Open Letter to Anonymous

Dear Anonymous,

I read on Mashable that you intend to attack Facebook in the name of protecting my privacy. I don't appreciate that at all. You claim you are fighting "a battle for choice and informed consent. Facebook keeps saying that it gives users choices, but that is completely false." If you succeed in taking down Facebook you are removing my choice to be a part of it. You cannot fight for freedoms by taking them away.

I am aware that Facebook monitors and sells my data and I don't mind that at all. You present the idea of them accessing and using my data to make money as if it

London Riots - My idea on how to deal with looters.

Anti-riot: Operation 
Cup of Tea

Everything seems to have quieted down now, although we've been hearing a lot of sirens in the background today. I live in a residential area not near any shops so have had no looting locally, although I've heard rumours of local high streets being hit.
I've seen the idea bandied about to hit looters and rioters with water cannons loaded with smart water or indelible dye, which I think is a lovely idea. That way, all those present can be easily identified later. There is no such thing as an 'innocent' bystander. The police very clearly asked people to stay in and stay away so they could get to work. Anybody still spectating would be actively hindering police and fire departments from doing their job.

But what to do with the looters once they're caught? Put them in jail? What's the

Elitist education

Another rant on the subject of education.

It never ceases to amaze me that providing excellent education opportunities to those most academically talented  - as in 'streaming by ability' - is so often described as elitist. And the term 'elitist' implies that somehow, certain others will be excluded and denied an equal opportunity.

In any other field, for example sports or arts, it goes without saying that people are streamed by ability. If those sectors were run along the same idealistic vein as education currently seems to be, the England football team would play roughly like the philosophers in the Monty Python sketch, and museums would be filled with random scribblings, while the Royal Ballet might resemble the X-factor auditions. Giving everybody 'equal access' to training and support in these disciplines would be ludicrous. Participants consider it normal and right that they should compete, train, and consistently be the best in order to get the top position. They learn to win and they learn to lose. They learn to have an accurate estimation of their own skills and abilities. Regardless of sometimes having to admit defeat, they learn real self-confidence and real self-worth, based on real achievements.

Consumers also expect the best. Nobody thinks it's elitist or exclusive to expect the England football players to be the best ones in the country. Most people would be insulted if they came to see a theatre performance, an exhibition, or a professional sports event, and were confronted with a mediocre effort by a bunch of self-confident amateurs who were never challenged and never faced rejection.

However, when it comes to education, the received wisdom is that challenging children is wrong. When faced with a difficult task, they might experience disappointment or even failure. It is seen to be of paramount importance that all levels of achievement are valued equally, so that all can have a pleasant experience and grow self-confidence. Without any challenges they are left with a hollow and meaningless sense of self-worth, based on no real effort or achievements, and they have a completely false view of their own abilities. That bubble will eventually burst and I doubt anyone will feel grateful for it. "I was not taught any skills while I had the chance, but at least I was a happy child living in cloud cuckoo land"? Not likely. The teachers we appreciate the most are the ones who made us sweat.

I wholeheartedly support the idea that all genuine effort should be valued equally, regardless of the resulting achievement. But this is in a moral and a social sense. Two children who both try their very best to complete a reading assignment, one with better results than the other, both deserve praise and recognition for their effort and hard work. In an academic sense, their achievement is different, and this too needs to be recognized.

A football match in a school P.E. class serves to allow all children to participate and will result in varying levels of achievement, but ideally equal levels of enjoyment and recognition. A professional team however will be comprised only of those who consistently achieve well. These talented players are picked up young and trained harder and longer than any other, by the best available coaches. They are selected and streamed by ability, and this is described as a noble thing, as realizing their potential, as an opportunity for children from all backgrounds, etc. It is rarely seen as unfair to those who are less good at football. It simply makes sense.

Ironically enough, all sense is abandoned when it comes to education. Should not academic achievement be handled in the same way? After several years of learning the basics, those that excel academically could be selected and streamed to be trained and challenged by the best teachers in the most difficult disciplines. Should not their potential be realized, should not this amazing opportunity be open to those with the talent for it? This does not imply that those whose talents lie elsewhere are not equally valued and recognized, any more that it is unfair that Wayne Rooney plays for England and I don't.

Universities are to academics like symphony orchestras are to musicians or national teams are to sports-people. Why can't we treat them that way?

Which is the odd one out? National - Health - Service

I recently read an article about the Jeremy Kyle show, in which it was suggested that, for some, this is the only way they can access essential health- and other care like social and psychological support. It was even claimed that there was some sort of class-related disparity in the way the NHS provides care. An example was given of a woman who had become physically addicted to prescription painkillers after an accident. When she went to her GP for help, he allegedly stopped her prescription cold, without taking into account her physical dependency. This 'forced' her to buy tablets illegally in the street. When asked why she did not go to the doctor for help, she replied: "They don't have time for the likes of me." The journalist held this up as an example that people like her were alienated from and ignored by the medical profession.

I have to wonder though. If doctors don't care for her, who treated her after the accident? Who prescribed pain relief in the first place? Kirk takes potentially addictive prescription painkillers, but he is careful to stick to the recommended dose and monitors his intake to avoid developing a physical dependency, even if that means suffering pain instead. I very much suspect this woman did not follow her medication guidelines and allowed herself to get addicted. She then visited her GP for more prescriptions. No sign of reluctance to access health care yet! She had no interest in getting help to quit her addiction, she wanted it enabled. Quite rightly her GP refused. And that's when it suddenly becomes a class thing. He has no time for her because she's 'working class', not because she's an addict and a drug-seeker. Sure.

In the article people who were - I suppose - not 'like her' were described as 'middle-class' and 'yummy mummy'. Apparently, the latter are articulate, know their rights and demand appropriate care when they need it. And apparently, because they look after themselves, they are somehow depriving others of proper care. Don't we pay taxes? Isn't it 'national' health service? There should be enough provision to see all. Why are there such long waiting lists for everything? Why do we never get to see the consultant? Kirk has an endocrine problem that he practically diagnosed himself and he has had to fight every step of the way to get proper treatment for it. Meanwhile, in the same department he sees type II diabetics who refuse to stick to their diets and are unwilling to take their medication properly. Whether that's class related I don't really care. They're getting more and better 'service' because their own behaviour makes them ill. They risk fits and comas, they risk their limbs and their lives and they are continually seen and helped and treated for all these avoidable conditions they have brought upon themselves. Meanwhile Kirk who is not at fault for the microadenoma in his brain and who is careful to follow guidelines, avoids developing emergency conditions like fits and comas. Inadvertently, this also means he avoids getting seen at all. He's a low priority. He gets to go on the waiting list because he's not going to let himself acutely die in the meantime. So much for service.

If there is any truth in a class disparity in the NHS, I'd argue it is the middle classes missing out. We follow the guidelines so we don't end up in A&E with overdoses, addictions or missed doses. We take prescriptions and wouldn't dream of buying dodgy tablet illegally on the street, even if our prescription was stopped. We book appointments through the proper channels and wait months, rather than clog up the system with real or imagined emergencies. We suffer in silence. And suffering isn't good for our health.

So which is the odd one out? National - Health - or Service? None of them. They're all untrue.

University tuition fees

I strongly believe that if there is one thing a government should never skimp on, it's education. I support a free education for all, up to and including university.

It is incomprehensible to me how education can be seen as a privilege, a boon, as if it is some sort of luxury item that some children are unfairly allowed to have while others languish without. Clearly, if that even were the case, the best solution would be to make it free to access for all who want it. But apparently it isn't fair that taxpayers should foot the bill for the education of children that are not their own, who will then, with their degrees, earn more than others.

I would argue that it is eminently fair. People with university degrees become our doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, teachers, journalists, politicians, HR personnel, PA's, museum directors, game designers,... There is not a single taxpayer in the country who will not, at at least one point in their life, enjoy the services of a person with an education. Why should not a small part of their taxes go towards making that education happen?

It also makes no difference whether the average graduate ends up becoming a higher earner in the future than the average taxpayer who paid for them to get their degree. No individual taxpayer is responsible for subsidising the education of any single graduate so it is unfair to compare the wages of specific individuals to highlight the huge 'disparity' in their incomes. Also, the graduate's earnings are situated in the realm of the potential. They might or might not earn more than someone else in the future. This cannot be accurately predicted. What we do know, is that while the average graduate is engaged in study, they are not earning any money at all and therefore by definition poorer than any taxpayer. It seems fair to me that at that point in time, those with money support those with none, as long as they are engaged in such a worthwhile endeavour as a higher education.

Our economy has ever more need of highly skilled employees and ever less use for the unskilled or low-skilled that could be turned out of education at 16 or even 18 years old. Cutting off subsidized education at that point discourages local young people from getting the skills they need to get work. Even if some degrees don't seem immediately useful, just having a large portion of the population highly educated is always good. Highly educated people are statistically healthier (less cost to NHS), less likely to commit crimes (less cost in justice), and more likely to be employed (less cost in benefits). They also earn more and therefore pay more income tax. Which, incidentally, can then be turned into more subsidy for the next generation of students.

Oddly enough, the UK government has recently raised the maximum tuition fee for one year in higher education to £9000. No matter, they say, it can be borrowed and paid back, so it should not stop the poor from participating. In fact, it will only need to be paid back if and when the graduate earns more than £20,000 a year. The interest rates will be favourable too. Except of course if you really earn a lot, because then your interest rates go up and up, well beyond market rates. (This helps to pay for all those whose loans are never repaid.) You can't even pay it back early to avoid paying interest, if you happen to have a windfall. The more you earn, the larger your debt becomes.

The clever ones will, if of a lazy disposition, give the whole thing a miss, because the monetary reward is no enticement. Why study hard for years to go into a demanding job if your take-home pay is just as low as if you hadn't? The clever and eager will take their excellent education and their degrees elsewhere and leave the debt behind. And it's all those clever people you really want to attract to higher education and have in your high-skilled professions.

It seems to me like there is no way you could make higher education less attractive and less accessible if you tried. In the short term, raising tuition fees may reduce government spending, but in the long term we can look forward to a country full of ignorant oafs.

Pope approves condom use?!

I was just looking through the paper for some inspiration for my daily blog post, and discovered the Pope has just approved the use of condoms to prevent the spread of infections.
About time!
It always seemed like such an obvious moral argument to me.

The Church, being Catholic, upholds the ideal of only procreational sex and that only within wedlock. However, the Catholic Church also believes in the reality that people are flawed and don't always do what they are expected to. They call humans sinful. In any case they admit that extramarital sex does occur. What else are confession and forgiveness for?

A person not using a condom would commit the moral sin of adultery - causing emotional hurt and moral corruption - and add to it the more physical sin of exposing their partner(s) to potentially lethal infections. Clearly, it is arithmetically better to commit just the one sin and mitigate it by doing it responsibly?

And there is a difference between the two sins as well. I would say that the emotional harm and moral corruption are limited in scope and reversible. That sin can be corrected. However, the physical infection is at present medically incurable and thereby not reversible by any measure of repentance or conversion (unless you count on miracles - but even if you believe in those, they will never cure millions but only individuals). Also, the physical infection may be passed on to innocents like babies or the unwitting spouse of an infected cheater. Doctrine states that God has given you a body and the duty to look after it, and using a condom when 'the spirit is weak' at least leaves 'the flesh' intact so the person can live on and perhaps even strengthen their spirit.

Although I am quite romantically partial to the idea of marriage and faithfulness, I'm not saying I agree with the Church on their definitions of sins and morals. I just find it so simple to defend the use of condoms entirely in accordance with their own doctrines and beliefs, that I've always been surprised with their view on safe sex.

Perhaps there's hope yet.