When you think of asbos I imagine you think of unruly youths with low slung tracksuit bottoms, all hoodied up, congregating on street corners drinking cheap cider and throwing cigarette ends and obscenities at random passers by, and you wouldn’t be wrong. I bet though you wouldn’t imagine a little old granny, but believe it or not that is exactly what has happened. Widowed Georgina Simms from Gossport, who is nearly deaf, has received an anti-social behaviour order after playing her Glenn Miller and Frank Sinatra records too loudly.
Category: Politics
New Green Tax Means 10% Hike
Just lately it’s almost like a string of bad jokes, 20% on pasties, buy your fuel while you can, but have you heard the latest to come out of Westminster? Households face being hit with extra bills for home improvements under “green” plans proposed by the government. Residents wanting to replace boilers, get some new windows put in or build a conservatory or extension could be blocked unless they carry out other work such as loft and wall insulation.
High School Student Gets a Porn Star Prom Date
Expect readers of this one to divide firmly between “the lucky bastard” and “o morals, where art thou?”. The prolific use of social media in myriad and increasingly creative ways took another turn recently, as an 18-year-old Minnesota student of Tartan High School, Mike Stone, utilised the power of Twitter to land a porn star to accompany him to his prom. Stone’s mother states that her son has special needs and he himself admits to having never gone on a date. So with prom looming, Stone did something ingenious: he sent around 600 tweets to porn stars asking them to accompany him to his high school prom. To make it worth their while, he explained that they would be repaid with “dinner, hotel and a personal massage”. Unsurprisingly, Stone’s peers fell firmly into “the lucky bastard” camp and chanted his name in the hallways, and “called me a legend. I have never been called that before.”
The porn star he succeeded in agreeing to accompanying him was 19-year-old Megan Piper, who said “I can make this kid’s dream prom experience come true and get a chance to go to prom. It was a win for both of us.” Piper explained in an interview with ABC News that her family moved state before her own prom took place, so she never went to one.
It wasn’t, however, his initial plan to try to land an adult entertainment star – he tried, and failed, to get a date with a girl from his school. While many schoolboys would be frustrated or upset with being turned down, it’s had a noticeable benefit on Stone. Aside from the aforementioned boost in popularity at school, an adult website used Twitter to offer to cover the costs of the event, including the price of a restaurant, limo and hotel suite. And while Stone offered to pay for Piper’s plane ticket to Minnesota from Los Angeles, a travel agency has stepped forward with an offer to pay instead, and strangers are contributing through the Internet to pay for transportation costs. All of which would mean that not only would Mike Stone make history of sorts, have a great evening, and be considered a “legend” by peers, but it won’t cost him a penny.
It seems, unsurprisingly, that the school isn’t too keen on the idea and instead falls into the “o morals, where art thou?” group – when they heard of what Stone had achieved, they banned Piper from attendance. School administrators wrote in a public statement that “[her] attendance would be prohibited under Tartan’s standard prom procedures and would be inconsistent with two school district polities. Those policies, among other things, refer to keeping the school safe from ‘activity that may be disruptive.'” Quite what this “disruptive” activity could be, lest the school think Piper can’t physically be around other people without wanting to engage in sexual activities with them, in which case Stone’s mother is right in saying “It’s not like they’re going to have sex there or make a movie” – although quite what may happen in the hotel room afterwards could be a different story altogether. In support for Stone’s rather incredible feat, fellow students at Tartan High School are considering starting a petition to allow Piper to attend the prom, as well as contemplating making T-shirts to support the couple being permitted.
None of this seems to be phasing Stone, though. Far from feeling despondent that his date may be banned from the prom, he and Piper are instead trying to find an alternative venue for the party and plan to invite all the students from Tartan High School. To conjure up more public awareness and support, Piper is trying to contact Ellen DeGeneres on Twitter to have her not only invite Piper onto her show as a guest, but also to host the alternative party.
Ethicists Propose After-birth Abortion
Opinions on abortion are still divided and the topic causes heated debates from time to time, not least during the Presidential campaigns when hopeful candidates speak of their personal outlooks. Yet if the termination of an unborn child with no consciousness is not divisive enough, two ethicists working with Australian universities claim in the Journal of Medical Ethics that “after-birth abortion” should be permissible from an ethical standpoint.
After-birth abortion, once the name has been peeled back, simply means murder, although the two ethicists in question, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, prefer the term to murder or infanticide because it emphasises “that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”. Also rejected is the term euthanasia, because the reason for the killing may not be because of the child’s best interests, but those of the parents.
Part of the controversy regarding abortion is deciding at what point the termination should be allowed, with current rulings settling at 24 weeks. After-birth abortion would necessitate extremely grueling, confusing and rigorous rules to determine an acceptable case, and Giunilini and Minerva state that it will be acceptable in such instances as putting the well-being or life of the family at risk, and consider Downs Syndrome as a good example because “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.” Ultimately this would mean that any newborn that puts a psychological, social or economical burden on parent or society could be subjected to an after-birth abortion. The potential risk should this ever become law is setting the stage for eugenics, where, hypothetically, new criteria could be set for an ‘acceptable’ human being and anything less than that would be considered a burden on the family or society. This would be less likely if the decision relied solely on the parents, but if societal burdens were brought into the equation then the possibility of state interference could not be ruled out.
According to the authors, after-birth abortion is morally acceptable because newborn babies are not people in the “morally relevant sense” but instead are “potential persons” because to be considered a person, in their opinion, means being “an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.” However, this viewpoint does not seem to touch upon how a child with perfect mental capacity – that would understand its existence – but a physical condition that would burden the family or society would fit into the suggestion of after-birth abortion. Essentially, Giubilini and Minerva are asserting that, from an ethical standpoint, newborn children should not be considered actual persons anymore than a 23-week-old fetus is, despite the state of consciousness that a born child has. This is highlighted in their defence of after-birth abortion that “merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence,” although they make no attempt to define at what age someone is considered an “actual” person.
For many, this idea would seem abhorrent. Yet there is the case of at least one woman that may confuse the issue because she wishes her son had never been born. Not for reasons of not loving her child, but because his condition will not only kill him in the near future and causes intense suffering for the child and his family while he is alive. In other words, this is the sort of scenario Giubilini and Minerva were likely thinking of in their paper.
Emily Rapp is the woman in question, and her son Ronan, who is nearly two, suffers from the progressive genetic disorder Tay-Sachs disease. Although still alive, Ronan is paralysed and blind as a result of the disease. His mother says that had she been aware during her pregnancy that her son would suffer daily seizures and be paralysed to such a degree that he cannot even swallow, she would have saved him the pain and suffering and opted for an abortion – but his condition went undetected. Emily Rapp stressed that while she would have had an abortion, it “would have been a different kind of loss to mourn and would by no means have been a cavalier or uncomplicated, heartless decision.” She also goes to great lengths to ensure people know her words are not borne out of a lack of love for her son, but rather her love for him is so great she wants to spare him the pain – to the point that she would live without him: “I’m so grateful that Ronan is my child. I also wish he’d never been born; no person should suffer in this way…with no hope for a cure. Both of these statements are categorically true; neither one is mutually exclusive…I love Ronan, and I believe it would have been an act of love to abort him, knowing that his life would be primarily one of intense suffering, knowing that his neurologically devastated brain made true quality of life…impossible.”
It goes without saying of course that wishing you had undergone an abortion in hindsight and killing a child you can physically hold in your arms are not the same thing, but does a real-life example of a parent who sees the suffering in her child’s life and a degree of kindness in termination blur the lines of morality enough to make after-birth abortion an acceptable idea? Or is it the case that it opens too many possibilities for abuse; that people suffer at any age and we need to just accept that is how life is?
Will You Still Need Me? Will You Still Feed Me?
A bit of bad news plopped through my letterbox this week. It was a letter from the Pensions Department stating that I won’t get my state pension until I’m two months shy of my 67th birthday. I had known it was going to be delayed until I was 64+ some months, ago but this new development is the result of the government’s latest plan to raise the retirement age.
I’m not looking for sympathy (well, a little bit) and I moan and bleat about it whilst knowing that lots of other people have far worse problems. It’s just that growing up to think you’ll retire at 60 and then being told otherwise at this late stage feels like a low blow. But I hear lots of men shouting at their computers now saying, “ But you women wanted equality!” Yes, we did….and we should be equal at some point in terms of retirement age. Hey, women live longer anyway! However, many women of my generation gave up working for years to raise a family and our pension prospects consequently suffered. Is this what my older sisters (symbolically speaking) burned their bras for?
If only I’d been born a couple of months earlier…or years. Okay, I’m moaning again. I’ve taken this very badly, I’ll admit. The next generation will grow up with a different mindset, I’m sure and previous generations had to work ‘till they dropped. There was no welfare state to send them into a blissful halcyon of gentle leisure in the twilight of their years. As the rules stand now (unless the Pension Campaign can create a revolution) my children will get their pension when they’re 68. Alas, what will it amount to anyway? I urge any young people reading this to get that private pension sorted now….don’t delay…put that cup of coffee down, turn off the Hollyoaks omnibus and do it now.
The thought of old age is scary. We don’t know what’s ahead of us. Old age with good health and faculties intact is a whole different ball game to old age without those advantages. I know, I know, 50 is the new 40 and so on. 80 is the new 70, ha ha. The fact is there is a vast range of 70 year olds and 80 year olds. The retirement age could go creeping up more and more and who knows where it will come to rest? Many older people are amazingly sprightly in mind and body…and some are not.
Have we thought this through? Does a 69 year old really want to be plastering or mending a roof? We don’t all sit in nice warm offices and even those that do will have to cope with new technology as it rolls out and it will keep coming because it always does. This isn’t meant to be patronising, just realistic. Thousands of older people will cope with whatever is thrown at them, but many won’t and whilst I’m in the mood for brutal facts, here’s another one.
Why are we doing this? The reason the government is doing this is because we’re living too long. Someone has to pay for this. Something has to be done. This, unfortunately, might be a temporary situation. Go into any city centre late at night and you’ll see an astonishing capacity for alcohol. Fat and salt drenched processed food and lack of exercise will do the rest. There is a whole generation, unless they can be persuaded otherwise, doing everything they can to not live to a ripe old age. Brutal but true. Obviously, this is a worrying situation and an unwelcome antidote to the problem of caring for an ageing population.
So, here I’ll be, still working at nearly 67, or maybe they’ll put it up again. And again. And again. I’ll just slave over my keyboard, messing up the keys with my drool, until my arthritic fingers can’t take anymore and my brain longs for respite. Then they can put me out to pasture. It used to be all fields round here y’know…..
Cancer Research: Lobbying Your Donations
The latest proposal to come trotting out from the anti-smoking movement is plan packaging. The idea is simple, and to paraphrase: Bright packages lure children and non-smokers to take up smoking because the packages are just too alluring and the last form of advertising, if all packages are plain there will be no temptation to start smoking.
Yes, it’s absurd logic – people smoke for the cigarettes, not the packets. And if you take a look at your local tobacco counter, you’ll see many packages are white with just the logo (Silk Cut, Marlboro Light, Winston and so on) and rolling tobacco comes in largely drab packets. This post isn’t about why plain packaging won’t stop people starting smoking though (I’ve written on that elsewhere), but is to call attention to the fact that Cancer Research UK is lobbying for this measure to pass through and become law.
The website states:
Plain packaging means removing all branding from cigarette packs. This means that all packs, from all tobacco brands, will look the same. This won’t stop everyone from smoking, but it will give millions of kids one less reason to start.
It’ll only happen with your support. Act now while the Government is listening by entering your details on the right.
The purpose of a charity is not lobbying. People give money to Cancer Research because they take the ‘research’ literally and believe that is what their donations will be going towards. People certainly aren’t giving their money away to fund lifestyle lobbying, yet the organisation is keen to let us know that it has been a key player in all sorts of lifestyle policies over the years. Cancer Research doesn’t hide the fact that it lobbies government though:
Influencing public policy is one of the charity’s core aims and our work ensures that the charity’s research, early detection initiatives and other vital work can be carried out effectively, by helping to create a supportive political environment.
The charity also has its own subsidiary called Tobacco Advisory Group (TAG), which
The Cancer Research UK Tobacco Advisory Group (TAG) is a funding and policy-setting committee focussing on several key priority tobacco policy areas. [Emphasis added]
The committee currently funds two main areas of national tobacco work – policy research and policy campaigning/advocacy activities.
A small amount of support is given to health promotion research and interventions. [Emphasis added]
It’s brazen of a charity to be overtly lobbying government, and to use the money generously donated by the public in response to the terrifying cancer adverts shown on television, to fund policy-driven studies and lobby for new policies and restrictions on legal products. It’s safe to say most people would expect Cancer Research UK to be using that money on actively researching the disease and how to combat it – because certainly smoking is not the one and only single factor to the onset of cancer.
Perhaps it’s time this charity either did what it was supposed to do, or rebrand itself as a political lobbying group, or tell the public quite openly in its adverts what it will be spending the money on and see how many people keep on donating.