If you're reading this, it's your fault.

Human Rights. As always, one of the biggest problems in the world is how we administer Human Rights, whether we have Human Rights, whether we all deserve Human Rights.

Today my thinking has taken a less direct approach... The British National Anthem.

First, before I get right into it, I'm gonna state a few points:

I've stopped posting "controversial" statuses on facebook, because I have family there, basically. So from here on in, instead of posting Stuff which is too long for statuses on here, I'm going to post all the long statuses I think of. Which means I'll have a massive influx of content to share, and also means I need to add a new rule to my blog, which will be, for posterity, placed in my tag line bit; it is this:

I don't want you reading this if you're going to take an active offence and request my silence. I am posting here because, as declared in Article 19 of the UDHR; which I have posted in full on a number of previous posts, I am expressing freely. I invite and encourage all people to do the same, but to request my silence because I have somehow offended or upset you cannot and will not be tolerated. So, to further this statement, all comments shall no longer be allowed to be posted on my facebook link, but through the comment section on this blog. I'm fairly sure you don't need to be signed in to your google account to leave a comment, but I might be wrong.

With all that out the way (which I may have missed stuff out of) let's get down to business!

We are a secular country, largely. Our parliament is free from religious bias. Markedly, we have recently allowed gay marriage, and are all the better for it. And yet, as a secular human, and an outspoken at best atheist, I find it garing and troubling to hear our National Anthem: God Save the Queen.

And here is why:

What does our Queen really do that warrants her special protection from a Deity I don't believe in? As a Christian woman, surely the song should be "God save Britain", as God specifically states we should not worship false idols? As an atheist, I feel excluded by our anthem, because I don't feel God should have any mention. My feelings for national pride and monarchy aside, it's exclusive and alienating to hear those words.

One final point on my blog rules: I will, as much as is possible, only post questions. If I post a statement, it will be fact, and I will do my best to back it up with sources. If not, I will make it clear that it is my opinion. Otherwise, my blogs will be posed as questions, for the large part.

Anyway, with all that said and done, here's to a long and typeful future!

The last post... For at least a while.

This marks the end as I know it of this blog. I may in the future post, but the posts won't be what they are now, or have been. My sanity has come into question, and it's best if I hang up my typing fingers for a while. A lot of things have come about in the recent time, and it's gotten a bit too much. I'm thinking about how best to make this, but I can't decide; my two biggest choices being as uncynical as possible, and my other being to get it all out of my system. I'll see how it goes as I progress.

In the short of it, recent happenings in Britain, and my 'involvement' in them (I'm not involved, I've just involved myself out of perhaps ignorance, perhaps a genuine concern for all parties involved) has caused a plethora of problems, the most prominent being almost losing my non-homeless status.

The long story is this:

Recently, in the last week or so, a soldier was murdered by 2 extremists, who are claimed to be muslim, and also black. The didn't just kill him, they hacked him apart, beheading him. They claim to have done it because he has killed muslims in Afghanistan. An eye for an eye mentality. The whole thing is quite ironic. Because in response to this, people are calling for an eye for an eye as punishment for these people. This is why that is the wrong way to think. But no one can see that. And I'm crazy.

I posted a number of statuses, when I should have been posting blogs, about how we shouldn't focus purely on them being muslim as the problem, and how there is another side to it, but that's wrong. In Britain, if you're not 100% undying to the cause, you're dead weight and deserve not to be there. As cynical as it might be, I would compare that mentality to fundamentalism. With one final word on fundamentalism, it's not that they are fundamental we disagree with, it's that they pursue the wrong goal. No one bats an eyelid at Anders Breivik, a point which was made, who was the Christian fundamentalist who killed 69 people in Norway. That's a crazy person's mentality, though. It's insane to think that the life of a white British soldier is less than the life of 69 Norwegians.

There's a great deal of contradiction going on. A lack of perspective, perhaps. Or maybe, if what I'm being told is right, I am just mentally unstable. Maybe it is OK for one group of people to do what they want, while the rest of the world follows them.

Anyway, I don't have much else to say. If I decide that coming back is "safe" and I'm not "risking petrol bombs being thrown through my window", I'll come back. I'm going doctors soon, they'll give me psychiatric evaluation and we'll see what happens.

A Summation of My Religious Beliefs.

Mostly because it's what my mind is doing right now, I decided to make a clear cut summation of my position on religious beliefs, or what could be known as my religious beliefs; It's nice to have a concrete example to explain my position on religion, also, I'm not sure entirely what my position is. You see, it's like this:

At the time of writing this, there was much in the news (the reported media) about islam being a bad religion, a lot of terrorism was caused, supposedly, by islamic fundamentalists. For those disagreed with islam, or just foreigners, it gave them a ticket to be generally hateful. But this is unjust. And I wish to explain why, because I also don't support religion.

Firstly, we are shown that in the recent years, Islam is being blamed for much terrorism. Yet there are members of the upstanding society who are Muslim, just as there are extremists who are Christian and even Non-Religious ( not that many buddhist extremists... yet.) We just don't see them blowing things up very often. So we can't state that Islam is the only evil religious affiliation; That would be improper. What we can state, is that there is a correlation between Islam and terrorism.

It could also be said though, that there is a correlation between people who object to the western world and terrorism, and that Islam is a contributing factor. Or even, we could go as far to state that there is a correlation between targeted calamity and places of large population, with western society being a contributing factor, Islam being a variable, and the media being the means by which this information is collected and recorded (as in, we don't see the rest of the world, only that which the media deems as important to us/ what will sell the most papers or get the most viewers) So with that in mind, for this instance, I will use the form which most correlates with religious affiliation and connection to the tragedies.

If Islam is the causality, with terrorism being the effect, why is it just a minority that are involved? Why is exploding Muslim not a pandemic being treated in hospitals? The problem we are facing with these cases, is that once they've done it, we can't interrogate them. So we can't work out their mindset, which means the actions are, for the most part, cloaked in only what they leave behind. So I can't state that Islam is a violent and dangerous religion, because it's a minority who cause these problems. It could well be that psychotic and dangerous people are attracted to Islam, which poses a problem: How do we stop those people from being attracted to it? It's gaining media coverage, so the dangerous people are being exposed to it. In my opinion (I'm getting back to the topic at hand) we need better focus on psychiatry in the world, so that we can address the problems quicker, and treat them and care for the people who cause them, instead of the selfish attitude we have towards 'problem people' currently. That's not to say that only psychopathic people are the cause; psychopathy is but one of the many ingredients that could be in this big bowl for the actually-this-isn't-the-time-for-a-funny-metaphor-people-die pie. When you look at a lot of the cases, there's a real sense of injustice behind their motives: "I did this because you're corrupt, and/or I disagree with your motives." So what of those? That's more difficult. But this is neither the time, nor the place (and I have no answer right) so I shall save that question for another blog*

If it is a minority, does that mean that the majority are absolved? Is Islam then just a misinterpreted religion? This is precisely the problem. Yes, it is misinterpreted: It's perceived as fact. We have already established the high possibility of the culprits being mentally unstable, which would add to their interpretations of the Qur'an to lead them to unrighteous action, but if it were so that their interpretations were correct, then that would leave all the others as 'insufficient devotees', as I do not doubt would be the terrorist mindset; which would likely stoke the fires for their actions. Interpretation is dangerous and considering the belief of the Qur'an is based solely upon the argument that it is the perfect book, written through divine inspiration containing not a single error, interpretation is folly. I have made this argument about the bible also, and it fits better still into the Qur'an: If it is the word of God, it must be taken literally; There can be no space for interpretation, scholarly study or any such reading into of it's content. The moment we begin to interpret, we have crossed the book from God's word, to our word. And if it is our word, it comes from our individual mind; we all know that the mind is personal, as shown in the case for why Islam is not a violent terrorist religion, and so interpreting through a personal mind makes the religion a religion of oneself.

So what does this mean? In short, Islam is just another religion, the same as Christianity, and all it's hundreds of denominations (I'm aware the number could be in the thousands, but such a vast number terrifies me beyond consolement: that such flagrant stupidity can amount to so much is possible, I chose to ignore it), The same as Judaism, and I'm sure if I were to put more study into it, the same as Hinduism. It is a mechanism designed by the mind frightened by all that it does not know, and all that it wishes to control. As we've 'matured', we've come to terms with most of the world, and become more content with our surroundings. We can now start to look at Holy Scriptures with a lighter mind - no more is the dark trying to kill us; we barely see the stars for light pollution! - and our interpretations (as seen in the distinction between Old Testament and New Testament) have become more about togetherness and caring, and less about 'God wants to kill us for breathing in the non-prescribed manner.

But if we are to allow for a moment the argument that "We are not all violent, some of us preach peace and love" and excusing for the time being this argument means they as individuals are peaceful people, we are faced still with the premise that others of their religion are not. We must ask the question: What are you doing about it? You preach peace to the non-believers, but you don't do the same to your brethren. Instead, you allow them to run amok and kill innocent people, turning a blind eye, and complaining that everyone looks at you as bad people. If you ignore the problem, you are bad people. The same I say for Christians who preach peace, while the Westboro Baptist Church preach hatred, and picket funerals. If you do nothing about it, you are part of the problem. Of course, I'm faced with the fact that all I do is type these blogs sporadically at best, and every now and again I share a funny picture on facebook that has a point, but for the most part, I'm in the business of sharing information, and raising awareness. It's my job to show you where to look. It's your job to do the stuff. Unless you fancy joining me, in which case, you need to comment more often. (Mhmm? *finger snap*)

With all this having been stated, I can clear it up and make a more concise and succinct position for where I stand in regards to religion: I do not agree with it. And not only do I not agree with it, I think it should be stopped entirely. We are beyond the point of needing religion. Religion should be stripped entirely of it's protective status. So long as there are people with minds to make religion what they wish, we are in trouble. No more should there be an article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
And have this position twisted so that one may think we cannot question and disrupt this, should our thought, conscience and religion decree so. We do not need to change the rules. We need to understand them better. Complete separation of Church and State (or Synagogue, or Mosque) is required, and fast. We are in too dangerous a position to be toying with things we don't need, when we have weapons that can destroy us all. And further more, if you do chose to be religious, you are religious with the entire planet. It is not a selfish act, you do it not for your salvation, but for the entire planet's salvation. If your religion is of peace, you preach peace to all persons of all denominations, including your own.

If you are a religious person, and this in any way offends you, I extend to you my most humblest welcome, as it is your right to be offended. None of what I have said is unjust, I have shown all my 'working' as it were. As always, I encourage debate and discussion, so make your thoughts known. But I don't see how there can be any place for discussion, as what I've said is right and true.

And finally, as always, share and share alike! I want as many people to see these as possible, and if you enjoy it, I want you to have as many people see it as possible also.

Are you lazy?

Are you lazy? Then you might as well go to prison. Generally the attitude that we have in society. But let me explain this, as it does appear to be quite a lateral jump.

We have a lazy person. They can't do much, because they're lazy and don't apply themselves. Whether they're good at anything or not, they're lazy. They can't keep a job, they're constantly on benefits, and because benefits aren't high enough, they can't survive without cheating the system. They'll probably end up in jail. Or they'll commit some kind of crime, and end up in jail. If you're lazy, the only place good enough for you is jail. Or death.

Does no one else share a slight tug of anger at this kind of attitude? Is lazy all that much of a crime? Is it even a crime at all? What causes a person to be lazy? I myself would admit to being lazy, so I feel I'm in an appropriate position to right about this. But what does it mean to be lazy? I've said before that lazy means preferring to do something that you'd rather do, in place of something that means very little. But I'm not a dictionary, so I looked up the definition instead.

Lazy:
1.Unwilling to work or use energy: "He was too lazy to cook"
2. Characterised by lack of effort or activity

I don't want to put too fine a point on it, but these almost appear subjective to me. They're not absolutes, is what I mean to say. To say that someone is "unwilling" is probably the strongest part of the definition. But "use energy" is something that requires further distinction. The same with "lack of effort or activity". The fact is, a lazy person isn't always someone who does nothing. Nothing is always something. Nothing can't exist (that's a whole other blog) so to say a lack of effort or activity can't make sense. How many activities can we actually do? At once, especially. I hear that women can multitask, but really, I'm yet to see such a thing be performed. Listening to the radio while cleaning, or driving, or talking on the phone whilst... I don't know, something not sexist, does not count as multitasking to me. Multitasking would be driving whilst writing, or drawing whilst composing a piece of music, or something extravagant and fantastic. Perhaps the modern world has sullied me against the excitement of the world, but those are my demands. I am yet to do any research on the subject, though, so I'll hold my hands up for ignorance. That means you can't criticise me. Ha!

So as I said, being unwilling to use energy needs clarifying. For example: What if a person is low on energy? What if they lack a sufficient amount of energy required? Is that still lazy? We don't have finite amounts of motivation or energy, and some people, particularly introverts, like to safeguard their energies. For good reason. If normal tasks like day to day interactions take a lot of effort, then having a good store of energy means the day is possible. I at a lot of times feel that I have a very limited source of energy, and doing things that I deem to be less important than something else, I'm generally unwilling to do them.

So am I really lazy? Or is it that I'm just different, and my difference is that I don't have as much energy as the people around me. Or things that a lot of people perhaps find quite simple takes me more energy. For example, I don't doubt it would take a lot of energy to get a car to be a boat. And I bet Mo Farah would have a job doing the caber toss. I mean, I've spent the best part of... Time writing out a defense against laziness. That's not really something a lazy person does, is it? Perhaps the problem is that I'm just incompatible with the world that we have at the moment. I don't fit very well into the cogs, beings made of mushy red stuff.

So that brings us to the problem that I constantly try to avoid: I don't know how to keep on living. I don't know how I carry on, I don't know how to live. I always find a way to pull myself back up, but at the moment, I think I've slipped too far. I have a job that (and I don't say this lightly, I mean it in a very literal, not at all complaining because I'm lazy way) I physically hate, and physically hates me, I'm rolling in and out of depression (and now I'm in a career where a positive attitude is essential, good choice, Allan!) and I'm so fucking lonely, I actually cried myself to sleep the other night. I haven't cried for a very long time. Not properly. I can't, it just hurts my face. I cry for a second, and then it all dries up. And all these things together leave me feeling utterly in despair. Hopeless. Empty, you might say.

I don't want to have to work. Not because I'm lazy, but because it's so hard for me to move. Sitting in my chair in my room, I'm content. Not happy, but content. Getting out of bed is more of a battle each day (I dread to think of tomorrow morning) and then I have to spend 8-10 hours festering for minimum wage, and then go home and do it all again the next day. I don't care for money, I have no need for material possessions. So long as I have my laptop, and a roof over my head and food, I can't complain. Just a roof over my head and food would be fine. I'd find a way to write without the internet (I'd probably be better off. But for the mean time, let me have my opium). And I'm forced to work harder to earn bonuses I don't want to earn, to earn money I don't need. Literally, I feel like I'm forced. I'm not moaning here, I'm not just complaining for the sake of it, everything I'm saying I'm not saying by accident. I hate my life right now. And if you're sitting back thinking "He hates HIS life? What about MY life!?" think about what that means. Think about why it is you're saying that. Isn't it fucked up? That instead of supporting each other, we're pitted against one another in a battle, so that we keep working for other peoples profits.

The blessing of writing a blog that no one reads is that I can be free to post these kinds of things. No one will actually say anything. But it doesn't make what I write any less real. I don't know how I can cope. The only thing keeping me going is the guilt, genuinely, I'm alive because I feel too guilty for feeling bad. If I was to actually allow myself to feel as bad as I do, I don't know...

We shouldn't feel guilty for feeling bad. We should be supported. We shouldn't have to fight our way into survival, survival should be guaranteed. Especially in a first world country. We shouldn't have to chose between happiness and content, they should be together. I won't apologise for feeling like this, and I shouldn't have to.

Anyway, I guess that's the end. If you did read this, ask yourself why. And then feel bad for wasting some of your Sunday night. And I guess I'll post next time I have something.

I'd say share and comment, but it's a bit inappropriate. Plus no one listens anyway.

"WHAT ABOUT DINOSAURS?" THE BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION OF SCIENCE

Just got back from "What about Dinosaurs" - A biblical interpretation of science. And what an interpretation it was!

I'm amazed they can spell these words.

I started off with a quick chat with the pastor at a local Church (there are 3 local churches, a baptist, a Methodist (notice how Methodist has 'meth' in the name?), and St Andrews. A bit strange how they need 3 different churches in what is literally less than 100 ft of distance.) which was nice. I was immediately struck with that familiar, yet rare, sensation of humanity, of "These are just people, like you or I". They were sorting out their tech, doing the lights, the sound, it was a very much like the start of a gig. That was oddly comforting.

And as I waited for the "sermon" to begin, one may say blindly, unprepared for what was to come; perhaps slightly prepared. I knew I could expect the traditional box answers: The bible proves the bible, a world without God is a world without morals. But at the same time, this standing left me wide open to being blindsided. And blindsided I was.

We began with a prayer. I'm a respectful fellow, so I sat with my eyes closed, following the prayer, as they thanked God for allowing them to come together, and wished well upon the speaker (I secretly wished him to fuck up, and he did. Where's your God now?) finishing with Amen (I mouthed yup) and thus began the speech. It opened pleasantly enough, gave a brief intro to what was to come, another of my prophecies were fulfilled, a reference to the behemoth passage was made, a slide showing all the evidence for a true bible were shown, but never delved into (such as the prophecies that I've never heard any of) and the numerous passages that state the bible is fact (I think I'm the bible, I keep having my prophecies fulfilled). He then laid the ground rules, defining science for himself, as "knowledge, to have knowledge. I make science to be the process with which we gain knowledge, not "nothing more than having knowledge". He then goes on to define the 2 types of science: (and I agree on this part) observational, and historical, which the lines are blurred between. And he's right, the distinction between historical and observational are not clear, and that is not a flaw in the methodology, but a flaw in allowing understanding. We must make it clear that historical science is a much, much more difficult process, and the work that goes into the theories that are drawn as conclusion as a result of the meticulous processes is indeed a task above most. This does not by any means dilute the science, but strengthens it. It's not until people equate testimonies of tribesman with the centuries of lifelong study that we have problems. Especially when it's referred to as 'blind speculation' (the irony)

We then mover further into what evolution is, what it means. In the speakers mind, and thanks muchly to a Charles Lyell, evolution is a science "with an agenda", not much unlike the speakers sermon. An agenda which is to reclaim science from Moses. Not a bad agenda. That's a man who separated a sea. Hardly scientific. So, with science defined, we next approach the topic of the evening - Dinosaurs.

Now forgive me for the sporadic jumping around here, half due to the nature of the speech, and mostly on the part (the mostly being the other half. Maths be damned!) of my sporadic note taking, I was mostly mesmerised by the hilarity that was the seminar. He opens with what dinosaurs are, how they are discovered, and how they died. He states that all dinosaurs were found to have been killed in flooding, or flooding was present, attributing the death of them to Noah's flood. I can find no credible evidence for this claim (lots of creationist sites) so I can't say for certain that he's wrong. I won't doubt a lot of dinosaurs probably died around water, or at least, there was large evidence of flooding. It might even be that the only way for a fossil to have been preserved was by being in a certain "Goldilocks Zone" of water/ sediment. After all, we can't know for sure that all we have found is all that existed. Let's be fair, our scientific knowledge of the past is limited to what we find, and fossilisation is a difficult process, which doesn't always work. It requires specific circumstances. It's all to easy to imply a position on a theory just because it fits our wishes.

The next topic is the process of fossilisation as accounted by the bible. This is a 5 step all encompassing process, which I will list as if he did it, to the best of my notes.

1. CREATED

Dinosaurs, in the biblical way, were created by God, at the same time as everything else. He cites, as they oft do, a man made creation as evidence of God's creation. Zoids, in particular. He shows that to create a Zoid, one needs a mind, it takes intelligence. God has a mind (and so therefore would be a transient being, I suppose) and has great intelligence, because he made all the living things. Wow, what a great guy(!) He also states how animals are created in 'kinds', not species. As if that genuinely changes anything. Oh, and Tyrannosaurs were vegetarians. God made Tyrannosaurs as carnivores, with their massive teeth and claws for tearing meat to eat vegetation in the Garden of Eden. It wasn't until...

2. AFFECTED

Wouldn't it be nice? No. It would be dangerous.

Adam and Eve came along that things went down the shitter! Carnivorous predators roaming and killing is all the fault of those poor tempted souls that ruined everything for us. Of course, this whole section is rampant with the manipulation of our fear to instill the love of God (as expected) and somehow the speaker expects us to believe that 2 people and their family managed to live well in the realms of all those animals that existed on earth at the time of after-apple. Dinosaurs didn't wipe us out... How convenient!

3. PROTECTED

And neither did God! Especially not after that massive flood he sent to wipe out all but a select group. Even the dinosaurs got saved! The dinosaurs. On the Arc... He states that the size of them is not an issue, as they just need to be taken on as teenagers. Somehow, the weight of thousands upon thousands of species of beast and bird alike is not an issue for him, nor the weight of a boat that is longer than a football pitch. Physics really isn't the biblical strong point. But neither is biology! As he already covered, there are no species, only kinds, with vibrant variety. And that makes only 50 kinds of dinosaur. How convenient that evolution worked after the flood. Only it didn't. Somehow we managed to get vibrant variety after the flood... It's as hard to follow on this as it was on the speech.

4. DETRACTED

And then the dinosaurs started to die out. Here's where it got weird. Dinosaurs, he said, probably couldn't cope with the new climate (climate change?) and were likely hunted by humans, for their abundance of meat. Hunted by humans? Oh yes... They became dragons!

As the speaker says, without a hint of irony, the word dinosaur didn't exist until it was coined in 1841... but as it says in King James Version of the bible, dragons did! Because the word dragon existed in those days... He tells the tales of accounts of many different dragons, of giant lizards that stalk villages and kill people, and then hide in the reeds (big enough to be a threat, but not big enough to be seen in the marsh.. Sounds familiarly like science fiction...) the one thing I notice of these tales is that generally, it's solitary beasts who live alone. They either have lifespans that stretch thousands of years, or they have no need to reproduce to continue their lives, as if an idea passed down from person to person...

At this point, I remember sitting thinking "all we need now is Loch Ness Monster to be mentioned, and this will be a worthwhile trip. He then continues to account that Plinius Secondus and Marco Polo both saw dinosaurs, or dragons, on their travels to India. This man was convinced that dragons were real. He was also pretty adamant that Beowulf was a factual, historical character. And Grendel? A Tyrannosaurus Rex. Not a troll, which he made certain to mention. Oh no. Trolls don't exist, dragons do. Trolls are myths, let's not be ridiculous! Here's an interesting source which gives an almost blow for blow account of exactly what I sat through (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=152638)

Then comes the mentioning of the Behemoth (Job 40:15-21), as well as biblical passages stating that fire breathing dragons exist, and legends prove that they exist. Let's not forget that electric eels and glow worms and bombardier beetles prove that fire breathing dragons exist. Quite the tangent, right? He then gets back on track

5. COLLECTED = fossilisation

He makes the cardinal sin (pun) of stating that petrification is fossilisation. He also states that tissue found in a T-Rex fossil is proof that the earth is young. Ironically, part of the testing was on the osteocytes, isolating them and subjecting them to a series of tests, which included exposing them to antibodies that target proteins called PHEX, and the epitope that they selected, "so far as it has been tested by the primary researchers" [Schweitzer] is only reactive to bird osteocytes. Which sort of proves the current, prevailing theory that dinosaurs descended to birds.

By this point, I'd lost all concentration, completely submerged in the foolishness, but he plowed on with his "Feel bad, we need Jesus, feel bad", pulling out his slippery slope "With evolution, you get gay marriage" attacks. We then broke for refreshments.

Prizes for the best name for this fella.

Coming back, we were treated with "Are Dinosaurs still alive?" Yes, apparently.

Cryptozoology! A genuine science now. All sorts of accounts of dinosaurs living in our times, like the Loch Ness (oh yeah.) diplodocus' living in the Congo and the Amazon, As well as other sorts of ceratops. Not to mention countless pterosaurs, like the batamzinga and the orang-bati. There are even bio-luminescent ones!

The whole thing raises one massive question. His whole speech was mostly focused on "all this could be fact, it's simply an interpretation of what we see, based on the biblical starting point" in the aim to denounce scientific reason. But why do we instantly jump to wild conclusion rather extensively reasoned conclusions? Why do rather think "That's farfetched" when we hear scientific study, but "That's totally plausible" when we hear fire-breathing dragons in the deep Amazon.

Perhaps there is no such thing as evolution. Perhaps we are still apes, not progressed, not aged over millenia. We're still dumb, panicky beasts. The evidence seems to support it.

Alternative Criminal Punishment

I don't want skittles to sue me,
so have this picture

This is my 30th post! Let's celebrate with skittles, because I have skittles!

Down to business, this is serious stuff here.

I'm gonna give you two scenarios, I'm not gonna waste time writing this one, it's a pretty straight forward hypothesis I want to present, and dwindling on it will just be pedantic.

Guantanamo Bay, America's best example of
why they're idiots.

1) You're a man, late teens, early 20's. You've never got on well with your parents, were popular at school, but never did well in the lessons. You were a difficult child, always acting out, probably some form of primitive attention effort, like shouting out, or cracking jokes. Without sufficient grades, you're practically unemployable, perhaps you didn't do very well at all in school and got expelled, or faced repeated suspensions, and so never got the proper teaching. With no future prospects, the only way forward for you is crime. Society has failed you, so why work for society? You start with petty theft from supermarkets, maybe burgle a house, and then you mug someone. They don't co-operate fast enough, you panic, and stab them. The judge feels he should make an example of you, because you fit the standard criminal model, or maybe he just wasn't feeling lenient. He gives you the maximum sentence, so you're facing 12 years in prison. You might not get out before then, who knows, you could act out while in there. when you do finally get out of prison, the world is hard to adjust to, and you're not comfortable with it. Society still hates you, and you hate it all the more. It's not long before you're back in prison. You're probably back in for murder.

2) You're a man, late teens, early 20's. You've never got on well with your parents, were popular at school, but never did well in the lessons. You were a difficult child, always acting out, probably some form of primitive attention effort, like shouting out, or cracking jokes. Without sufficient grades, you're practically unemployable, perhaps you didn't do very well at all in school and got expelled, or faced repeated suspensions, and so never got the proper teaching. With no future prospects, the only way forward for you is crime. Society has failed you, so why work for society? You start with petty theft from supermarkets, maybe burgle a house, and then you mug someone. They don't co-operate fast enough, you panic, and stab them. The judge feels he should make an example of you, because you fit the standard criminal model, or maybe he just wasn't feeling lenient. He gives you the maximum sentence, so you're facing 12 years in prison. This time, the prison shows you kindness. The guards are fair, the cells aren't concrete boxes filled with murderers and rapists. They're people who have been failed by the society they were promised would help them. You act out while in prison, and the reprimand you, but you're not facing extra time. They understand you have difficulties with society. They can see that you're troubled. They help you. By 5 years, you're ready to be integrated back into society again, they get you a part time job doing menial work, and you're glad to be helpful, though you do hate the work, because it's hard-labour. You re-offend, but you're not thrown back in the slammer, you're assisted once more, they show you what you did wrong, they talk through why you did it. It's a hard road, but of course it is. It's hard for some people to adjust. The world is a cruel place, but the government that promised to protect you is actually there for you. You lose your desire to damage the world, you're learning how to function in the world, you're being taught how to function.You're shown kindness, and although you're at first skeptical, down the line, after the time and hard work is placed in you, your less likely to reoffend. Hard work isn't as hard work, drugs don't have the same appeal, and you're a little bit ashamed of the life you lived before. You served your time, you made your amends, but more importantly, society made it's amends.

I'd be happy to live in that.

That's how it could be. There's jobs to be created in that. It's more expensive, perhaps, but it's a better way of doing it. It's the right way of doing things. All too often I see people complaining that parents aren't taking responsibility, or people aren't taking responsibility, well it's about time the government took responsibility.

I want to hear your views on this, I want to see some comments, and more importantly, some shares. It's tough, of course it's tough, but is the way we're doing it now really better? Is it not worth the hassle if we can limit the crime?

I own none of the rights for the pictures displayed her, feel free to contact me if these pictures are your intellectual property and I'll make sure you're credited.