Hitler reacts to the news of Michael Jackson's death

Yet another spoof on the Hitler "Downfall" theme. Some of the captions are quite amusing:



(shamelessly 'filched' from Jason's COUNTERCOLUMN: The Adjunct of Evil blog)

The 'Gays in the Military' debate rumbles on in the US

I don't write much any more about the bizarre debate which continues to rumble on (fester, really) in the United States over whether homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the military, whether the current policy of "don't ask, don't tell" should continue, or even in a few case that a complete ban should be reinstated. And in any case the excellent FiveThirtyEight blog did projections some months back on the slowly evolving attitudes across the 50 States on the matter of homosexuality, indicating that in the next decade or so the bulk of the country would be completely comfortable with it (that was the 'gist' of the analysis, so far as I recall) and that various changes in the current legislation in force across the States might be likely to happen.

In any case, what provokes me to write this article now was a link to an article I wrote five and a half years ago in my visitor stats last night, from a new article written by Jason, the same blogger referred to in my article all those years ago. At that time Jason was serving as an officer with the US military in Iraq; it's not clear where he is now or even if he is still a serving military officer or is now a 'vet'. His recent post is quite interesting and as usual finely-honed, with the final paragraph seeming to me to display a pragmatic attitude to dealing with the practicalities of the law (or 'military code') which officers must operate under, given the existing legislation. It obviously still bugs Jason that my initial assessment of his 2004 article was that it was a 'homophobic rant' even though I later in amendments modified that view somewhat. I don't pretend to understand fully the motivations underlying attitudes toward homosexuality, gays in the military, 'gay marriage', 'gay adoption', etc. in the United States, except that the stock phrase that the UK and US are "two countries divided by a common language" seems apposite.

The US is a much more 'religious' country than the UK - no politician here who has any sense makes his/her own religious affiliation, whatever it is and if he/she has one, an issue, rather it is kept deliberately low-key and semi-private; basically no-one cares much. Those that transgress this rule are quickly made to realise that their lives in politics will be limited as we are uncomfortable with overt religiosity in our politicians; there have been a few recent examples. In the US, on the other hand, prospective elected politicians are almost obliged to profess a strong religious faith, whatever it might be - an admission that religion plays little or no part in someone's life is probable political suicide. I don't want to take this analogy too far, but I think it does have some merit. However, if you believe the analysis in FiveThirtyEight, younger generations in the US are generally more comfortable with homosexuality than were preceding generations. Maybe it will all 'come right' in the end.

North [of Scotland] 'cheapest for seaside home'

If you want to have a home at the seaside, and many people do, then the least expensive part of the country to achieve this ambition is the north of Scotland, according to this report based on a property survey by Bank of Scotland. Perhaps unsurprisingly the least expensive seaside location (in a town) is Wick. There are certainly spectacular locations there, but it can be both bleak and 'bracing' and probably attracts only a relatively small number of people from outside the area who seek actively to live there. The prices are merely a reflection of market supply and demand for this location.

The other 'cheapest' locations are apparently Girvan, Fraserburgh, Peterhead and Thurso. The final three suffer/benefit (depending on what you are looking for) from many of the same characteristics as Wick, in my view. As for Girvan, it is located in the south-west of Scotland on the Clyde coast, parts of which have traditionally been sought out by wealthier Glaswegians who wish to have a home near the seaside. Quite why Girvan is different is unclear to me, but there must be specific local conditions for its position in this particular survey.

Now for the five 'most expensive' seaside locations (St Andrews, North Berwick, Nairn, Dunbar, Dalgety Bay). I'd say that apart from generally being more attractive places, although I'm not familiar personally with North Berwick or Dunbar (but from what I've heard), but they all share a couple of other characteristics. Each is home to, or is close to, at least one well-known golf course and all have pretty good transport links and are not too distant from conurbations to which people might commute for work. I happen to live in Nairn, as readers of this blog will be aware, and it is certainly a pretty location with many attractions. There are downsides to living here too, of course - lousy winter weather (like the whole of the UK!) and great distance from the Channel Tunnel or a major airport - apart from those, however, I can think of few negatives. And the long daylight hours in the north of Scotland during the summer months and living as I do about 50 yards from a beautiful beach in a designated 'green area' of the town are certainly some of the area's major attractions for me.

PS/ Further to my post here, last night was the first in the last five that I have managed to have a semi-decent number of hours of uninterrupted sleep as the pain was not quite so intense, but courtesy probably of better pain-management rather than any underlying change, even if the shingles rash now seems to be under control, although still scary to look at.

Sporadic posts, even more than usual recently, for the next few weeks

It is possible I shall not be blogging much over the next few weeks, or at least even less frequently than has been my habit of late. I have not been feeling well since the weekend and at lunch-time today I had a doctor's consultation to diagnose the problem. It took him less than 5 seconds to decide what is affecting me and prescribe the treatment.

My ailment is not, thank goodness, in any way life-threatening but it is painful and the parts of the body affected are rather scary to look at (as a rather unpleasant rash is very often one of the symptoms). Apart from a dull and pretty intense headache in my case, neuralgia is a feature of this ailment, although I have thankfully (so far) been spared the worst 'stabbing' pains, rather it is a severe tenderness of parts of my body. I have now commenced the course of treatment, which lasts for a week, and one must hope that the rash will slowly clear up over the course of a few weeks. It's far too soon to tell, but it seems that at my age the pain could potentially linger for some considerable time; I'll just have to hope I'm one of the lucky ones who escapes that particular burden after only a relatively brief period. So far, apart from the pain, it has made me somewhat listless and nauseous and not feeling much good for anything - not even for my occasionally obsessional blogging activities. Maybe I'll occupy my time with reading some of the books I'm either half-way through or those in my pile of 'to read' books I've yet to start. I may even pop into blogging from time to time if I'm feeling up to it.

PS/ I've diasbled comments and trackback links for this post.

Mr Gordon "0% increase" Brown

If the country was not in the very serious financial mess it is, at least partly(*) as a result of the economic policies implemented by Gordon Brown since 1997 as Chancellor and more recently as Prime Minister, then his performance today at PMQs might have made me smile wryly. As it is, whilst I do feel a certain human sympathy for a man so obviously out of touch with reality, my over-riding feeling is one of seething anger that this moron, this ignoramus, has so much control over my economic future and the futures of every man, woman and child in our country. Can we really survive as a nation with this person as our political leader for almost another year? At a purely mundane level, does the Labour Party really have a total death-wish? I can think of no other explanation for keeping Brown as their Leader, unless it really is a completely cynical determination to continue drawing their salaries as Labour MPs for as long as possible, knowing that many will be turfed out by the voters whenever the election is held.

For the full performance click here, but for a prime example of the surrealism and fantasy politics that Gordon Brown now seems wedded to, watch this brief excerpt:




* - and in my view he's a lot more than just 'partly' responsible for the country's present economic woes, even if I accept he is not solely responsible.

Nairn beach tonight - calm and beautiful

This photograph was taken slightly over 10 minutes ago (at 10.47pm) from my window, still almost light. It's been a beautiful afternoon and evening. There are still people walking on the cricket pitch and on the beach.

Nairn beach - 29th June 2009 at 10.47pm (Click on the image to see an enlargement)

Keep religion out of medicine!

I have to say that if I was in hospital as a patient and some nurse or doctor tried to 'pray for me' or talk to me of religion I would be more than upset, I would be tremendously angry. The worrying and frightening thing is, though, that if I was very ill and in much pain I might be reluctant to voice my dislike for fear of possible 'repercussions' in my medical care.

In my experience some people with a strong religious faith simply do not understand that their ministrations are not wanted and can come across as, and actually be, 'pushy' in their efforts to 'help' a poor ignorant person like me who doesn't want them to peddle their religion in my direction. It is equally true that I have known a few deeply-religious individuals who were exceedingly discreet in their faith, without in any way hiding it, but they would never dream of imposing their religious views on others who did not wish to hear it; I certainly respect such people and would never belittle their faith.

For the avoidance of any doubt or confusion it should be left to patients in hospital to express a wish for some kind of spiritual guidance or support - and to the chaplaincy service to provide it. Personally I have no objection to a nurse or doctor wearing a small and unobtrusive crucifix (for example), but unless a patient seeing it asks them for support of a spiritual kind they must not take it upon themselves to offer this - and if I was not actually in extremis and such a thing happened to me I would like to think I would have no hesitation in telling the person who had done so to 'get knotted'!

Civil Partnership law to be passed in Ireland

An agreement has been reached between the political parties in Ireland that a Bill to be introduced into the Irish Parliament (the Dail) in the Autumn to allow Civil Partnerships will receive speedy passage and is expected to become law early next year. The subject of same-sex partners adopting children has not been addressed, but the legislation is generally welcomed by the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network (GLEN) as representing a "beautiful day for Irish society".

Tories were 'wrong' on devolution, says Cameron

In a documentary to mark the first 10 years of Devolution in Scotland, to be broadcast tomorrow (Sunday 28 June 2009) at 10.20pm on BBC1 in Scotland, David Cameron is quoted as saying:

"I don't think we got it right. "I think you can argue that the principled position, of arguing that devolution within a unitary state is extremely difficult and there are all sorts of problems it brings, and those problems are there. "But I think where we went wrong was we should have spent more time in government thinking, how do we give legitimate help to those people within our United Kingdom who want to have a greater expression of self-government?"

Mr Cameron apparently went on to say that he 'would respect the right of the Scottish Parliament to rule on domestic matters in Scotland' if he becomes Prime Minister. In return, he would 'want the Scottish National Party to accept his mandate to decide on issues such as defence which affect the whole of the UK'.

I was not happy with the idea of devolution 10 years ago and I voted against it in the referendum held in 1997 by the then new Labour Government. I remain unhappy with it and would dearly love for it never to have happened. However, I accept that in the political cllimate then and now it was probably inevitable and that there is very probably no going back. One must therefore accept the new political reality and try to make the best of it - something I came to accept (through gritted teeth) several years ago. So David Cameron is undoubtedly correct to have come to the conclusions he has and his statement that he will work constructively with the Scottish National Party whilst it remains the elected Scottish Executive (aka 'Government'), unlike what it has often seemed is the extreme churlishness of the Labour Government in London since the SNP came to power in Scotland, is undoubtedly the sensible and pragmatic policy.

Whether it is realistic of David Cameron to hope for long-term acceptance of his 'mandate' (should be become Prime Minister) to govern the whole UK in respect of non-devolved matters is open to doubt when the avowed intention of the SNP is to achieve separation/independence for Scotland from the rest of the UK. My view on that particular subject, however, is that we should hold a referendum on Scottish separation/independence sooner rather than later to establish what is the truth about the desire of Scots for this outcome - if it voted for, then so be it (through gritted teeth), but I suspect strongly that most Scots do not actually want this and it is essential to call the SNP propaganda 'bluff' on this matter. In any case we need to know the answer to the basic question, to bring to an end the somewhat corrosive political game played by the SNP since it came to power in Edinburgh in May 2007.

Singer dead. Sad, but who cares?

Not me, that's for sure. I've only once before written obiquely about Michael Jackson in this blog, on the occasion of the outcome in June 2005 of a court case in which he was involved - my comment then and now is that I think the BBC (and no doubt other media) have gone stark staring bonkers devoting so much time to this issue of little real importance to anyone other than his family, to whom I extend condolences.

And that's me done on this non-issue.