Response to:http://varick2.blogspot.com/2010/05/unemployment.html

I think this is a really interesting post. I agree that some people may be considered "bad" if they are unemployed but able to work and suitable work is available. I think that this is a small minority and they should be classed as benefit cheats.

I would suggest that sometimes it is not that they are being bad, it is that the jobs available are not good enough.

Sometimes people may do a lot of unpaid work for others that is not recognised, such as volunteering or caring for family. The amount that they save the country by providing their services effectively for free, more than justifies them not being employed.

Some unemployed people may seem to be that way through choice but they may have have undiagnosed learning difficulties or mental disorders.

There are many different types of unemployed people and it is wrong to force people into jobs that are not suitable for them.

Bad Cinema

Most films that could be considered to be bad involve violence, sex, drugs or a combination of them. Kids, the film we watched in the lecture, was depressing to me more than it was shocking. And the sound of the kids kissing made me feel sick. I found it depressing because it was fairly true to life and depicted wastes of lives. What they were doing wasn't shocking though it was extreme, and I felt sorry for the characters and their equivalents in the real world.

I think that films like The Godfather, Scarface, etc, although really entertaining and good to watch, are too slick and polished, which portray bad acts as being glamorous. Bad films don't always show bad things such as murder in a way that conveys the reality of that act. Whether that influences some people I don't know. I think that it could have some impact on children watching.

A bad film to me is something more gritty and realistic, which I think has an effect on the audience. An example would be Nil By Mouth. What I consider to be bad, and what the censors consider to be bad seem to be very different. For example, the film "Team America"s puppet sex scene was censored for some audiences. I think that censorship like this is ridiculous. Censorship is explained here.

Booze Britain (and drugs)

The Alcoholics Anonymous website says that it's defintion of an alcoholic is:

"If you repeatedly drink more than you intend or want to, or if you get into trouble when you drink, you may be an alcoholic.
Only you can decide. "

This is quite a personal definition then, there are no set levels of alcohol consumption. This definition could apply to most people who drink, I think most people sometimes drink more then they intend to, for different reasons, usually social. For example, when in a pub, out with friends, and someone asks you to stay for just one more, although you intended to leave.
Because it's up to the individual, the A.A seems pretty relaxed, but once you have declared yourself an alcoholic, they advise:

"We in the fellowship of A.A. believe there is no such thing as a cure for alcoholism. We can never return to normal drinking, and our ability to stay away from alcohol depends on maintaining our physical, mental, and spiritual health."

So that's it. No more drinking. This suggests the A.A view alcohol as other illegal drugs are viewed..for most people it could be said that they wouldn't consider it o.k for an ex heroin addict to have a hit now and then..and that seems to be the case for alcoholics with the A.A.

Alcohol for most people is considered o.k, heroin is not, but is it about the drug, the frequency of the use, OR whether it affects someones life.

My opinion is that anything that people use to get into an altered state of conciousness is up to them. I think that children should be given the real facts about booze and drugs, which seems to be the case now, with Frank and other advice places.

Nobody should be dependant on anything, but if people use sensibly, I do not have a problem with drink or drugs. I think there are risks, for example, for some people with underlying mental illness, that everyone planning to use drugs or alcohol should be aware of, but risks are taken every day and many people don't have bad consequences because of being drunk, or taking drugs.

Nasty Comedians

In the lecture, the different types of comedy were discussed. A discussion that was aired on Radio 4 about the same topic is here: http://www.nasty-girls.co.uk/Interviews.html
I think that the comedians who only use the "Superiority Theory"-

“Much humour seeks to confirm the status quo either by denigrating a certain sector of society, as in sexist humour, or by laughing at the alleged stupidity of a social outsider.” Simon Critchley. On Humour, Routledge, 2002. p.12.

- are not actually very funny. An example of this would be Bernard Manning. Apart from the fact he was a racist, sexist, tosser, I also think it is lazy humour and as was said in the lecture, the subject of the joke could be substituted for anything else. The structure of the jokes are much the same, and the same joke re-told in different ways isn't funny to me.
Another example of this, for me, is Frankie Boyle. I think he can be very funny, but because he has become known for "being bad", or" nasty", his act has become non-stop nastiness, rather than his early work, which was a mixture of comments, critiques, insights, rather than just trying to be non stop controversial. I think it becomes less funny, being nasty for the sake of it.
In the lecture, we discussed that humour can be dissenting:

“Against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand.” Mark Twain. (https://wolf.wlv.ac.uk/lssc/40028/bad%20comedians.ppt?menu=87895)

So I think that nasty comedians have power, and that it depends on who the subject of their jokes are. I think that comedy can change things as it makes people think about a subject in a new way:

“A joke is a play upon form that affords an opportunity for realizing that an accepted pattern has no necessity” Mary Douglas. Implicit Meanings: Essays in Anthropology. 1975, Routledge, p.96.

I think that comedians should be nasty, but use other humour as well, and also have a valid subject to be nasty about! An example of this is Mark Thomas, who I think is brilliant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ccNcbgMGuk&feature=related

Response to Tias Blog http://tiaford.blogspot.com/

I agree with you that it is a fundamental human right for someone to wear what they want. Because veils or headscarves have sometimes been used to oppress women, it is assumed that all women who wear them must be oppressed. Which is obviously not the case. I have a blog entry on Salma Yaqoob which refers to it. I definitely think this counts as a being bad subject of discussion as removing women's right to wear the veil is "bad" ( in my opinion )

Masturbation

This is my favourite example of how bad masturbation is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W23LKD9Z1hw
As with most things, the attitudes to masturbation have changed considerably over history, but with some people there is still some embarrassment and reluctance to talk about it as freely as they are able to about other types of sex. This is a historical and socially created stigma, which seems to be alive and well judging by our lecture and on people's blog entries about it. I would suggest that this is not a good thing: if people can't talk about something, there is a lot more mis-information around it. For masturbation,that's obviously not a lethal problem - just a lot of frustrated people- but in the case of sex in general, misinformation or lack of awareness can lead to major health and social problems.This is an interview with a rep from the U.N talking about how teaching masturbation, amongst other things, in schools, can help to combat the spread of H.I.V and Aids by taking the stigma away from talking about it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8245000/8245736.stm
And finally, for balance, at least some people really aren't embarrassed by it anymore....... I wonder if anyone would sponsor me?
http://www.masturbate-a-thon.com/home.php

Response to http://beingbad-arebelyell.blogspot.com/

Hi, I would definetley agree that it is corporate theft when a company pays their suppliers and staff low wages and then sell a high profit product. I don't think that we should have Fairtrade products, everything should be traded fairly anyway!

Body Modification

Body modification is something that can be used in different ways. Sometimes it is for traditional reasons, sometimes for aesthetics, sometimes for sexual reasons, sometimes because of low self esteem, there are lots of reasons why people modify their bodies.
I have a nose piercing, my ears pierced, but no tattoos, as I know I would change my mind and get bored of the design after a while.
A few years ago, I was offered a breast replacement operation on the N.H.S which I turned down. I was offered it because I had 3 operations (now 5) for removal of breast lumps. The consultant offered it because "my breasts were now not the same size" Very few peoples bodies are equal on both sides. There was not, and still isn't, after more lump removing operations since, even a cup size difference between my breasts. (Some people may be thinking too much information at this point, so apologies)
At the time, and since then, I have thought that too much pressure and an automatic assumption is put on people to want the perfect body. Some people can resist the pressure and be happy with themselves, but some people can't, Jocelyn Wildenstein and Alicia Douvall are good examples. http://showbiz.sky.com/alicia-lucky-to-be-alive
I think that body modification is an important creative and personal right but it should be something that isn't associated with self esteem. I also believe some plastic surgeons could be accused of taking advantage of people and as professionals, they should have a duty of care and reponsibilty to those people who are either addicted to it or those who could increase their self esteem in ways other than and more appropriately than they could with surgery. They should recognise this and not encourage it as is the case at the moment with most cosmetic sugery groups. There is a difference between surgery to rebuild self esteem after an accident, severe burns, that type of thing, and surgery when your body was perfectly o.k to start with and the specific aim is to "feel better." As this quote from Transform plastic surgery groups website shows, they exploit the link between surgery and esteem, and even show this link being passed on to other people:
"I went from a 34B to 32FF/G. The operation has made
such a big difference to my life. I’m much more confident
and love shopping for new fashionable clothes. I wish I’d
had the op earlier!
I was so pleased with the results that my two daughters
have gone on to have breast enlargement operations
with Transform too. I’ve also recommended quite a few of
my close friends." http://www.transforminglives.co.uk/PDF/TRA_Sandra_Hunt_Biog.pdf

Unsung heroine

The Rosalind Franklin Society was created to draw attention to leading female scientists, on the premise that "there still exists a prevailing perception that women do not have the same talents and abilities as their male colleagues and that the contributions of women scientists are not as important." The goal of the group, made up of prominent scientists of both sexes, is to ensure that outstanding women are recognized in ways that its namesake, Rosalind Franklin, was not.
Rosalind Franklin helped solve the structure of DNA, one of the most important scientific accomplishments of the 20th century. Franklin symbolizes progress for women in science -- her contributions were not recognized during her lifetime or for many years after her death but today her work is celebrated and she is known as a heroine of science.
I think that this shows that a hero or heroine is defined by the society they live in. At the time of the discovery of D.N.A, in the early 1950's there was a culture of ignoring womens achievements and a disparaging attitude towards women in science.
This is a link to an interview with her nephew and some facts about her life and career:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2895681.stm

Response to Vivs Blog http://vethompson4.blogspot.com/

Hi Viv, I read your post and thought: I never play on any games, even though there is a Wii and a Playstation 3 in the house. I don't think I have the time and definetly don't have the inclination to play, and haven't for years. But it made me remember how addicted I used to be as a child, and I am going to show my age here, to really basic, early games like Jacaranda Jim, Castle Master, Willy Beamish, Duke Nukem.. I bet no-one else would remember them now but I would play those and others for hours! I would agree that gaming can be an addiction, and I suppose I avoid it now altogether!
There is apparently evidence to show that playing games can improve your problem solving and logic skills, so perhaps it's not as bad as some addictions?

Heroine of "peace, justice and equality" (Bandits and Outlaws)

Bandits and outlaws in the modern sense can also be people who go against socially accepted norms. One of my heroines and someone in the news a lot at the moment because of the election, is Salma Yaqoob. If she is elected, she will be Britains first female muslim M.P.
I think it could be argued that she is a modern heroine. She is in politics despite opposition to her being much more than is usual for an election candidate. She has even had death threats for her anti-discrimination views on homosexuals.
I think that heroism is about sticking to beliefs and trying to make a difference to peoples lives, even if that makes your own life more difficult, such as in Salmas case.
She has been criticised by some non-muslims for wearing a veil and by some muslims who ask her husband why he allows her to speak in public. In a Guardian newspaper article http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/23/respect-candidate-muslim-women-politics
she says that she is therefore sometimes treated like an outlaw because of views like these.
Her website and her political views are here: http://www.salmayaqoob.com/

Drugs and Children

Another interesting documentary I saw this week- really must get on with my essays soon- was Louis Theroux Medicated Kids http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00s56gx/Louis_Theroux_Americas_Medicated_Kids/ which was looking at children who are medicated because of behaviour. It was interesting because a lot of the drugs long term effects were not known. One of the parents actually compared their children to guinea pigs that were being tested on.
It seemed at first to be unjustified, and even cruel or abusive that the children were given the drugs. However the parents and some of the older children said that the difference the drugs made to the quality of their lives justified the risks of taking them.
I was left feeling uncomfortable. I think people should have a choice in most things so every parent should be able to choose for their child something that might help but the children themselves don't have a choice and I personally wouldn't give a child anything without knowing the long term effects. I also thought that the parents were taking an easy way out. They were suppressing the children instead of exploring other avenues. Louis Theroux's comments on the programme are here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2010/apr/18/louis-theroux-documentary-drugs-children

My response to Traceys post http://chocolatejug.blogspot.com/

Hi Tracey, In your post you say that the emotional side of cheating, and not just the physical act of cheating is the problem. I agree, I think that it is the act of being deceptive to your partner. Whether that's exchanging messages on a networking site and pretending you are single or having sex with another person, to me, there is no difference. I believe if you make a commitment to be honest and/or not sleep with other people, then you should. If you don't want to, don't make the commitment!

Lying part two

I saw an interesting documentary this week, called Starsuckers. http://www.starsuckersmovie.com/trailer/ It is all about lies in the media controlling basic human impulses, and so manipulating people, which I referred to in my first blog. It explains it much better than I do! It's all about how false stories (lies) can be sold to newspapers...so if anyone is struggling with student debt, it's a way to make some money; if your conscience lets you, heres the link;http://www.starsuckersmovie.com/how-to/

Its also about how Live Aid and Live 8 were actually harming some Ethiopian people and it criticises Bob Geldof strongly. I found this interesting because on first watching, I thought: why criticise something with obviously good intentions, with supposedly good intentions? Surely you should be on the same side? Then I read Bob Geldofs rebuttal. http://www.starsuckersmovie.com/bob-geldof-letter/ I sided with him, and agreed he was only trying to help. Then I read this article from Andy Kershaw and changed my opinion again, I realised he had a point about the lack of African singers..surely thats not fair? http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/andy-kershaw-the-myth-of-saint-bob-saviour-of-africa-494349.html
and then finally I read a comment from a member of the World Development Movement that said that charity aid diverts focus from what needs to be changed. Politics and systems need to change so that people can help themselves rather than take handouts.
I think that the whole idea of long term charity is a smokescreen to hide problems and systems that need changing and it is a non obvious deception. (or lie)

Response to http://0274076.blogspot.com/

I did bring it up during the lecture..maybe my voice was too quiet, but I said.. We base the idea of fidelity on societies ideal of monogomy. Society says monogamy is right, but why is it still seen as an ideal when so many people cheat or relationships end in divorce? Maybe we should see communes/threesomes/orgies as acceptable/normal too?

Bandits and Outlaws

I would like to propose that the Royal Family are bandits. They cost taxpayers £37.4 million a year according to official figures which equates to 69p per person in the population or £1.33 per taxpayer. That doesn't include the cost of police protection, which according to Paul Stephenson the Met Police comissioner was at £50 million per year as of March this year. It also doesn't include travel costs at £6.5 million.
I don't understand why we still pay them money when they own properties, businesses and have assets totalling, according to the B.B.C of 2.7 billion pounds. That was in 1999, so that figure will be more now, as, according to figures, they see an increase in their income and assets by at least 4% every year. Surely it is unfair that we are subsidising people who do not need it. I think that they are bandits for accepting public funds when they don't need it. I don't think we should have a monarchy at all, but that's another arguement!
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8124022.stm

Stalking

Two questions asked in the lecture were:

When does a concerned interest in someone’s activities become stalking?

Are some kinds of observance allowable and appropriate? Which ones aren’t?

First of all, a concerned interest, to me, is being aware of what someone is doing because they tell you, not trying to "find out" yourself, behind their back, which is stalking. Except if you are arranging a surprise party for them, or something like that?! I think that if you are going through someones phone or emails then you shouldn't be with them.

Having said that, if someone has been truly suspicious, like leaving condoms in a pocket, calling you by another name, that kind of thing, I can understand people wanting to check up someone.

I know someone who was married for over 20 years, 3 children, who found a hotel reciept in her husbands pocket while doing the washing, (cliche I know, but true,) and subsequently found out (his confession) that he had a secret double life (for the last 10 years) as a man who had sex with other men in the local park. This one guy had been special, so they got a hotel.

If she had been the kind of person who had checked where he was all the time, he would have been caught sooner. He apparently actually said to her: "You didn't check where I was, you just believed me" as if he thought that she should have been checking up on where he said he was!

Maybe for some people, stalking is a game that they enjoy playing. Perhaps for some people it also has nothing to do with the person they are stalking but may be down to their lack of confidence in themselves, the other person or the relationship.

Drugs

I think that alcohol is as dangerous a drug as any illegal ones. The death rate as a result of alcohol and tobacco is much higher than the rate for some illegal drugs..

Numbers of deaths where selected substances were mentioned on the death certificate in England and Wales, 2006[5]

Heroin and morphine
713
Methadone
241
Cocaine (including crack)
190
All amphetamines
92
(of which MDMA/ecstasy)
48
Cannabis
17

Alcohol*
6,627
Tobacco**
86,500

Source: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/MediaNews_FactResearchGuide_DrugRelatedDeaths.htm

It seems to me that we should legalise some drugs because, as prohibition in America showed, people will continue to consume them whether it's legal or not. We may as well have the tax revenue from drugs that people are taking. Plus, it might make it safer...if the government supplied the drugs, then there would not be so many deaths from people taking drugs that have been cut with something lethal. This is a controversial video from Bill Hicks, which I think is funny and true.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSxJs0WQhGk

Feeling Bad...

Oops, I haven't posted a blog since February and I didn't get to the lecture tonight either so I thought I would post a blog and make the nagging in my head go away...
My conscience has started to kick in more often now I am at Uni,- I think it was dulled in the big bad wide world out there. Its not that I am usually immoral, well, not completely, but doing this module has made me think about what I believe to be good or bad. I have realised that I am a libertarian agnostic conscientiously objecting anarchist and all the contradictions that come with those beliefs. I am no clearer now from when I started to knowing what is good or bad, but I know that there are many more ways to question things than I knew before. I have a clearer idea of what to question now too. I find the site below to be a really interesting concept. I had never thought of this issue but after thinking about it, I can't find any problem with the logic........
http://www.conscienceonline.org.uk/Pages/home.html

The art of lying

Lying is often considered to be bad behaviour and yet the structure of our our society is based on lies. Or as it is known in more acceptable terms.."Manufacture of Consent." This is about creating systems and structures, which on the surface, look democratic but are really just irrelevant because choices and attitudes will be influenced towards the manufactured created opinion so that the individuals actions reflect this.

To link back to my last entry, smoking is a good example. When cigarettes were first introduced, women very rarely smoked. There was a huge campaign for a brand of cigarettes in the 1920's, which was very successful, which showed women who smoked as free, liberated modern women. The man responsible for this campaign and many others for the U.S government was Edward Bernays, who wrote a book called "Propaganda", based on the success of propaganda in the First World War. He wrote: "it is possible to regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regulates their bodies"

Propaganda is a form of lying, and forms the basis of our society. Being selective with or withholding information is what the government and the media do every day. It is only possible to make a decision based on the information they have chosen to share. That information is chosen for it's effect and it's control or influence over individuals. Therefore, selective lies control behaviour and manufacture consent.

Trust no-one! Read this book!

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KALsz08ijnkC&dq=you+are+being+lied+to&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=KX99S5bXAYai0gTJ2dHSBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false

My opinion on smoking

I was a smoker for 12 years, and only gave up on the 3rd January 2010, so at the moment, I still slightly resent watching people smoke! I have found that the most difficult part of not smoking is the social aspect. I am used to going outside and having a chat and a smoke with other smokers, and that has been the change that affects me the most. Hopefully soon I will be able to socialise with other smokers again!

I do think that your background determines whether you smoke or not. My grandfather died of lung cancer, and I sometimes think that perhaps I would not have started smoking if I had seen the effects, but I never knew him. My parents have never tried a cigarette for that reason, they saw him die painfully.

I watched my elder sister smoking as I grew up, and looking back, I think I subconsciously believed the marketing ploy that smoking is cool.

Nicotine's physical cravings only last for 5 minutes, but the habitual nature and social aspects of smoking are harder to break. I found the "Allen Carrs Easy Method" book to be the best. It explores the psychology of cigarette addiction, and that if you can change your thinking about smoking being

• relaxing


• stress relieving

then the giving up is easy.

This method is about changing the smokers attitude to smoking and removing the fear of giving up. It is an interesting look at the psychology of smoking.

http://www.allencarrseasyway.co.uk/mall/infopageviewer.cfm/AllenCarr/AboutClinics