with my two hands... i can change the world
צֶדֶק צֶדֶק, תִּרְדֹּף
-
This is why I love John Cleese.
Even when he’s being serious, he’s hilarious. They should make a new one this year with him and Dan Radcliffe.
-
British people have the best words.
Seriously, English is so much better there.
A few choice examples;
Skint: Broke, poor, out of money. Usually used to describe students.
Taking the piss: To make fun of someone. Kind of an equivalent of “pulling your leg” or “yanking your chain” but far more versatile. Doesn’t actually have anything to do with piss.
Loo: The washroom is called a loo. Nothing more needs to be said here.
Wellys: Those big rubber rainboots you had as a kid? All British people still have them. They’re called Wellys.
Bubble and Squeak: I have no idea what this actually is. It’s some type of food. British food in general is insane.
Welsh Cakes: Heaven in cookie/cake form.
What’s your favourite British word? Any more to add?
-
Last weekend we saw this article appearing everywhere on the interwebs:
Banksy hits Number 10
Banksy, the Scarlet Pimpernel of the art world made a cock out of Number 10. Outwitting security that includes multiple CCTV cameras, armed response units, radar, air support and a bobby on the doorstep, the publicity-hungry/shy graffiti artist somehow left one of his trademark stencils at the door of power last night – causing an immediate media storm.As you might not know, Number 10 is the White House equivalent of the UK. Although I personally doubt it’s really Banksy, I still think it’s extremely funny and decided to post it anyhow.
How the hell is this even possible?
-
Found on Facebook:
Person 1: If we’re blaming all the gang violence on GTA games, I think it’s only fair that we start blaming all the looting in London on WoW.
Person 2: You broke into my store and stole this
Person 1: You call it looting, I call it questing.
Person 2: UGH GET OFF MY SERVER
Person 1: “What’s going on? Tottenham isn’t a P2P server!!”
-
Restrictions on gay men blood donations lifted... NOT!
Haha, you’re so funny, The Independent.
Most of the major British media outlets this morning are reporting that the “ban on blood donations from gay men is now lifted” (I’m too lazy to link you, just Google it). Unfortunately, these headlines and the government bureaucrats pushing them are flat out lying.
What the British government has done is to reduce the lifetime deferral to a one-year deferral. In other words, if you are gay, you can donate blood as long as you haven’t had oral or anal sex with another man for 12 months. So you can either have an extremely unlucky year, or you can be extremely dedicated, but a one-year deferral remains essentially a lifetime deferral for most men.
Could you imagine the outcry of blood collection agencies created a deferral whereby anyone having unprotected heterosexual sex (either oral, anal or vaginal) couldn’t donate blood for 12 months? Because after all, the risk of HIV transmission in gay men engaging only in protected sex (or monogamous unprotected sex) is exactly the same as the risk of HIV transmission in straight men engaging only in protected straight sex (or monogamous unprotected sex).
More importantly, as I’ve noted here before, blood collection agencies in Canada, the United States and the UK all use the NAT test (or a variation thereof) to detect an HIV infection in a donated united of blood. The NAT test has an effective 100% detection rate for HIV within 14 days of infection.
Put another way, if gay man X is infected with HIV today, the normal testing procedures used to test every single unit of donated blood will detect that infection in 14 days.
These numbers, by the way, come from scientific reports published by the American Red Cross, American Association of Blood Banks and Canadian Blood Services.
So, given all that, explain to me how a one-year ban is based in science any more than a lifetime ban is? The only ban which could be based in science is a 14-day ban - and even then, it would have to be practice based. A straight man having sex with a woman he picked up at a bar, without a condom and without knowing her sexual history (activities which are not exactly infrequent), is exponentially more likely to contract HIV than a gay man engaging in only protected sex, or in unprotected sex in a monogamous relationship.
The worst part of all this (well maybe not the worst part - but definitely a bad part) is not even the science, which I’ve gone over so many times. It’s the fact that the government is abusing it’s position as a shaper of public opinion. By framing this as a ‘victory’ for human rights and human dignity, they devalue the self-worth of gay men, as well as their own moral credibility.
-
Restrictions on gay men blood donations lifted... NOT!
Haha, you’re so funny, The Independent.
Most of the major British media outlets this morning are reporting that the “ban on blood donations from gay men is now lifted” (I’m too lazy to link you, just Google it). Unfortunately, these headlines and the government bureaucrats pushing them are flat out lying.
What the British government has done is to reduce the lifetime deferral to a one-year deferral. In other words, if you are gay, you can donate blood as long as you haven’t had oral or anal sex with another man for 12 months. So you can either have an extremely unlucky year, or you can be extremely dedicated, but a one-year deferral remains essentially a lifetime deferral for most men.
Could you imagine the outcry of blood collection agencies created a deferral whereby anyone having unprotected heterosexual sex (either oral, anal or vaginal) couldn’t donate blood for 12 months? Because after all, the risk of HIV transmission in gay men engaging only in protected sex (or monogamous unprotected sex) is exactly the same as the risk of HIV transmission in straight men engaging only in protected straight sex (or monogamous unprotected sex).
More importantly, as I’ve noted here before, blood collection agencies in Canada, the United States and the UK all use the NAT test (or a variation thereof) to detect an HIV infection in a donated united of blood. The NAT test has an effective 100% detection rate for HIV within 14 days of infection.
Put another way, if gay man X is infected with HIV today, the normal testing procedures used to test every single unit of donated blood will detect that infection in 14 days.
These numbers, by the way, come from scientific reports published by the American Red Cross, American Association of Blood Banks and Canadian Blood Services.
So, given all that, explain to me how a one-year ban is based in science any more than a lifetime ban is? The only ban which could be based in science is a 14-day ban - and even then, it would have to be practice based. A straight man having sex with a woman he picked up at a bar, without a condom and without knowing her sexual history (activities which are not exactly infrequent), is exponentially more likely to contract HIV than a gay man engaging in only protected sex, or in unprotected sex in a monogamous relationship.
The worst part of all this (well maybe not the worst part - but definitely a bad part) is not even the science, which I’ve gone over so many times. It’s the fact that the government is abusing it’s position as a shaper of public opinion. By framing this as a ‘victory’ for human rights and human dignity, they devalue the self-worth of gay men, as well as their own moral credibility.
I can’t decide if it’s commendable that the UK is taking some steps forward (especially compared to Canada) or if it’s more dangerous that having done this, they can claim (plausibly for some segments of the population) that they have done “enough” and there is no need to change the policy any further. Half-steps tend to take the steam out of movements sometimes (see also: civil unions in the UK, which unlike in the US are completely identical to marriage except for the word)
There is absolutely an argument to be made that the half measure here is better than nothing. However, that argument falls apart when their move is defended as better reflecting science than the lifetime ban. The science (and I wish I had a link to the study, but it was shown to me by Canadian Blood Services, I don’t actually have a copy) has the NAT test as being 100% effective (human error notwithstanding) 14 days after infection. If we’re talking purely about science, there is no rationale behind a 12 month ban. If we’re talking about placating recipient groups (generally the national Hemophilia society in a given country), then there might be something to the 12-month ban.
The problem with this issue is that the recipient of the blood bears 100% of the risk, so it’s very difficult to argue that the dignity rights of a gay man who wants to donate blood should carry any substantial weight, when the right to life of the blood recipient remains at stake. That is to say, if the ban is based in science, it has to reflect actual science. If it is based on public policy considerations (which is perfectly valid, but different from science), that is where the ten year, one year and six month bans start to come into play.
And to be fair, these bans aren’t wholly exclusionary. It allows young people who may not have yet had sexual experiences to donate blood (though with 17 being the minimum age for donation, that number is probably pretty small). There will also be people with less than active sex lives who can donate at will. But for most, 12 months remains an effective lifetime ban.
-
I love Paddy Ashdown. He’s a former leader of the UK Liberal Democrats, and avowed internationalist and an all-around awesome dude.
Among other things, Paddy supposes that we’re approaching the end of the hegemony of western society - that Afghanistan and Iraq are the last examples that we’ll see of the West going it alone.
He notes that the last 50 years of world history, where the United States has been the single pole of power, is enormously atypical, as world history goes. He explains that the ongoing process of decentralization of power - where the West must increasingly rely on, and work in concert with, others, is in fact a return to the situation present in the vast majority of world history.
This is the case not least because what happens outside of a nation affects, more than had ever been predicted, what goes on inside the nation.
An interesting TED talk, if certainly coming from a particular political point of view.
-
I quite enjoyed all the Canadian flags on the front page of the BBC today.
-
We interrupt our regularly scheduled ranting to point out to everyone that David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the UK, appeared in a music video with One Direction, twice.
I mean, they obviously should have gone with Nick Clegg instead, but still, that’s just awesome.
-
U.K.’s Co-op Legal has a banner year in first year of operation
Co-Op is a grocery store/insurance provider/other things provider that’s a big cooperative. Customers join the co-op, become members and part owners - eventually earning a (small) profit based on how much business they do.
The Cooperative launched a legal services provider a couple years ago, when the UK totally reformed the governance structure of the legal profession in that country.
Looks like it’s working.
“Could President’s Choice Law help address the access to justice problem in this country?”
lawyer (well, almost), academic, activist, political junkie, jew, geek.
it's all here.
