No universal universals…but one.

It occurs to me that the idea of the objectivity of some natural generalisation or stereotype stretching across an entire culture, society or situation is implausible due to the subjective nature of man- a humanly manufactured action plan professing to bring success in a particular type of situation will not work for every breed of it- due to human error in implementation, emotional, intellectual and physical difference, and the inescapable fact that very rarely are two similar situations even close to being identical. This is not to say that there are not some good interpretations on life out there- well worthy of consideration if not strict adherence but that they are not ‘universals’ and will only give rise to success for a high percentage at best.

  The only universal ‘universal’ and constant in every situation is the application of the word of God bearing fruit due to what is contained within. its power, in making our action in it to be of the objective nature of christ always causes us to triumph and overcome in anything- 2 Corinthians 2:14

‘Neets’- messing up Britain?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8207180.stm

  More than one in six 18-24 year olds in Britain are ‘Neet’ (not in employment, education or training) “something meaningful is needed” is what is being said- in terms of giving employment opportunity at the bottom of a ladder that youth would be interested in and able- to climb.

  But is it a question as to what line of career is now being considered as meaningful?. Its not long ago though that we were hearing how impressive the figures were for the percentages of people of the same age bracket being in higher education- record figures http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jan/15/ucas-universities-students

   The biggest rise being in ‘mature’ students correlating with a theory of a lack of direction and decision as to future aims, the same with the widely reported increase in gap years to ‘find oneself’- what happened to having a dream- and those that do dream now seem to dream of crazy things- there are probably more kids that dream of being the next Justin Timberlake and more teenage girls the next big glamour model than boys dreaming of being a fireman or a detective, following their fathers footsteps, owning   their own business etc.

   What happened to these high figures and where has all the employment and training opportunities gone we hear that they are there but more specifically those that the youth of this country deem worthy of endeavor to succeed in- are they setting their standards too high? do they not want to work their way up?

 We know that there is a lack of manufacturing industry in the UK now compared with what it was historically but there is still big business, trading, invention but possibly a lack of quality entrepreneurship http://www.themanufacturer.com/uk/content/9361/British_inventors_hampered_by_lack_of_enterprise There is no shortage of people dreaming of being good entrepreneurs, just a lack of structured encouraging support, good and well publicised capital investment offers (aside from the dragons den) and training provided (aside from apprenticeships offered by Sir Alan Sugar).

  Failing that- why does the government not simply cut benefits and pour the money into UK business with the specific aim to create more jobs-graduate and otherwise, publicising it at local job centre level and above and forcing people into the workforce which would also create expansion of business and stimulate growth and importantly, decrease unemployment.

CCTV- 1984=2010?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8192636.stm

  It has been reported that one in every 78 adults was being subjected to surveillance in Britain last year- wow. That is quite a remarkable figure, I fail to see though where any problem is if the climate is right. The point of this surveillance presumably is to protect the public at large from those reasonably suspected to be involved in some law breaking activity that they should not be. To uphold the rule of law that no right- minded person would want society to be without. It would not affect a normal, reasonable and moral person going about their daily business to be under surveillance- they would not be interfered with or even notice.

  If all the surveillance used prevented one murder, I doubt those law-abiding citizens ‘spied upon’ without their consent yet affecting them in no way would think the measure negative. To those caught out breaking the law, has the measure has self-justified itself in their case? The obvious fear is about what the outcome of the abuse of such a measure could have in terms of big brother control- and out of trying to create an enforced utopia the government would reduce freedom to within severe boundaries- an extent where a cherished freedom would be whether to have rice crispies or coco pops for breakfast. Is this really a rational fear? Is it a backlash from too many sci-fi films like Logun’s run, daily mirror horror stories generally creating an atmosphere of mistrust?  Is it any surprise when it is a government measure using the police for implementation- are there any two bodies which take more of a battering in the everyday media? 

  Technology like this can be used for good or for bad depending on what type of government is in power, under the wrong system it could be a living nightmare for its citizens. In a fair and accountable democratic system it would be clearly a positive thing should it stay that way- but can this be guaranteed? Surely that capacity for control can only reasonably be accepted in a system trusted unequivocally? Do we have one?  Is democracy in the UK strong enough for a comfortable increase in this area?

James Bond vs Johnny English?- MI6 torture complicity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8188307.stm

 Everybody who is British wants to think of our secret service warriors with pride as righteous and morally upright heroes only doing what is strictly necessary to put those ‘baddies’ in their place and to foil their evil schemes. With regards to terrorism though, it becomes difficult to see logically how our golden crusaders can extract information from someone who was willing to blow themselves into smithereens for a cause they believe in with a stern talking to, a slap and a tickle, an offer of amnesty or admittance into a witness protection program.

  Most people like James Bond, see him as a soldier and hyper-efficient, clearly ridiculously so at what he does. He is also generally perceived  as righteous in the methods he uses for his cause, he has a license to kill and uses it frequently. Obviously we all know that two wrongs don’t make a right and to torture someone to prevent their plan or collusion to a plan to end the lives of hundreds of innocent people of coming to fruition isn’t an honorable or positive thing but is it for the greater good?

  People don’t seem to have a problem with these people being shot in the defense of the realm and it’s citizens but torture is a step to far with human rights legislation- is this absurdity? Is it somehow worse to physically hurt people than kill them- truth be told it doesn’t sit will the thought of it, its not savoury, but unjustifiable? of course some things can never be justified and shouldn’t be, also everyone has their own view on what constitutes ‘torture’ i don’t advocate anything life-threatening or too vulgar but I wonder how many people who would have died if terrorist plans were completed would be glad of methods used?

  Do we want a penetrative and capable secret service- able to do their job whilst obviously still accountable for their actions at every stage for the exact level of application to an internal jury of peers much like the medical model? or one with their hands so tied in litigation they go from James Bond to Johnny English? The best form of defense- attack. There are some things as the general public we just don’t like to comprehend, but it isn’t our place to. As a pubic we are quick to point the finger when a mistake is made, security breached and a death toll commences.

“to be? or told to be?”

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8172694.stm

  Its generally accepted that parents put ‘pressure’ on their kids- knowingly or unknowingly to differing degrees and at different measurements in  having ‘their best interests at heart.’ vs self- interest. There are some very clear and widely known examples of children exploited for financial gain- Michael Jackson being an example.  Another motive for the pressure is un-lived and now not accomplishable dreams of the parent- sporting, career pursuits, physical desires etc. Some of this must be a natural wanting to see the children prosper, and even improve upon and succeed where the parent has not.  In general people put pressure on others commonly for a selfish need to gain even second-hand knowledge of what the achievement would be like or alternatively to be a supervisor of it, and to ‘know’ that they  have had a ‘considerably influential’ hand in it. 

  Described as “distasteful” in the news item at the top of this entry, as pressure placed on a child to do anything for a parents financial gain always would be- there is a fine line between what a person would call pressure and encouragement- to strive and achieve which if absent from a parental relationship would be amiss. It really comes down to an end vs means argument. ‘Encouragement’ and ‘pressure’ would often be guided towards the same beneficial aim e.g. to get that promotion, win that game etc. The logical argument would be that if the facts were well presented, and encouragement given then if something is to be achieved by the child then it would be. To do more than that would be wrong in most circumstances- as it would be an obstruction to free-will- which can only bear negative results.

 Just as the law in some circumstances has differing levels of culpability for those doing things ‘under pressure’- lessening the offense in some circumstances if unduly swayed- one must think whether this applies morally? Of course due to free-will one is accountable for ones own actions but how so for those acting under pressure? Acting ‘well’ due to the pressure of another is that  acting ‘well’ at all? Or by not just presenting the facts and providing encouragement but exerting more- is the pressurizer forcing them to abstain from a choice/view at all?

uni- a ‘wasted opportunity’ or an opportunity to get ‘wasted’?

It’s alarming the amount of people that nowadays just drift into going to university as ‘they hear its a good laugh’ or ‘i didn’t know what else to do’. Therefore turn out at university with no commitment to the course they are on-see the whole experience as a chance to ‘sow their wild oats’- join in with the drinking and sexual experimentation culture before the inevitable happens and they must get a job- they end up taking and spending the loans they get, with the costs rising- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/5194719/Ticking-time-bomb-warning-as-cost-of-going-to-university-rises-by-two-thirds.html 

 A breed of student paying to be there for a purpose they aren’t and had no intention of fulfilling plus a student account overdraft often decimated- in trouble because they don’t get the great graduate job to pay them off- coming out with a weak degree or no degree. It’s recently been reported that the fight for every 1 graduate job in Britain has become worryingly high- an average of 48 applications per job- http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/jul/06/graduate-job-vacancies-employment-competition

 One might think it is time that less people go to university for a three year holiday, instead to try and jump straight into their chosen career-path, or fund themselves through some travels if desperate not to join the workforce at that time, a much more pragmatic and beneficial approach to their finances and time.  A person could potentially climb a ladder in a company/organisation to graduate level entry in three years…

 There is increased cost and increased competition for jobs after university- it’s been described as a ‘ticking time bomb’- the period of people going to university for the ‘craic’ to use Irish terminology which seems fitting- has come to an end.

not accepting a cultural trend of drug addiction.

 Many people mistake admitting something and having acknowledgement of it as meaning the same as acceptance but you can have acknowledged that you are a bad cook,  admit it, but still be very far from having accepted it. Acceptance is not as passive as the other two. It’s a kind of action by omission when it is something that is within your power to influence/change. A lot stands to be gained from acknowledgement and admission- these come before we try to help ourselves or possibly call on the help and support of others.

  Taking the example of the drug addiction- the acknowledgement and admission can lead to great positives, but an acceptance of that reliance/dependancy can be catastrophic.  It is great that charities such as http://www.addaction.org.uk/ have been set up in acknowledgement and through admission of a problem in todays society, they are positive and do a great work  but the reasons why they must come about and provide support must not be accepted. The source of the problem as well as the result must be tackled.

  Not just help for the families of those addicted to drugs, help to get the addicts themselves clean but there should be efficient initiatives looking into the common thread of reasons why so many fell into addiction and what can be done to mend these issues or how support can be provided to people with these problems so that people don’t look to temporary chemical imbalance for a relief leading to a worsening depreciative long term dependancy. I don’t mean linking them up to broad umbrella reasons such as social disorganization or ‘emotional’ or ‘rational’ choices and then shrugging them off.

  Targeting of in depth investigation as to why these emotional and rational choices were made and why drugs seemed a more attractive option than other forms of support out there and to alter the sway away from them is what’s needed. Looking at the base-sources and not the means like peer pressure- wanting to be part of a ‘scene’. -Why would the pressure be focussed in that area?  

 Although this seems obvious and the government have had initiatives looking into the underlying reasons for drug abuse and how to prevent them,  more people are getting treatment for addictions http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/124551.php from about 125,000 in 2003/04 to 200,ooo in 2007/08- acknowledgement that drugs are not the solution. Many a testimony from drug abusers on government campaigns about the negative effects however  have not  told though as the overall statistics of those addicted to drugs have not gone down substantially.

 It’s well documented that recreational drug use rose to prominence in the 60′s and 70′s- what is worrying is that it has not been abandoned but furthered by this generation despite the acknowledgement and admittance of its making peoples lives worse and not better.  Rather an increase in those getting addicted in recent years to certain drugs e.g ecstasy  in spite of government campaigns to raise awareness of negative effects- FRANK  http://www.talktofrank.com/ etc, and initiatives into discovering and combatting the underlying causes of substance abuse. More must be done, as in this case acceptance is futile.

 What then is to be done? 1.More community projects to manufacture a positivity of spirit within a local community, a sense of belonging and that everyone has a worth, perhaps more government support for community sport programs? for an office to have a football team registered in a local league seems to be dieing out- why? It provides goals and strengthens social relationships within a working environment- makes people happier. These are measures tackling the causes such as boredom through lack of motivation and inertia- causing people to search for escapism to avoid mediocrity-seems like an oversimplification and it is, but the effect of such measures may surprise people.

2. Provide incentives for the unemployed on benefits not to use drugs by  providing less benefit for them if they don’t, test them at the post office when they go to collect the money. It will cost the government money to do the testing, but will pay for itself in a cut down of drugs-related offenses and in aiding their upward mobility. Hardly harsh, why should government money go towards funding a habit that is more likely to keep someone unemployed? The United Kingdom focal point 2008 report estimated that 81 percent of problem drug users in England were receiving state benefit, representing 6.6 per cent of all those receiving benefit.

 Just a few quick thoughts, what are yours?

Money 4 Medical advice? No.

 It has recently been suggested that a pragmatic way of helping the NHS to cope through the hard times ahead could be a ‘small’ appointment fee of around £20 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8156279.stm, not applicable to those receiving tax credits or children- presumably to weed out those incapable of independently paying and that this would prevent unnecessary over-burdening of medical professionals time by making people think twice before ‘wasting’ a doctors time.

   Life is the most precious commodity and so much more important than governments other functions in keeping Britain great is, to ensure that those within its borders are looked after and have access to proper medical care- its frequently said money cannot buy your health- and it shouldnt have to. Whilst it may be true that some people visit the doctors unnecessarily- hypocondriacs are out there, to most people going to the doctors is an unwelcome intrusion into the plans of their everyday life made necessary by sickness or affliction.  Some people will give every reason under the sun, either to themselves or when goaded by loved ones not to see their doctor about something and the fact that it costs them money could be a crowning jewel in their argument- and could stop people visiting when they need to.

  When people find a lump or something, often they shrug and think- probably nothing!  Most of the time they are right but the fact that seeing the doctor is free may lead them to the conclusion- just in case- what does it cost me? Twenty pounds  may seem a petty amount to stop someone checking out a possibly cancerous lump but if money isnt exactly flowing that month….what if that month is when it could have been caught early enough? 

  If a measure like this was to be implemented it would need to have the full support of the british medical association behind it after on the ground research as to whether GP’s think that something was to be gained against the inherent risks of such a move. They know the situations of their patients and whether they are being bogged down by unnecessary appointments. I would also suggest adding  those receiving a state pension to the list of those exempt as well, being more prone to sickness and affliction for those who would struggle to meet it.

 My suggestion: To first before considering this type of measure affecting everyone wishing to visit a doctor, to try and alleviate the system of all those visiting unnecessarily through a campaign of promotion for NHS walk-in centres or ”walk past” centres as many people wouldnt consider going to one of these with a possible illness, especially the elderly who have always visited their local GP . Also, promotion of NHS phone lines for enquiries and thus lure some of the ‘surgery fodder’ away and save GP’s time and resources to help them focus on those in true need of their assistance- this would hopefully act as a sort of stage system. How much money is saved by early diagnosis? If people know that something will cost them money then many will wait to make certain of a problem, and thus problems will have manifested by this time and cost more to correct.

 In conclusion, a suggestion that is not without fault, having major drawbacks and needing alterations and investigations into alternative means of achieving its end before any beneficial implementation. The aim behind it is not wrong and the NHS may need changes for the benefit of its service but not at the expense of risking the lives and health of those reliant on it, this is not a proposal that I believe can do that.

 What is your opinion?

 

 

the radiation of a microwave generation

  Impatience, laziness and complacency, three obvious factors in why we seem to have a misguided and at times distasteful “youth” culture in Britain. “Youth” is in inverted commas because it really extends upwards past what age most people would consider to be youth. People want things easy, they want things fast and because they think they are entitled to them and they cry out when they don’t get the media portrayed”good life”. We are already witnessing and have witnessed  the fruits of these negative attitudes and they are sour and certainly not making Britain any healthier- high teenage pregnancy and STI levels, high levels of binge drinking, increase in violent crime. Facts we have all heard before with the accompanying statistics. 

Nobody has the time for what is necessary but not constructive to their own personal needs. A typical example: nobody wants to stop for a lollipop lady, say good morning, be pleasant and show any appreciation of the value of what she is doing- in spite of it being more of a hindrance than a help with our own plans. People seem to have forgotten or no longer care of what they show of themselves, a reflection on their manners, temperament and  self-value.

Historically people had too much respect, for how they had been raised and fundamentally for who they wanted and believed themselves to be not to shroud themselves with an air of  humility and respect regarding the endeavors of others, not just because its right and they deserve it but for self-projection and to avoid showing such ignorance as not to- on a personal level. “Do to others as you would have them do to you.”  Although this phrase is biblical and has other origins, it was also a phrase in common usage by immediate previous generations, my  mother taught me it and she lives it, why has this generation lost it and how can we get it back?

The media has a lot to answer for, it doesn’t shoulder enough of the blame for a slide in values, its creation of a de-sensitisation of certain boundaries of behaviour,  it reports and has articles on parenting and schooling being responsible. Parents for not caring enough to give their kids a harsh telling off or a clip round the ear these days. Kids go to school to learn math not morality. The media is happy to recognise that sex sells and a lot of adverts are sexually provocative, the age ratings on films with what should be classified as adult content has drastically changed to incorporate far more sexual suggestion in 12 and 15 certificate films. Such a high level of awareness and even promotion is asking for trouble, it needs to be regulated more strictly and a step back needs to be made. A tighter hold on the music industry as a major player in the increase in street violence being responsible for glorifying the actions of “gangsta” thugs and promoting the whole idea of gaining respect through others fearing the result of getting in your way. These lyrics should be banned- they are damaging- they make money but they cost more. Respect is earned by deeds, and deeds worthy of respect. 

Alcoholism is obviously deeply rooted in British youth culture- some reasons- 1) poor self- image; low confidence levels which is perpetuated by the media, everyone in magazines, on tv, in films are all airbrushed to bits or are so fantastically good looking that people don’t feel that they measure up and so get drunk to pluck up the bravado to approach someone. 2) escapism; people are so amazingly bored and  not content with their lives and what they are doing that they seek when it hits that friday night after work to get so inebriated that they forget who they are and what they do. Its easy to fall into the mistake of thinking it’s your current job/station that defines you- its not- define yourself in where you are going and alcohol isn’t constructive to it.

What about if the government were to legislate that at eighteen you cannot buy alcohol from a shop, only from a public house where a greater regulation on quantity of consumption could be put in place than street drinking and house parties and move the purchasing from shop age to 21. This would give the youth a chance to experience drinking but possibly grow out of the idea of doing so on mass.

Just a few thoughts, opinions and ideas on a few of the problems, any suggestions?

“In the eyes of the beholder”

  Beauty is often described as being “in the eyes of the beholder” – behold this- it’s not always! Not if you want to get ahead in some walks of life, the harsh reality is that if you want to ever be prime minister you may have to let go of that punk rock mohican, that attitude, that habit. When you want to do something that requires social acceptability from that particular environment, its no longer “horses for courses”. It becomes a case of what is more important to you, this is not to say that you should ever compromise on your principles, abandon those healthy pursuits that you enjoy, its not about being a chameleon! It’s likely that you wont excel or even impress at an interview without these- avoid blending into insignificance. It’s actually that which would cloud  and overshadow those principles/beliefs in the eyes of those that can promote and further you, “give you another step on your ladder” that are the obstacles to success. Importantly, be discerning and don’t turn your back on anything you hold fundamentally, sometimes its the environment that needs to change. With the smaller stuff, Can you say goodbye to yesterday? 

Image from www.flickr.com

ironing out the creases

What is a crease? A crease is something preventing the smooth flow of the substance of a material. In its everyday context you mend creases by bending it back so it meets in the middle i.e. with paper or ironing with fabric etc. I think you can put creases into a life context- what is it that is preventing the smooth flow of the substance of your life? I believe that often people know exactly where their creases are but do little to iron them out- they are afraid of getting burnt i.e. emotionally damaged/ hurt or of singeing the fabric i.e. knocking their ego, pride. Obviously this doesn’t apply in every or even nearly every case. If you have ever ironed a shirt you know that their are fairly simple creases and the harder to spot, harder to remove ones-  collars and cuffs.    Generally, like the two types of creases mentioned at the start of this blog entry- paper and fabric, most life creases need one or the other approach. Either the heat of the iron, a bold step into the uncomfortable e.g. a low confidence, poor self-image crease may require this or the bending back to meet in the middle- which represents ‘regular’ functioning, through the tackling of a deeply ingrained mindset by rebuilding the person to heal to a level of capability in that area. Applying the iron to a crease requiring bending can have catastrophic consequences, applying a bend to a crease requiring ironing will not, but can be a waste of time if that person then is unwilling to use what ground has been gained.