Longrider

I wanted to pick up on something that Libertine has been discussing over at his blog - although not specifically about Terri Schiavo.

Over at the Guardian, Polly Toynbee makes a poignant case for assisted dying in the wake of her mother’s death and the more recent Terri Schiavo case. As she points out, it isn’t the drugs that see off the terminally ill, but a slow degradation caused by dehydration. Some countries; the Netherlands and Switzerland for example, allow assisted dying yet in the UK we continue to torture people to death. There were a couple of high profile cases recently where terminally ill patients indulged in euthanasia tourism to Switzerland along with their spouse to carry out the deed. In one case, the couple were frustrated initially by their council who tried to use the courts to prevent the trip. Fortunately the High Court took the view that it was not something in which they could intervene and the suicide went ahead. This was rapidly followed by another such trip. I recall the gentleman concerned giving an interview. He was suffering from a debilitating wasting disease and was devastated that his quality of life and dignity were slipping away from him. What struck me was that he did retain his dignity while those about him were unable (or unwilling) to grant him any.

Why is it that despite living wills we stop short of giving the dying the one thing they have left in life; a dignified death at the time of their choosing?

This (from Polly Toynbee’s article) is one reason why.

As the Pope rasps out his last breaths, his bishops are using his final suffering as a testament to the religious requirement to endure whatever quality of life God sends. Both C of E and Catholic archbishops here will fight any attempt to change the law. Politicians have taken their cue from the churches.

Plans for ID cards are too risky and lack the trust of the public, a London School of Economics report claims.

Another report that seems to come to much the same conclusion as the rest of us who have bothered to study the proposals. Government claims broad support among the populace. Certainly my experience suggests that they have a point. This is because people do not generally know what is being proposed; a nationwide intrusive database that would track our movements and anything else that at some future point the government decides to include. A card that is, effectively, a £100 tax on one’s identity. A change in the relationship between the government and the governed. Indeed, it is a solution looking for a problem, a control freak’s charter, bloody expensive with no benefit to those paying for it. The only people who understand it and still think it’s a good idea are the government in power and the Civil Service.

Now call me cynical, but it seems to me that there’s a vested interest here…

The local toads are out in force in our pond. There are currently seven of the little critters mixing it with the golden orfe and shubunkins. They’ve got themselves so excited that one of the randy little gits tried to shag my hand when I was changing the pump filter this morning. I mean, do I look like a hot little toadette? Er, perhaps I don’t want any answers to that one.

Anyway, gratuitous toad sex below - fresh off the camera. Enjoy.

Actually, nothing.

However, it does seem to crop up as a subject of discussion on a regular basis - for example, here, where a young man is facing discrimination at school. Of course the guys over at the Long Hair Hyperboard are always picking up on the matter. Well, they would, wouldn’t they?

Getting back to the boy at school, the usual nonsense sooner or later arises and I quote:

Hair is meant to be short, just like fingernails.

My response is suitably short, sweet and cutting (sic). Hair is not meant to be short - it is if anything meant to be however long it grows before it stops growing, just as nature intended. We cut our hair to conform to fashion or what is decreed by society to be the acceptable norm. It is not meant to be anything.

Simple anthropological research will tell us that shaving heads was something the victors did to the vanquished, owners to slaves and armies to soldiers. This has the same symbolism - these people no longer have mastery over their own bodies; it is a powerful symbol of control. Long hair is an equally powerful symbol - one of freedom, rebellion and self determination; the unbowed, undefeated warrior. This is someone who does not conform to society’s expected rules and needs to be tamed. Men are conditioned from early childhood to conform and language colludes in this subjugation - we have expressions such as “clean cut” and “clean shaven” on the one hand and we have “unkempt” on the other. Yet unkempt simply means uncombed (although language has corrupted that to mean “untidy”). Interestingly, if one has really short hair, it does not need combing. Therefore, it is the short haired man who is unkempt…

Anyway, I digress. Professionalism in the workplace is frequently used as an excuse by the control freaks who believe they have rights over other peoples’ bodies. Yet I work in a corporate environment. I wear a suit and tie when working, am neat, tidy and clean. I am also good at my job, which should be the most important factor. Yet this did not stop one individual telling me a few years back to cut my hair as this would be more professional. I made a decision that day. I decided to stop cutting my hair.

Interestingly it is women who comment most. It was a woman who thought telling me to cut my hair was acceptable behaviour. And, usually (more frequently) it is women who stop to remark on my hair - often with a hint of envy. Yet women suffer the short hair = professionalism nonsense too. Who decided this? Why? The old anthropological reasons no longer apply - we are not subject to the Roman empire any longer - or are we? And how does a haircut make someone more professional? Professionalism is about behaviour. Certainly presentation matters, but a clean tidy appearance is all that is necessary - anything else is just style and that is a personal thing.

So where does all this lead? That people in power will try to exert that power in subtle ways to enforce conformity and subservience. Well, we knew that already. Yet those same people want the product that a creative, lateral mind produces. They do not see the connection between the two - that it is the radical free thinker who allows creativity to follow its own unbound path that often leads to the solution they seek. The same person who, likely as not dresses a little differently or dare I say it, has long hair?

I received my credit card today. It was one of the new ones with a chip ‘n’ PIN. This means, according to proponents, that it is more secure that its predecessor. Well, there is something in that, I suppose. My signature could be forged should someone steal the old one. They could not, however, forge the PIN because that is inside my head. So, for a quick spending spree around the local shopping mall before the card is identified as hot, a loophole has been partially closed. I say partially because there is nothing to stop enterprising criminals coercing the PIN number out of their victims.

That said, it is only one area that is being closed. What about E-commerce, as David Norris points out in The Register, today? Aha, there’s the rub. If you want to buy something over the Internet with your stolen card, all you need is…well, what’s on the card. That’s it, as, indeed, David Norris points out,

the big explosion in crime at present is to intercept cards in the post! That ensures you have all the data you need, to buy what you want.

The other point he makes is that for this insecure method of cash handling, the banks charge merchants 1.5%. What do the merchants get for this? Er, well, they get their money less 1.5%. Fraud risk is something they have to underwrite themselves. Well, big fat hairy deal.

I’ve been weighing up how I might go forward with my discussion board. I quite like the Invision format and it is a free hosting site, which is why there is a banner advertisement on the top of the page. I don’t like the ad, but am prepared to live with it while I dip my toes in the water. I don’t want to pay for hosting, or software, whichever route I take if the whole thing comes to nothing. A free host allows me to try it out without risk. I’m also not over keen on having to transfer the database to another format. I’ve switched once already - but as I only had four members it was relatively painless.

However, we’ve reached ten people signed up - welcome to Hairmonster1917. About a third are actively posting. This I suspect is about average. The question is, how successful is this? I’ve been running for about three weeks. Is it too early to tell?

Given my wide range of interests, I wondered where to start. I decided eventually that current affairs was a good all rounder - not least because the general news of the day seemed to be the most popular area of discussion on the dedicated sites anyway

I’ve sort of given myself a goal - get twenty people signed up and I’ll go for a paying board. If I stick with Invision I can import the database without disrupting the board and Invision do a range of options starting at $10 per month which is affordable. So for members it should be transparent. It will still be free to members but will give me greater creative control and no advertisements. So watch this space - or, more accurately, this one:

News & Views Discussions

Edited to add: In the past two days, another two signups - welcome to: AmyJellyBrain and RedBaron. Looks like I might have to think about that pay server sooner than I thought…

The picture of Charles and Camilla being used for the postage stamps celebrating their impending wedding was taken by Charles’ sometimes chef, Carolyn Robb.

It seems that she is being expected to hand over copyright without payment.

When Ms Robb contacted the Prince’s office about financial compensation, officials attempted to force her to waive international copyright, she said. She claimed that she was asked to sign over all rights and to accept that she would not receive any compensation.

When the picture was taken away, she was told that the couple wanted a picture of themselves in their new tweeds. Ms Robb later found out that the picture had been used without her permission (and without payment) for the official engagement photograph and for the postage stamps. This is a clear breach of copyright. Had she been a professional photographer, this would not have happened, but as she is an amateur it seems those in power believe they can take this type of liberty. Presumably they believe Ms Robb should bask in the reflected glory of having one of her photographs on a stamp. Not bloody good enough. They breached her copyright and they should pay her the going rate for using the photograph. And expecting her to relinquish copyright is outrageous.

Having said that, Clarence House spokespersons are claiming a different account:

Clarence House insisted that Ms Robb had given permission for the photograph to be distributed free and had also been asked to sign a contract that would assign copyright to the Royal Household.

It’s a matter of who you believe, I guess. I’m inclined to believe Ms Robb. If she had agreed, she wouldn’t now be making a fuss (and in the process a fool of herself).

I hope she tells them where to stick it, although it would seem that they have since agreed payment and she has the option of refusing to sign away copyright. She should not do so - these pictures have a future earning potential to which she is entitled.