Longrider

This time of the year is perhaps the most miserable for me. It starts with Halloween and the obnoxious trick or treating that is about to start as I type. Sean Coughlan shares some of my misgivings about the whole thing:

Dressing up in a scary costume and cadging chocolate and money is an irresistible business proposition for any child.

But should we be encouraging them? Is it harmless fun or an irritating excuse to annoy the neighbours?

It’s an irritating excuse to annoy the neighbours, I’m afraid. If an adult behaved in this manner, it would not be regarded as harmless fun, they would be (hopefully) banged up for demanding money with menaces; for that is what this “tradition” is; demanding something on pain of punishment – blackmail, in other words.

Like all respectable people, the obvious tactic is to make out that it’s great fun and then pretend to be out when the next bunch call round.

Turn off the lights, duck under the windows and turn down the television - all to show that you’re not a killjoy.

Actually, I don’t give a flying fuck what people think. I leave the lights on and ignore the doorbell. Let them realise that I am not going to play their game. Was I asked if I wanted to play? No, it is assumed that we will indulge these demands, it is assumed that because it is children making the demands and it is a “tradition” it is all okay and that I should prepare for something that I have no desire to celebrate.

So why does it still rankle? Maybe it’s the way that Halloween has been hijacked by trick or treating. Halloween is an authentically ancient festival, about the links between life and death, the struggle between light and dark.

It rankles because I ask nothing more of my neighbours than to be left alone. I don’t want their progeny knocking on my door making demands backed up with menaces. If they want to celebrate in their own homes and without disturbing others; well all fine and dandy, be my guest.

Some of the people commenting feel much as I do – that this is a tacky US import that should have remained firmly on their side of the Atlantic. Begging is ugly, begging with menaces is uglier still. Dressing it up in fancy costume does not alter the nastiness that lurks beneath.

However, Sarah in Donegal thinks otherwise:

What a whiny report, I went trick-or-treating as a child, and was always welcomed into my neighbours homes as the tried to guess who was underneath the costumes. The attention recieved and the amount of effort that went into our costumes were far more rewarding than the actual “treats” and we went home to party games such as bobbing for apples. This year i will be welcoming any ghosts or goblins that come to my house, and be delighted to see how the kids react for the one night when they are allowed to “go against every rule in the parent handbook”

No, Sarah, it is not a whiny report; it outlines just what is wrong with this artificial festival – which has nothing to do with the Celtic Samhain and everything to do with crass commercialism and blackmail. If you want to welcome other peoples’ children into your home and have a celebration, then that is your choice, but don’t condemn those of us who object to not being asked beforehand and whose cooperation is assumed.

Emma from South Wales is equally vacuous:

I think that people should lighten up and remember that when they were kids they probably celebrated halloween too.

When I was a child, Halloween did not involve knocking on my neighbours doors demanding a treat – I was taught that such behaviour was wrong. So, go fuck yourself, I will damn well not lighten up.

Next week, our neighbours will be letting off fireworks for pretty much every night for around six days and rather than a few pops and whizzes, we will get deafening bangs that would put the Western Front to shame. God, but I hate fireworks. Then when that cacophony finally dies down, we will be bombarded with fucking Christmas – and I hate Christmas and all that it represents; tacky commercialism, artificial jollity and sanctimonious hypocrisy – bah! Humbug!

If only I could hibernate…

Via the Devil’s Kitchen, I am drawn to the plight of those MPs who lose their seats and discover that life after politics it isn’t all its cracked up to be.

Some MPs struggle to find a new job after losing their seat and many end up earning less than they did in the House of Commons, a study suggests.

Having experienced redundancy followed by a pretty rough ride during subsequent self-employment before finding a contract that will earn me a decent living, I can almost sympathise. Almost. MPs however have systematically treated the electorate they are supposed to serve with arrant contempt, so my sympathy is a brief spark, snuffed out almost as soon as it ignites.

The report shows the idea that there are “hundreds of ex-MPs walking into cushy and lucrative jobs is rubbish,” says co-author Kevin Theakston.

That’s no bad thing – it will do them good to have a taste of the real world. We have to, after all. It’s just a shame that more of them don’t experience it before they enter politics and start messing about with other peoples’ lives and livelihoods.

Among comments from respondents were “new jobs are not easy to come by” and “many MPs do not appreciate their skills on entering Parliament will not be, and are not relevant, when they leave”.

I’m sorry, but what skills would those be? Given that many of these lazy, useless parasites have never experienced real work one wonders just what it is they have to offer the real world economy when they leave the rarified environment of parliament. Being able to talk a great deal without achieving anything positive? Being able to screw others over while making a good living for oneself? Where, exactly, would those skills come in handy?

A high proportion of those who do find work get places on quangos.

Well, there’s a surprise…

Dolan Cummings repeats the tired mantra of the religious nut-cases in the Times today:

The desire to belong has made atheism into its own religion. But non-belief is no basis for a group identity

As a strap-line, it sets the tone of the piece – wrong-headed nonsense. Atheism is not a religion and the only people trying to make it one are the Dolan Cummings of this world. Atheism is merely not believing in god(s). I’ve said it enough and will continue to do so while ignorant fuckwits such as Dolan Cummings continue to repeat the nonsense that it is a religion or anything like a religion. For those who believe in the Hebrew god, my lack of belief in their deity is no different to their lack of belief in, say, the gods of ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome or Persia; they are interesting insights into ancient cultures, but nothing more.

Richard Dawkins’s campaign urging atheists to ‘come out’ and be counted, is oddly reminiscent of an evangelical rally where born-again Christians are implored to rush down to the stage.

I tend to agree with him on this one. I find Dawkins incredibly abrasive and irritating. “We” do not need an evangelist to trumpet our cause – because, quite simply, we do not have a cause. A lack of belief is not a cause, it is… well… just that, a lack of belief. It doesn’t make us members of a group, because that lack of belief is the only common thread, just as a non-belief in unicorns is not a religion and people who don’t believe in unicorns are not a definable group.

And if sales of Dawkins’s The God Delusion and other recent books like it are anything to go by, there is no shortage of people ready to join up.

No, it means that there are plenty of people who want to read what Dawkins has to say. Likely as not, to use Cummings’ logic, they have already “joined up” because Dawkins is confirming what they already don’t believe. Despite my irritation with Dawkins’ strident approach, I agree with the principles of his points. Unlike Dawkins I have no particular problem with people believing in whatever deity they wish – live and let live; just don’t presume to tell me that my failure to share that belief makes me a member of some sort of alternative religion; I don’t worship anything, don’t follow any rituals, don’t belong to any sect and do not acknowledge the existence of supernatural beings; therefore, I neither belong to nor follow a religion.

While some critics have labelled Dawkins and co ‘atheist fundamentalists’, the real similarity between atheism and religion today is less fanaticism than a palpable yearning to belong.

No, it is because people realise that they are not alone in their lack of belief, that there are others who find the idea of following bronze age myths and legends in the twenty-first century faintly absurd. I recall my realisation that I didn’t believe, and hearing others voice those thoughts made me feel that way – it was nothing to do with belonging, it was simply that I wasn’t some sort of oddity – well, maybe I am some sort of oddity, but it isn’t because of my non-belief in gods.

There is nothing wrong with this very human impulse, but non-belief is an odd basis for belonging.

That’s because it isn’t.

But atheism itself ought to be the least interesting thing about atheists, who surely have various and often conflicting beliefs and passions of their own.

Of course we have various and conflicting beliefs of our own. I share my lack of belief with Neil Harding for instance, yet in almost everything else we are diametrically opposed. Atheism isn’t a case of “ought to be the least interesting thing about us” it is the least interesting thing about us. Atheists by and large do not seek to form groups based upon our lack of belief, rather we are to be found in all sorts of groups and communities with other, more interesting and compelling reasons to bind us. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule and yes, there are those who want to add an atheist voice to the “thought of the day” – but anyone who has listened to the insufferable, sanctimonious clap-trap on the radio’s thought for the day is likely to want to hear anything that might be an alternative…

The most promising term used by some atheists to describe a more positive outlook is humanism, evoking a rich tradition going back to the Renaissance. But this won’t serve as a label for the non-religious for the simple reason that humanism does not preclude religious faith.

This is nothing more than unfounded bigotry and assertion. I’ve come across plenty of atheists who describe themselves as humanists while being perfectly well aware that it does not exclude religious belief. The two are not mutually exclusive. To assume therefore that atheists reject the term because it does not preclude religious belief is without foundation. Arse, in fact.

Indeed, those of us with a positive belief in the human potential do not especially need to distinguish ourselves from others who share that belief while also identifying with a religious tradition.

And the same sentiment applies to non-believers. What asinine twaddle.

Rather than joining together with others who share a positive vision of the future, self-styled atheists define themselves against an external threat.

Bollocks. There are plenty of us in all walks of life who just get on with it – we don’t see some external threat, and try, despite the best attempts of our politicians, to hold a positive outlook and optimism for the future. The only people defining us by our lack of belief and attempting to turn that lack of belief into a religion are people like Dolan Cummings – deeply stupid and ignorant people who give religious believers a bad name.

If coming out as an atheist means subscribing to an ersatz religion with the fire taken out, atheists can expect to remain in the cold.

But no one is, are they? Once more we have someone attempting to project their religious philosophy on something that is absent. I don’t define myself by my lack of belief in gods and those I meet who also lack belief do not define themselves thus either.

Longrider Blog is three years old this week – on the 23^rd, to be precise. In the three years that I’ve been doing this, I’ve written 1,111 posts – well, with this one, it will be 1,112 – and there have been 2,350 comments. Long may it continue. Providing of course, we don’t get shut down… It was the vile behaviour of politicians and their attempts to stamp out our civil liberties that started me doing this back in 2004. Then it was the thoroughly obnoxious David Blunkett and his “entitlement cards” that boiled my blood. The bastard cards are, unfortunately, still lurking on the horizon even though Big Blunkett has departed from the cabinet. Which is a reminder that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Here’s to the next three years.

Via Nourishing Obscurity, this little gem:

A simple device for detecting carbon monoxide in the blood may help doctors get an honest answer out of patients who smoke, U.S. researchers said on Monday.

And its intended use?

The device, called a pulse cooximeter, is typically used to test for carbon monoxide levels in firefighters, but it can also detect carbon monoxide levels in people who smoke, offering a powerful tool for educating patients about the effects of smoking.

“We were trying to just solve a little problem,” said Dr. Sridhar Reddy, a lung specialist in St. Clair, Michigan, who presented the study at a scientific meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians in Chicago, along with his 16-year-old son Ashray.

I see. I was given the smoking grilling when I went to see my doctor with a gammy knee recently. Interestingly, she told me there was nothing wrong with my knee – despite it locking up, sometimes painfully, but I was asked how much I smoke. I don’t and said as much, but was mildly irritated at being asked. If I was complaining of chest pains or shortness of breath, then the question would have been reasonable. But, no, we are to be monitored because smoking is the new sin of sins and must not be tolerated – and this little lie detector is for those naughty boys and girls who are less than truthful with their doctor.

“There is no good way to screen people for smoking,” said Dr. Reddy, who encouraged Ashray to take on the study as a school science project.

Why? It’s their business. if it is relevant for a diagnosis and the patient lies, then there will be a price to pay. If it is not relevant to the diagnosis, it is none of the doctor’s business.

“You can ask them directly, do you smoke. But once they say they don’t smoke and they lie about it, they will never volunteer that information,” Dr. Reddy said in an interview.

Yes – and that is their business. Frankly, if my doctor had decided not to take my word for it, I would have walked out of the surgery and been seeking a new GP pretty smartish.

Dr. Reddy now routinely uses the test as part of a patient work-up. And instead of asking whether a patient is a smoker, he presents the test results and asks whether the finding could be related to smoking. His hope is this can become part of routine screening.

I do hope not. If I tell my doctor that I do not smoke, I expect my word to be accepted. I do not expect to be treated like a naughty child who cannot be relied upon to be truthful.

Oh, and my knee? My chiropractor noticed that my pelvis was out of alignment. A bit of manipulation later and the problem has gone. There’s a moral there somewhere…

Via the Arch Blog, this little piece of statist nastiness:

Children are being tracked by micro-chips embedded in their uniforms in a trial at a secondary school.

The devices are used to monitor pupils’ movements and register their arrival in class on the teacher’s computer. Supply teachers can also be alerted if a student is likely to misbehave.

The chip connects with teachers’ computers to show a photograph of the pupil, data about academic performance and whether he or she is in the correct classroom. It can also restrict access to areas of the school. The radio frequency identification system is being tested at Hungerhill School in Doncaster, South Yorkshire. Ten pupils began wearing a chip sewn into their uniforms eight months ago.

Time and again, these stories surface and no one – apart from a few outraged bloggers seems to be concerned. The idea of tracking people like this, monitoring their whereabouts as if they were farm animals, is deeply repugnant and inhuman – yet the school thinks it’s okay, indeed, the school is doing Joe Stalin proud.

The scheme has drawn criticism from human rights campaigners. “Tagging is what we do to criminals we let out of prison early,” said David Cleater, from Leave Them Kids Alone, which campaigns against the finger-printing of pupils. “It is appalling.”

Yes, it is appalling, so why are parents letting these people get away with it? Why are they letting this generation be softened up for total surveillance (for their own safety, of course)?

Graham Wakeling, the head teacher, denied that the school was adopting a “Big Brother” mentality.

Mr Wakeling, that is exactly what it is. If you want trust, you extend trust, you do not treat the children in your care like a herd of cattle on the local farm. If you want to register pupils in class, you use a register and make a physical check to see who is present. It is a simple and cost effective system that works – or can’t supply teachers count these days?

He said: “The system is not intrusive to the pupil in the slightest…”

You have stitched an electronic tag into their uniform so that you can track their movements – of course it’s intrusive – it is a gross invasion of personal privacy and is unforgivable.

He said the children were all volunteers taking part in a science project.

Oh, I don’t doubt it – there are always those willing to do their masters’ bidding. But what happens when the trial is declared a success and everyone is forced to take part? Will you allow opt-outs for those who do not want to be tracked or will they have this system thrust upon them, like it or not? Will you do the decent thing and seek parents’ permission? Will you honour the wishes of those parents who refuse?

I’m not so old that I cannot recall my teenage years. Being something of a dab hand with a needle and thread, I would have removed the tag and destroyed it before re-stitching the relevant seam – and I would have continued to do so every time the chip was replaced because they would have worn down before me. I haven’t changed much in the intervening three decades, it’s just that in the seventies, my rebellion was about being forced to wear a tie. It seems so innocuous compared with what is happening now.