it out loud" doesn't always work.  It can still sound okay in your head.  So possibly with emails like this, someone thought that it was a reasonable thing to say.  And someone else might even have agreed.  But it still has that overtone in my mind, that suggestion of "I/We want something from you and here it comes".  Shame really, because that is the only point at which the email falls down.  Okay, yes, they do want something from me.  That is the point of the email.  But making it obvious from that initial phrase puts me on the defensive.  "Uh oh.  They're flattering me.  What are they after?"  Suspicious straight away.  Without that phrase, there would have been more of a gentle lead up to what they wanted and I would be more likely to be responsive.  Maybe I should give email writing classes?

How Veganism Is Like The Worst Side Of A Religion (At Times)

Veganism doesn't promise to save your soul but you do come across a lot of characters in veganism, some of whom enthusiastically preach the good news of veganism as often as they can.  They witness to the truth of veganism in their life and how it can change yours for the better.

And veganism is fairly splintered, just like a lot of religions are.  Not quite as splintered as some religions are, but there is more than one way to be vegan.  It's not quite as simple as not eating animal products and not using animal products.  Well, basically, yes.  That is it in a nutshell.  But just as a religion can be summed up in the words of a creed, it's not as simple as that.  The doing it part is a bit more complicated.  The same goes for veganism.  The doing it part of following a vegan diet is a bit more complicated.  There are various ways to actually do it.  And whichever you decide to do it, someone somewhere will think that you should be doing it their way.  Or disagree with some aspect of what you do.  But whichever way we do it, we're all vegan.

We're all vegan but are we all united?  Is that true for religions?  Not really.  I have come across groups of vegans arguing with other groups of vegans over the stupidest details of following a vegan diet.  Who cares as long as we are following the basic principle of not eating animal products?  Does it really matter, for example, if someone is fully raw or not?  No.  It matters if they are eating animal products or not.  But, just like people who follow a religion, vegans can be prone to get bogged down in minutiae.

I just get on with it.  I follow a vegan diet the way that I want to do it and it works for me.  And I do it quietly (no preaching).

Dave Gorman Moment Of The Day

I had a Dave Gorman moment when I was at my local supermarket today.  I got everything that I wanted, the corn on the cob, three packets, a brown loaf, a split tin loaf, a pasta salad and four one litre cartons of milk.  Then I made my way to the checkouts.  There were a lot open but they were also busy.  So I counted up how many items I had.  Ten items.  I counted them again to make sure.  Ten items.  Great, I can use the express checkout, ten items or less.  So I headed straight there, only to be stuck behind a woman who was loading what must have been 20 to 30 items on to the conveyor belt and the cashier had not noticed.  Bloody great.  There is a big notice above both express checkouts and two smaller notices to the side of the checkout.  And each divider, which this woman had to use to separate her shopping from the person in front, states that it is an express checkout, 10 items or less.  You would have to illiterate not to get the clues.  They do everything but put flashing lights around them.  And you know that even then some people would still be oblivious to them.  I despair of some people, I really do.