Not All Cockroaches Are Pests

Sometimes this world bewilders me, and one bewildering thing at the moment is an electronic backpack for cockroaches which allows the insect’s movements to be controlled by a mobile phone app. It’s about to go on sale in America, and is ostensibly intended to get more youngsters interested in neuroscience. Unfortunately, in order to attach the backpack, the cockroach has to be placed in icy water to subdue it before sandpaper is used to remove the waxy coating on the shell of its head; an electrode connector and electrodes are then glued on to the insect's body and a needle is used to poke a hole in its thorax in order to insert a wire; its antennae are then cut and electrodes are inserted; a circuit is attached to its back, and signals are received through the mobile phone app allowing users to control the cockroach’s movements to the left and to the right. How on Earth did this make it on to the market?! This is clearly cruel! I find all animal cruelty abhorrent, but I accept that there will always be some psychopaths in the world; what I don’t accept is animal cruelty being promoted (and seemingly accepted by retailers!) under the veil of education! I hope there is some sort of backlash against the company producing these insect backpacks (a company I’m not going to dignify by naming), and that the products are taken off sale as soon as possible.

Saving Lives Should Not Be Optional

Firefighters have recently gone on strike (and will continue to go on strike) because of pension age requirements; at the moment, they are able to retire at 55, but the government wants to extend that to 60. Neither side is willing to compromise, and that is the problem. One solution could be to say that at 55 a health check can be administered so that those who are physically unable to fight fires can retire on a full pension, but those who are capable must continue. This would be reasonable negotiation which should satisfy both sides, but they are all unwilling to recognise pragmatism! Firefighters are there to save lives, not to have political issues; I’m sorry if that seems narrow-minded to some people, but I don’t want even a small risk of my house being burnt down without succour from all the resources available rather than just from ‘contingency plans’. If a person chooses to be a part of the emergency services then they should take that responsibility more seriously than financial conflict. I am very disappointed by the strike action; there should be a more concerted effort towards mutual agreement. But that isn’t to say that the government is let off the hook (far from it, they are often the demonisers of workers’ rights!), it’s just that I think firefighters should have a certain morality which says that they never risk letting a fire harm anybody, even if politicians are shits!

Petty Republicans

So the U.S. government has finally gone into shutdown, but not like the last couple of times it was threatened when it was the issue of budgetary constraints which was the primary sticking point; the issue now is universal healthcare. That’s right, a significant portion of the Republican Party is appalled that hard-working Americans should be entitled to visit a hospital for treatment without paying extortionate amounts of money or enrolling in private insurance programmes which can often go to great lengths to not pay out on claims. I imagine these right-wing politicians think that the British National Health Service – one of the fairest healthcare systems in the world – represents some form of communism! It’s time that American citizens were put before party politics, and the Republicans need to grow up and understand that this level of petty immaturity will only cause their party to eventually disintegrate from within.

Historic Parallels

Paddy Ashdown has said that the decision to not take action against the use of chemical weapons in Syria will make England “be a country that shrugs its shoulders and says ‘nothing to do with me’”. I agree. Of course I understand that there are many well-intentioned people who disagree with Syrian military intervention, mainly because they do not fully understand the difference between the Iraq conflict and that which is going on now – i.e. U.N. democracy, or lack thereof – and I fully accept that British democracy has been proven functional in its resistance to warfare. But unfortunately, Syria now stands alone, just like Britain once stood alone, and tyranny will have to take its toll before decent human beings realise that allowing Assad to commit torture is almost as bad as when America refused to fight dictatorship in 1939. This is not sensationalist, it is historical relevance that many people have seemingly forgotten.

Mandela Was Average

It’s Nelson Mandela’s 95^th birthday today, and most people think that he won’t see 96. When he dies, the news is sure to give blanket coverage on what a hero he was. As an anti-apartheid crusader Mandela was one of the best, and that part of his legacy is deserved; but as a political leader people have generally fawned over him seemingly for the sake of it. Of course he helped to stem the racist trends in South Africa, and he pumped a lot more money into social welfare, but those achievements must be remembered alongside his political failings. AIDS has been a terrible problem in the country for a generation; Mandela decided not to bother focusing on one of the worst health issues of all time, and admitted himself that he left it for his successor to deal with (something that didn’t happen either!). At the time Mandela left office South Africa had one of the world’s highest crime rates, and as much as apartheid structures have been deconstructed, there are still plenty of ghettos left in poorer areas demonstrating how the great rush for equality didn’t quite materialise as expected. As a man, Mandela received understandable high praise for his ideologies, but as a politician, he was average, and I hope more people will try to remember that.

The Red Line Is About Time

Most people I speak to about the news (and most politicians that I see on the news) tend to be rather tentative about getting involved in the ongoing Syrian civil war. This mainly stems from the unnecessary war with Iraq, but I think there is a significant difference between the conflicts. Before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Hans Blix and his U.N. weapons inspectors were doing a good job, albeit a little slowly; they would have eventually determined that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and rendered him militarily impotent. I know that it wouldn’t have been particularly moral to leave a previously brutal dictator like Hussein in power, but further political measures would hopefully have been deployed (e.g. harsh economic sanctions) that may have forced a new Iraqi dawn – as in Egypt and Tunisia – without having to resort to warfare. But Syria is different: it is the U.N. Security Council that has been rendered impotent this time with Russia / China and Britain / America / France in a seemingly permanent stalemate that prevents political implementations. So now that today it has been revealed that President Barack Obama’s ‘red line’ has been crossed (proof has been shown that Bashar al-Assad has been using chemical weapons), I’m pleased that the U.S. government has taken the decision to arm Syrian rebels; in fact, it’s about time. Just because Russia and China have their own immoral agendas to keep Assad in power, doesn’t mean that the rest of the world should sit idly by while tens of thousands of people are massacred, many of them innocent civilians. As much as it may be reasonable to avoid sending in the soldiers (so that we don’t get dragged into another Afghanistan) we still have a moral duty to intervene somehow. We were able to get rid of Colonel Gaddafi by helping rebels in Libya (though that was with more political consensus), and that country is certainly better off without him. So I hope that Obama is strong in his decision-making, and forces Assad to back down from genocide.

Madness Comes To Brum

A disused mansion house in Birmingham is to be converted into the local headquarters for the ‘Church’ of Scientology. That’s all we need; don’t we already have enough Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons in the area who are more than willing to stop us in the street to preach? The scientologists released a statement saying that its following in the West Midlands had apparently increased by 25% in the last ten years, but that is slightly misleading without the specific figures because an increase as little as four members to five members would count as 25%. But most disturbingly hilarious of all, one wing of the building is going to be named after the founder of scientology, the science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard. That’s right, the man who plucked this ‘religion’ out of thin air used to write sci-fi – what a coincidence! I mean it’s almost as if he was able to make the whole thing up! How this six million pound building redevelopment got approval is beyond me.

Celebrity Arrogance

An unusual subject for praise this week: Malawi.

On a recent trip to Malawi, the pop singer Madonna was stripped of her VIP status on her way out of the country, along with her entourage. Heavens forfend, they had to line up with other passengers and were frisked by security officials! Madonna was seemingly annoyed by this reluctance to treat her like a millionaire celebrity. I say ‘seemingly’ because Madonna has since denied her arrogant behaviour, but personally I prefer to believe the political integrity of Malawian President Joyce Banda. She was quoted as saying that Madonna wanted Malawi “to be forever chained to the obligation of gratitude” for Madonna’s charitable contributions to the country (Malawi is where Madonna adopted her two children from, because American kids apparently weren’t good enough!).

Banda went on to say, “Granted, Madonna is a famed international musician. But that does not impose an injunction of obligation on any government under whose territory Madonna finds herself, including Malawi, to give her state treatment. Such treatment, even if she deserved it, is discretionary not obligatory … Among the many things that Madonna needs to learn as a matter of urgency is the decency of telling the truth. For her to tell the whole world that she is building schools in Malawi when she has actually only contributed to the construction of classrooms is not compatible with manners of someone who thinks she deserves to be revered with state grandeur.” Also, the President said that Madonna was “a musician who desperately thinks she must generate recognition by bullying state officials instead of playing decent music on the stage.”

Finally a country is standing up to the unprincipled status of pampered celebrities. Excellent work, President Banda. But let’s hope that Malawi doesn’t release a comedy pop song opposing Madonna, otherwise the BBC might feel compelled to ban it! In case anybody doesn’t get that reference, the legacy of Thatcher is censorship!

Don't Forget Today's Relevance

Labour leader Ed Miliband has launched his local election campaign today, including some very worthy policies. He wants to reinstate the 50% income tax rate for the highest earners, introduce a mansion tax, crack down on rising train fares, and reform the rip-off energy market. Unfortunately, nobody is going to listen to any of this now, because Margaret Thatcher has died, which I’m sure will receive blanket news coverage (and most of it probably fawning). Even in death, she is stealing the limelight for the right-wingers. I suppose it would be disrespectful of me to say anything too negative about her on her death-day just to promote my own socialist agenda, but I’m certainly not going to say anything good about her either. Just don’t forget the other news stories of the day which will have more constructive impact for the future.

Whovians Have Become Simpletons

The new series of Doctor Who started last Saturday and certain points need to be made.

1.      No series, regardless of popularity, should be advertised on the BBC News Channel. News is meant to be about current affairs in global or national events, not self-promotion.

2.      Doctor Who nowadays is primarily about special effects, fast-paced action sequences and appealing to a teenage (or childish) audience. Gone are the sublime days when William Hartnell would impress people with pure acting even though he sometimes had to walk with a stick. Or when Patrick Troughton could combine clownish comedy with awe-inspiring gravitas. Or when Peter Davison actually had cynicism towards humanity rather than fawning servility. Doctor Who hasn’t been daring for a long time.

3.      Jeopardy has been forgotten. For a drama to have real impact, the viewer must believe that bad things can happen so that the relief is then palpable. David Tennant was once surrounded by Cybermen only to escape by producing an otherwise unheard of device which deactivated them. If the Doctor can do that to any enemy then there is no jeopardy and therefore no real excitement. I remember when the companion Adric died because of Cyberman intervention (and when I say died, I don’t mean transported to a parallel universe!); that implemented real jeopardy where you never quite knew what was going to happen next – a crucial element for compelling drama.

4.      Russell T. Davies was a condescending, superficial shit who ruined the legacy of Doctor Who. His suggestion that he was simply carrying on the events of the Hartnell era was downright offensive to those who truly understood the series at that time (Hartnell’s Doctor wasn’t always a nice man and certainly didn’t feel the need to placate the masses!). Even when Davies said he was going to produce a more adult sci-fi with Torchwood it still became a vehicle for the ever-conceited John Barrowman to spoil character development (i.e. if a character is immortal, then where is the fucking jeopardy?!). And even though Davies is now gone, his replacement (as well as Matt Smith) have done nothing to alleviate the inane dramatic platitudes which are no longer worth watching on Saturday evenings.

5.      Finally, to anyone who doubts me, watch ‘The Caves Of Androzani’ from1983. Try to put out of your mind the dated effects and set designs, try to ignore Davies’ brainwashing propaganda that his storylines were better than they used to be, just focus on the script and well-developed characters (especially the intensely wondrous Sharaz Jek), and see what Doctor Who should always have been.

Cull Obsession

Recently there seems to be an organised media campaign to kill animals, with dubious evidence for support. Only today it has been suggested that because expanding deer populations are affecting biodiversity and damaging crops, it is therefore necessary to implement a 50% deer cull. This seems somewhat overzealous, to say the least; if a natural predator undergoes population growth because it is better at surviving in its surrounding environment – even if that is to the detriment of other species – that is evolution in action. That’s the way nature works; it should not be used as an excuse for widespread killing. The introduction of a new venison market is not something I have a problem with – as a meat eater all I’m bothered about regarding food production is whether the animals have been killed humanely – but I don’t think that a new food market would justify killing off half of an animal population! There aren’t that many people suddenly desperate to eat more venison.
And this need to cull comes on top of the ongoing badger controversy. If scientific research was providing convincing evidence that a badger cull would significantly prevent the distribution of bovine tuberculosis, then I wouldn’t have a problem with it; but currently the studies are suggesting that an impact will only be made if over 70% of any badger population is destroyed (a difficult thing to achieve when they are likely to move elsewhere fairly rapidly once they realise their dens are being continually disturbed), and even then it would probably only result in a 12-16% reduction in bovine TB. Surely that isn’t a reasonable enough result to justify mass animal slaughter. Other options should be exhaustively implemented first and further studies carried out so that effective measures can be determined before rash actions are taken.