Paul Anderson's post for Bloggers Unite (mine is here) is an excellent and interesting examination of intellectual property rights as they apply to blogs, and why it's important for them to be enforced - not only for us small fry, but for the MSM as well.

---

Work/Life balance in the sciences and engineering puts women off. No shit Sherlock. It does that in LOTS of professions - I don't think it's science and engineering that need reform, particularly, but our society. Any profession which wants you to work stupidly long hours and have no life is going to put most people off. The only people that are NOT going to be put off are very macho competitive people, who are often, but not always people who identify themselves as members of the male gender. This applies in science and engineering, yes, but also in politics, the law, city finance, etc. etc. etc.

What needs to change is the idea that working part time, or flexible hours, is seen as bad and wussy, while working all the hours Cthulhu sends is seen as laudable and impressive. That's what causes ALL the problems IMHO: people who live to work, rather than work to live.

The thing is, in science, living to work, seeing it as a vocation, is often what gets the results...

---

Much argument has been had about my preferred colour schemes for websites. I find that dark backgrounds hurt my eyes lots less than bright ones; other people have the opposite reaction. Well, at least now I have greenery on my side!

Just as a matter of interest:

Poll #1189357 colour preference
Open to: All, results viewable to: All

I prefer

I am really glad that strangefrontier recommended that I add si_blog to my reading list, because this post on the situation in California made me want to cheer aloud:

The California Supreme Court has just overturned the state’s ban on same-gender marriage. People (gay AND straight) who support full civil rights for all Californians are celebrating; those who believe people forfeit their routine civil rights if they have same-gender sex are outraged.

Memo to this latter group:

I’ve read your denunciations of this court decision. When I look beyond the lies and distortions, I see your fear and anger. And I sympathize. Appreciating your pain helps me forgive—well, at least understand—your destructive, undignified lying, your desperate cries that civilization is collapsing.

So let me address some of your lies:

Lie: “These are liberal, activist judges inventing new laws.”
Fact: You know that three of the four judges affirming the decision were appointed by Republican governors. They describe themselves as conservatives who consider the Constitution the final authority, not themselves.

Lie: “This will destroy traditional marriage.”
Fact: You know it hasn’t done so in Massachusetts, or in Spain, an even more traditional society. Traditional marriage has been destroying itself quite energetically in America for years, BEFORE gays could marry.

Lie: “Marriage is intended to facilitate procreation.”
Fact: You know that if this were true, marriage would be denied to couples who were infertile, post-menopausal, or committed to being childless. The state doesn’t do fertility tests before issuing marriage licenses.

Lie: “Children are better off with a heterosexual couple.”
Fact: You know there are no reliable studies showing that kids do better with straight parents. You know there are LOTS of studies showing that kids do as well with gay parents as with straight parents with similar incomes and education. And you know that half of all heterosexual married couples get divorced. Do you argue that having divorced heterosexual parents is good for kids?

You tell these degrading lies because you’re afraid. Afraid of this homosexual “other,” this monster you’re convinced is different from you. If you knew how many gay people you saw today at Starbucks or Target or the gas station you might not be so afraid. If you knew that that helpful woman three cubicles down from yours is gay you might not so easily deny her the basic rights that you enjoy.

Being a psychologist, I have to add that you (or your best friend) tell these lies because the whole idea of a man kissing a man’s penis is creepy. A creepy idea that you think about once in a while—which is way too often for your comfort.

You tell these lies because you’re angry. Things are changing way too fast for any of us to absorb. Everyone who isn’t young feels old. It seems like no one’s really in control. We can’t blame the Communists, and the terrorists aren’t molesting our kids, or demanding we commute 90 minutes to work everyday in horrible traffic.

Your churches and political leaders are telling you who’s ruining America—gays. You can’t kill them or deport them, so you try to limit their rights and their impact. You’re failing. You’re getting angrier.

And now it looks like gays are going to share what you value most—the right to love, and the right to have that love blessed by the state (with, of course, the tax advantages and hospital privileges that come with that blessing).

I understand your pain.
But quit lying.

Gays don’t want to seduce you or your spouse, don’t want to molest your kids, don’t want to undermine your marriage. Each gay man and lesbian has their own life to lead, their own petty little problems to work out. It’s not all about you and your little marriage, which NO ONE except you cares about.

So I understand your pain.
But quit lying.

Has someone ever annoyed you so much on the internet that the mere sight of their name makes you fly into a frenzy of incoherent rage?

Yeah, theferrett posted again, and someone on my f-list linked to it, and I clicked the link... Mat tells me it's a good post, but I can't even read it without getting the stabbity rage. I expect this is because it's The Time of the Moth, eh, theferrett?

Still, the California Supreme Court have found a better way of celebrating Blog for Human Rights Day than me - they've unbanned gay marriage as unconstitutional.

YAY! Go California Supreme Court!

I like mle292's post about this best.

ETA: This Week just started and they've got Bruce Foreskin on from the first second. I can't bear Bruce Foreskin. I'm going upstairs to read Jasper Fforde. Night night.

Today is human rights blogging day. There are a lot of human rights issues that I could blog about but I have chosen reproductive freedom simply to tie in with the Coalition for Choice campaign currently going on at LC and elsewhere.

I realise that reproductive freedom in general and abortion in particular are 1, subjects I go on about a lot, and 2, somewhat heavy going. In situations like this, the Sainted Mortimer has taken to inserting calming pictures of cute puppies. I realise that this is probably not effective for you lot: partly because some of you are definitely Cat People, and partly because I think I have come up with something that will be more effective: Pictures of cool geek furniture! The first one comes via pickwick:



Reproductive Freedom is something we tend to take for granted in the UK. We have free contraception, and we have abortion available to us, even if it is only available through the arcane and byzantine systems put in place by the 67 Act (yes, we DO still need to obtain the permission of two doctors before we are allowed an abortion; the only other thing which needs two doctors is being sectioned under the Mental Health Act. Oh the irony). Therefore when nutters like Dorries and Cardinal Cormac O'Murphy want abortion restricted, there is a tendency for those of us who quite like the status quo to shrug and say meh, they'll never change THAT... Such complacency is dangerous.



The anti-abortion campaign is getting more vocal as the internet enables any old fool to set up a website. They are propagating lies (the Hand of Hope is springing to mind) and misinformation in the hope of getting people on their side. And they must be fought. NOT with further mudslinging and misinformation, but with cold hard fact.

- any restriction to abortion rights disproportionately affects the poor and disadvantaged.
- any restriction to abortion rights means more unwanted children.

It wouldn't be so bad if most of the anti-abortion activists were not also anti-contraception. This is a special sort of cognitive dissonance. It seems obvious to me that the best way to stop people having abortions is to stop them having unwanted pregnancies. This means lots of sex education and lots of access to free, good quality contraception. We've managed the second half of that, but the first half is sadly lacking, partly due to our peculiar British attitude to sex, and partly the ability of parents to withdraw their children from sex education (and indeed, homeschool them entirely).



I do not want a return to the bad old days where rich ladies could get a sympathetic doctor to arrange something, but everyone else had hot baths, gin, and knitting needles. I do not want us to sleepwalk into having our fundamental freedoms restricted by idiots like Dorries.

But, as usual, what I want isn't what matters. What do YOU lot want?

There has been, of late, something of a concerted effort to debunk the rubbish spouted by Nadine Dorries. Mostly, this campaign has dealt entirely in fact. Mostly, it has been a pretty comprehensive rebuttal of her nonsensical viewpoints. However, at least in part, it has been ad hominem.

I don't think we do ourselves any favours by referring to her as Mad Nad, or attacking her personally, and I am grateful to see that the people who are doing this are in the minority.

Still, she does make it difficult to not indulge in personal attacks when she posts like this on her propaganda website blog, which, don't forget, you and I are paying for.

Yesterday, for various reasons, I went to Tesco's. I looked around the fruit and veg, but didn't buy much, partly because it was almost empty, and partly because of some of the prices. This morning I went to post a couple of parcels (sorry, Renae, I know it's late, but your Stephen is finally on the way. Also, sovietkiki, expect books) and had a look round the little fruit and veg shop on the high street.

The melons that were £1.79 each in Tesco's were two for £1 in Dyson's. The cherries that were £4.99 a punnet in Tesco's were £1.99 a punnet in Dyson's.

Tesco Value? My arse.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you're skint and looking for cheap food, avoid the big four supermarkets.

Sam Harris wants to do research on your braaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaains. If you're either a Christian or an atheist, then click here and help Sam compare our branes. Some of the questions are applicable to non-Christian religions, but some of them aren't. Some of them are clearly control questions which any reasonable person, religious or no, would answer in a certain way...

Anyway, go, click, take surveys, have fun.

Lots of people have linked to this today, in which it is made out that Cameron is the sexiest of the three party leaders, but nobody mentions which questions were asked. However, it seems fairly obvious to me that it was the old classic Bag, Shag or Crag. So, dear f-list, once again I seek your opinions.

Which of the three party leaders would you Bag (marry/mate with for life), which would you Shag, and which would you Crag (throw off a cliff)

Poll #1187280 Bag, Shag, or Crag
Open to: All, results viewable to: None

Bag, Shag or Crag?

Does this view have any bearing on how you are likely to vote?

Me, I say Bag Cameron, because he's rich, and you can shag around behind his back. Shag Clegg, because in a field of three ugly ducklings he's the prettiest, and Crag Brown. Oh, and, the first person to bring up my old nightmare gets a severe ticking off!

Each of the three main parties has its own approach to gender balance.

The Tories have no rule book, preferring to do things the way we do our constitution in this country. They want a better gender balance, or claim they do, but they don't have a set policy on it. Advantages to this approach include flexibility. Disadvantages include a total lack of transparency or predictability.

The Labour do all-women shortlists. Advantages of this approach? You quickly increase the number of women in power, and thus approach balance at speed. Disadvantages include... well, we all know my views on positive discrimination, don't we? The resentment it causes and the counter-productivity of it, etc.

The Lib Dems insist that all shortlists must be at least one third male and one third female. Advantages of this approach are that it avoids a lot of the pitfalls of positive discrimination, yet makes sure that both sexes are represented in all lists. Disadvantages are that (as usual for Lib Dems) it can be a bit complicated to administer.

Poll #1187202 Gender Balance
Open to: All, results viewable to: All

Which Party do you think has the best approach?

Brian Paddick's election diary has been edited and published by the Hate on Sunday. Typically for the Hate there are a couple of errors - the most important one being all over his Facebook profile:

Yesterday
Brian was campaigning in Crewe on Saturday - never give up, never surrender! (11:51am)
May 11
Brian was campaigning in Crewe on Saturday - who said I was giving up politics?! (5:21pm)

However, it has prompted an interesting thread on LDV. Some Lib Dems are offended by the fact that Brian hasn't exactly heaped praise on the party (he's given ammunition to the Evil Dale, you see - and no, I'm not linking to that tosser). I found the article quite endearing. Brian shows himself to have a sense of humour, and also shows up many of the flaws in how the party does things. Hopefully we can learn from them.

---

My lovely fiancé has an update on the Johnny Vegas situation. Whether or not he wins this libel action, the main result of this will be that everybody will get to hear about his horrid, unfunny, sexist "performance", and unless (perhaps even if) the girl comes out in unmitigated support of him, it will be a disaster for his career. I really think he's shot himself in the foot here, especially given that the Grauniad's lawyers are no stranger to the odd libel case.

---

Speaking of my lovely fiancé: I showed him this link, and he picked lots and lots of holes in it. I'd quite like him to do it publicly, though.

See this? This is a gauntlet. See me throw it down... ;)

They don't seem to think so over at Lib Dem Voice (see their sidebar), so who am I to argue?

Poll #1186464 Predicted Election Results
Open to: All, results viewable to: None

What do you think the result will be at the next UK General Election?

How screwed do you think we all are if your predicted result occurs?

My personal, rather pessimistic view (fed by entries like this on PB)? Labour have completely alienated their core vote, whilst at the same time being incompetent enough to also alienate the swing voters who usually hold the decisive power. Core Labour voters won't be able to bring themselves to vote Tory due to tribal loyalty, so they just won't turn out to vote at all. Meanwhile, the swing voters will have no qualms about voting Tory to give Labour a kicking, and won't vote Lib Dem because Liberals all just sit on the fence and I would vote for them because they're cute and fluffy, but it's a wasted vote, innit.

Unless there is a seismic change in the Labour party, I think the next election will be the Tories' 1997. I think we'll see a Tory landslide in terms of vote share, and a small majority in the commons. And I think we're all utterly fucked. Even if there is a seismic change, I think people think the Labour have been in power long enough... I hope for a hung parliament; but I don't think we'll get one.

Y'all may recall that I wrote to the Beeb about the article on The Sunday Show in which they unjustly described all Goths as neonazi satanists. I got a reply yesterday.

We were sorry to read that you felt that the item on Goths was inaccurate. We raised your concerns with Amanda Hancox, Series Producer of Sunday Life. She asked us to pass on the following:

The feature on the Sunday programme was commissioned following a significant rise in the number of desecrated Christian graves in France. Our reporter was told by the Miviledes, the French Government’s anti cult task force, that they had identified a sub group within the Goth Community in France who they believe were responsible for these attacks. This sub group was found to have been heavily influenced by Satanism and Neo-Nazism.

The reporter interviewed a young man who described himself as a Neo Satanist Goth and his experiences were heard in the feature. The other people interviewed were all recognised experts in this field and one in particular is consulted regularly by the French Police on crimes with religious overtones. All the statistics were provided by the Ministry of Youth from their recent report into youth culture.

The presenter made it very clear in his introduction that the feature was about the Goth Community in France and about ‘some’ Goths who were influenced by Satanism. The programme was very careful not to link the story in anyway either to the Goth Community in Britain, which is a very different culture to that in France, or to the death of Sophie Lancaster. As all the interviewees were French and the feature was linked to a very specific event in France, we didn’t think it would be necessary to remind listeners throughout the feature that we were not talking about the Goth community in Britain.

Amanda Hancox
Series Producer
Sunday

So, let me see if I have got this straight... SOME of the desecration of graves is THOUGHT to be committed by NeoNazi, Satanist Goths, whom you now admit are a subset of the French Goth community (and not the whole of it, as you made out in the report) but you think it's OK to have broadcast the unbalanced, sensationalised report because it was about FRENCH Goths, and it's OK to present one-sided half truths and prejudice as fact if it's about French people?

Oh. Dear.

... for not feeling up to going round to her house tonight.

What does one do when one is tired both physically and emotionally? Puts on a cheesy superhero movie. Luckily dear old LoveFilm sent us two this morning.

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer? Fun. Not Shakespeare, but fun. I enjoyed it. Pity that after the panning it got from the critics they probably won't be making any more with that cast.
Spiderman 3? Awful, with some patches of merely bad, and three wasted villains, and a TOTALLY wasted Bruce Campbell. I was particularly disappointed not to see Venom's big long tongue. And is that the LONGEST FILM EVAR or what? The little girl selling JJJ the camera was cool though.

Peter Cushing lives in Whitstable; I have seen him on his bicycle; I have seen him buying vegetables...

(inspired by purplehez)

- anyone can vote, but nobody will see how you have voted.
- if you want to see the bar charts without answering the questions, hit submit poll without selecting an answer
- if you don't like beer you can read beer to mean the alcoholic beverage of your choice, even if you are insane and this is lager.

Poll #1185062 A scientific comparison of gender attitudes
Open to: All, results viewable to: None

I consider myself female, and I think...

I consider myself male, and I think...

I consider myself non-gendered or both genders, and I think...

Please, for the love of Bob and all that's unholy: kill whoever it was who did that Gentlemen Prefer Blondes graphic! I am EATING!!!

* green face *

So, Diane, Gordon is a God amongst men? Yes, this one.

YAY MICHAEL!!!!!! ILU Mr Portillo!

* happy dance *

The news of your voting in the Mayoral election goes down very well in this household!

Diane is being a bit mean to Michael tonight, too. Perhaps Mad Nad's stupidities have been annoying her? I know Diane is very much on my side on the abortion issue...

Hello, my name is Jennie, and I'm a This Week junkie! LOL Oooooh Michael is a tech geek. Damn, my swingometer is definitely heading Michaelwards this week. Especially given his comment on addiction. Everything in moderation, absolutely. Except This Week, obviously.

And to crown it all with such a glorious pun! YAY! And it's all over for another week... Absinthe makes the heart grow fonder indeed. Will have to drink more gin before next week's show, though, if Bruce Foreskin is on it...

* shudder *

So, QT is on. Ming is talking. And my attention is completely elsewhere... This may or may not be due to Mister Mat making omelette and chips for supper behind me. I are droolin'...

Anyhoo, QT. There's Ming the Merciless Retired Glorious Leader; Boris Johnson's sister; Tarzan (who Mat tells me isn't a proper conservative because he actually bought furniture, instead of inheriting Chippendale from his family); some Labour twat and Piss Moron. The only one who has vaguely piqued any interest is Tarzan.

Oh, I'm so jaded... But why can't Ming be interesting? I know he's old hat, but he's a good politician, with good ideas, and I agree with him on lots of things... so why does he have such a soporific effect on me? Poor old Ming.

Blah. My heart isn't in this entry. My fiancé is making my omelette and chips, in his apron, and I can't concentrate. James Purnell is talking bollocks about cannabis now, and I don't want to try and concentrate on that. Service will resume, probably, for This Week in a bit.

Firstly, PHD Comics, as innerbrat says, sometimes gets so close to the bone that it hurts.

My ambition for right now? Be able to make the rent this month.

---

This blog entry made me cry. I have friends who have been through this, who GO through this, every day. I don't think I could, and will continue to fight for their right not to have to. Greek islanders notwithstanding.

---

Nadine Dorries is evil and must be stopped. When I discovered I was pregnant with shrublette, I was already 19 weeks. This was mostly because I didn't believe that I could be pregnant, given that I was religiously agnostically taking the contraceptive pill, and had a very, um, sporadic sex life with my then partner. If Dorries had her way, I would have had no choice at that stage (because, lets face it, getting the NHS to act in less than a week? NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN). I do not in any way regret the choice that I made, but am none the less glad that the choice was there.

Well, luckily there is a campaign going. Lets all support it, eh?

---

freddiefraggles makes an interesting point about role models:

As discussed here, there aren't that many women role models for girls who might be interested in a career in technology or engineering. Goodness knows, in this day and age where parents can often be behind the times and like to nudge their children in the right direction, more prolific women in I.T. and engineering could be a good thing.

But I don't understand why girls need female role models. In anything. Why can't girls aspire to male role models? Why shouldn't I admire someone like Lance Armstrong or Brian May? Goodness knows there aren't better role models in their areas, male or female.

So why do people (the media, the general public) presume that girls and young women can only relate to and look up to other women for careers and their ambitions? Well, I believe it's because they're still discriminating, even if it's subconscious. Boys can only do techie jobs and building and must look up to male role models, and girls can only do caring jobs and office jobs and must look up to female role models. What a load of codswallop.

I agree wholeheartedly. I am particularly proud to have among my friends the glorious strangefrontier, who wrote to the famed misogynist Patrick Moore to thank him for inspiring her to become a scientist. :D

---

Several people have recently blogged about the nonsensical and counterproductive No Platform stance which is given to the BNP, and the strange fruit (yes, I am aware of the connotations of this term, and it was chosen deliberately) it has borne on the GLA, including the alternately brilliant and infuriating Johann Hari.

I have been banging on about this for ages. Enforcing No Platform gives the BNP ammunition when they claim to be the voice of the disenfranchised. It gives them a mystique, and lets them look hard done by. Censorship never changes minds, but the light of day can. For one thing, it might help prevent idiocies like the two consecutive comments on the Hari article - one from an immigrant (has he actually READ the BNP's constitution?) and one from someone who claims to be an investment banker (has he looked at their "costed policies"?). Let Nick Griffin by skewered by Paxo. Properly. Like Michael Howard was. Let the BNP show themselves up for the tossers they are, and then see if anyone wants to vote for them, rather than lending them the mystique of oppression.

Also, can people stop calling them far right? They aren't right wing. They're old labour with added racism.

---

This reminds me. Need to put the Creative Commons thing on here...

---

News for Radio Four folk: the fustercluckery on Sunday was particularly counterproductive, given this interesting little snippet (thanks burkesworks!). Who would have suspected that large numbers of goths listen to radio four, apart from the poor producer who has had to sift through all the outraged emails this week... palecast has more on this.

>:D

---

And finally...

Which Leage Of Gentlemen Character are you?

You are most like Papa Lazarou! I'm not sure what this means, just stay away from me... Take this quiz! Quizilla | Join | Make A Quiz | More Quizzes |