[Whilst the content of this post may seem weird and perhaps crude to some, understand it came as a perfectly natural progression from my studies (which have been almost exclusively on sexual health) so far at medical school.]
If circumcision had not been taught to us as a perfectly reasonable cultural concept in school would we think of it now as something stranger? I mean, it IS the removal of a part of the body - by definition, mutilation. The questions are; is this right? Moral? Helpful? Safe? Essential in cultural appreciation?
Jews and some Islamic and Christian branches participate in removal of the foreskin very near birth (because man was made in God's image... but not that bit; as Hitchen's pointed out whenever the subject was raised) for religious reasons. But are there any inadvertent benefits that result from it?
The short answer is yes:
Circumcision is seen as a significant preventative treatment in the transmission of AIDS. The main pathway is expected to be the removal of groups of Langerhans cells in the foreskin. These cells are localised CD4 cells and are one of the key target sites for HIV infection. The removal of these therefore reduces the chances that the HIV gets a hold in the affected. There are voluntary circumcision programs all across high prevalence areas (where heterosexual spread is the most common; Botswana (24% rate), Lesotho (23%), Namibia (15%) where positive results have been consistently seen, with up to 60% effectiveness in reduction of transmission rates.
Another benefit is the ease in cleaning under the foreskin, around the corona without foreskin. Whilst infection due to lack of cleaning is uncommon, it is still an issue. Accumulation of smegma under the glands penis can eventually lead to balanitis (inflammation of the corona and hence pain and often infection). Phimosis (inability to retract foreskin) is often the result of balanitis and general miscare of one's penis. This condition in cases has been seen to directly be linked to penile carcinoma and urinary retention. The point is that with proper care there isn't an issue. Yet there will always be some who aren't informed about about washing under the foreskin and in these cases, say hypothetically if all men were circumcised, this would be reduced.
Along with the possible benefits that no foreskin gives there are always downsides. The most prominent one is the fact that this procedure is minor surgery, and like any surgery carries potential infection and side effects. Nomiya churches in Kenya for example, or Islamic communities in Turkmenistan often do not perform this surgery under sterile conditions; the result, infection. There are still cases each year in the most developed countries of infection or excessive bleeding (as the very young boy had undiscovered hemophilia). Cases of some practices by ultra-orthodox groups have led to the death of children (2 this year) after they contracted herpes from the oral-sucking circumcision performing Rabi. (Seriously.)
Another negative point (in my opinion anyway) is that the sensitivity of the penis is reduced and therefore sexual enjoyment too. The head of the penis is highly innervated by nerves with the most concentrated parts being the glands and corona. Removal of the foreskin exposes these areas which build up a thicker layer of skin in an attempt to protect it. The constant stimulation of these areas reduces the nervous intensity and leads to a subconscious hedonistic adaptation to the individual - overall reducing the sexual enjoyment of the individual. I personally think this is wrong - the foreskin is an evolutionary adaptation to stop the desensitisation, and make sex more likely and removal of it seems like a move to semi-castrate a person, reducing their sexual experiences, this, in my opinion, without consent is completely unjust.
The argument in this debate is that should genital mutilation be a choice made by a competent adult or be allowed to be the choice of the parent? I would argue that the benefits to the child (in a developed society with low HIV rates etc.) are not enough to justify mutilation. If a culture wants circumcision then it should allow a choice for the child themselves, where they are informed of the pros (getting into heaven??) and the negatives.
A few of the links to extra reading stuff:
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/09/13/nyc-approves-ritual-circumcision-consent-form/
Friday, 28 December 2012
Wednesday, 22 August 2012
I want my own room! (NOW!)
Truly I only get angry a few times a year - this new CBBC program called "I want my own room" is one of those things that makes me just so angry.
The premise: A child has their room renovated or a new room built so that they have their own space to do whatever they want. Similarly to other 'make over' programs, it's of very nice design, done in a couple of days and of course, free to the family.
What makes me fuming is that so far all of the children that have had room renovations or new rooms built, had their own bedrooms already - perfectly fine and better than most peoples'. They have houses with double garages, with two working parents, with so much more than most. The child yesterday NEEDED a room to play his piano in, (well another one, he had the piano in the living room, but that was no good as family members use it to watch TV in; and he can't use his bedroom for his piano as it's too hard to get a piano up the stairs.) Shut up, you selfish ungrateful twat. So this guys gets an extension to put his piano in, free of charge to him, paid for by the license fee payers. There are millions of children in Britain sharing rooms, or who have no rooms, or sleep on the floor. How the hell can the BBC justify aiding the greedy rich?
Today was a boy who wanted a new room because his was 'cluttered and only had one chair' and well, turns out guys that justifies a make over!
Whether the child wants a rehearsal room or a 'business room' (how many fucking 10 year-olds need business rooms; my arse) they seem to get it. These children have no other sob stories, no illness or family deaths (which I would concede may justify this kind of program; as more of a charitable gesture.)
I WANT MY OWN ROOM as a title in the first place makes the show sound greedy, repugnant and disrespectful in a way. It must give so little hope to those children who do live in poverty who do indeed NEED their own room, not some fat kid with only 2 rooms to play piano in.
Even if the families did pay for it themselves, I'd still feel as though the show would be insulting to people, with the rich blatantly showing off their wealth; it sends a message that those less well off should know their place - that they don't get new things, or to be on TV, simply because they're not well off. Jealousy, disillusionment, and quite simply sadness; I don't agree with this show:
Until nest time
Wednesday, 8 August 2012
Gedankenexperiment
-Thought experiments are made-up scenarios used in ethics to gauge the extents to which we believe in a principle.
-Utilitarianism (U-til-it-air-re-in-ism) is the belief that choices should do 'the greatest good for the greatest number of people', to give "the greatest total overall benefit" ie. If you could choose to make 1 person 8 'points' happier or 5 people 2 points happier; a utilitarian would argue for making 5 people only a little bit happier as there is more total happiness (10 points) rather than by making one significantly happier (8 points total)
In most cases, this seems like the best idea to have when thinking about the results of your actions, but it isn't quite so clear cut:
In medicine, the PCTs (soon to be 're-organised' (thanks Andy ¬_¬)) must decide where to spend their budget each year. In this thought experiment there are two possible options of treatments. The PCT can only afford one. Treatment A is a drug proven to lower the blood pressure in those at risk; on average delivering an extra year of life to those on a course of it. Treatment B is a new piece of surgical gear that allows for the first time the ability to perform an operation to remove a previously inoperable tumour from a patient's brain. Without this piece of equipment, the sufferer is more than likely to die; but with treatment they are more than likely to continue loving normally and happily for the rest of their live; treatment B on average gives a patient an extra 30 years of life. In this particular area it is estimated that 1,000 people could benefit from treat A, each gaining on average 1 year. It is estimated that 5 people could benefit from treatment B gaining 30 years each.
Given that the PCT can only afford one, which one would you choose,if in their place?
The Utilitarian approach would be to go for treatment A; in total 1,000 years of life in total would be gained, whereas with B only 150 years would be gained.
The opposite point of view, would be that by going for treatment A it is almost a conscious death sentence for those with condition B, who will die without this treatment. Those who will benefit from A will generally have lived a full and fine life without this drug and one year extra is not as significant to them as 30 years. [2]
This scenario is a version of one of THE most famous thought experiments around; The trolley. You've probably never even heard of it... I jk, you probably have :)
:
Wikipedia gives a decent idea of this problem, so i'll let them take it from here:
"Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed. Beside this example is placed another in which a pilot whose aeroplane is about to crash is deciding whether to steer from a more to a less inhabited area. To make the parallel as close as possible it may rather be supposed that he is the driver of a runaway tram which he can only steer from one narrow track on to another; five men are working on one track and one man on the other; anyone on the track he enters is bound to be killed. In the case of the riots the mob have five hostages, so that in both the exchange is supposed to be one man's life for the lives of five." [3]
The crux of it is that; you are forced to make an active decision as to whether you would allow one person to die instead of many more? A train is coming down the tracks; 5 people are strapped to the line; with no way of saving them and the train can't stop - you have the choice however to pull a switch to make the train change which track it is on - the new track has only 1 person tied to it. Would you pull the switch - actively doing something to kill a person to save 5?
This scenario has a few problems. In court you would be probably charged with manslaughter for changing the lines and killing someone. But not punished for doing nothing, allowing 5 people to die. [Side question: should the law be changed to mean people in this sitaution (well, an ethically similiar one) should be charged for not acting rather than for acting?]
[1]: http://rdfrs.com/foundation_articles/2012/8/8/it-s-what-moral-philosophers-do#.UCKHc02PXRp
[2]: Medical ethics; a very short introduction (2004) Tony Hope; OUP
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
-Utilitarianism (U-til-it-air-re-in-ism) is the belief that choices should do 'the greatest good for the greatest number of people', to give "the greatest total overall benefit" ie. If you could choose to make 1 person 8 'points' happier or 5 people 2 points happier; a utilitarian would argue for making 5 people only a little bit happier as there is more total happiness (10 points) rather than by making one significantly happier (8 points total)
In most cases, this seems like the best idea to have when thinking about the results of your actions, but it isn't quite so clear cut:
In medicine, the PCTs (soon to be 're-organised' (thanks Andy ¬_¬)) must decide where to spend their budget each year. In this thought experiment there are two possible options of treatments. The PCT can only afford one. Treatment A is a drug proven to lower the blood pressure in those at risk; on average delivering an extra year of life to those on a course of it. Treatment B is a new piece of surgical gear that allows for the first time the ability to perform an operation to remove a previously inoperable tumour from a patient's brain. Without this piece of equipment, the sufferer is more than likely to die; but with treatment they are more than likely to continue loving normally and happily for the rest of their live; treatment B on average gives a patient an extra 30 years of life. In this particular area it is estimated that 1,000 people could benefit from treat A, each gaining on average 1 year. It is estimated that 5 people could benefit from treatment B gaining 30 years each.
Given that the PCT can only afford one, which one would you choose,if in their place?
The Utilitarian approach would be to go for treatment A; in total 1,000 years of life in total would be gained, whereas with B only 150 years would be gained.
The opposite point of view, would be that by going for treatment A it is almost a conscious death sentence for those with condition B, who will die without this treatment. Those who will benefit from A will generally have lived a full and fine life without this drug and one year extra is not as significant to them as 30 years. [2]
This scenario is a version of one of THE most famous thought experiments around; The trolley. You've probably never even heard of it... I jk, you probably have :)
:
Wikipedia gives a decent idea of this problem, so i'll let them take it from here:
"Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed. Beside this example is placed another in which a pilot whose aeroplane is about to crash is deciding whether to steer from a more to a less inhabited area. To make the parallel as close as possible it may rather be supposed that he is the driver of a runaway tram which he can only steer from one narrow track on to another; five men are working on one track and one man on the other; anyone on the track he enters is bound to be killed. In the case of the riots the mob have five hostages, so that in both the exchange is supposed to be one man's life for the lives of five." [3]
The crux of it is that; you are forced to make an active decision as to whether you would allow one person to die instead of many more? A train is coming down the tracks; 5 people are strapped to the line; with no way of saving them and the train can't stop - you have the choice however to pull a switch to make the train change which track it is on - the new track has only 1 person tied to it. Would you pull the switch - actively doing something to kill a person to save 5?
This scenario has a few problems. In court you would be probably charged with manslaughter for changing the lines and killing someone. But not punished for doing nothing, allowing 5 people to die. [Side question: should the law be changed to mean people in this sitaution (well, an ethically similiar one) should be charged for not acting rather than for acting?]
Long story short; the morale of this story is that a utilitarian solution is not always the best one, and that sometimes it may be better to put all your eggs in one basket.
Until next time; was a werid one today xx
[1]: http://rdfrs.com/foundation_articles/2012/8/8/it-s-what-moral-philosophers-do#.UCKHc02PXRp
[2]: Medical ethics; a very short introduction (2004) Tony Hope; OUP
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
Sunday, 5 August 2012
Saturday, 28 July 2012
It's play time, Children.
In this blog post I thought I'd provide some answers to, and in part ruin a few time wasting class games; 21 and noughts and crosses.
Counting - 21
21 is a counting game, for those who don't know, in which players take it is turn to say between 1 and 3 consecutive numbers up until 21, the person who says 21 looses. For example: 1 2, 3 4 5, 6, 7 8, 9 10 11, 12, 13 14 15, 16 17 18, 19 20, 21 and red wins.
A lot of people have already debunked this game, but for those who haven't, it can be rather embarrassing. The idea behind this game revolves around multiples; in 21 the key number is 4. 21 is not a multiple of four, but 20, is:
1111
1111
1111
1
With this you can see that once all the multiples of four have been said the next person has lost. It is your job therefore to say the last multiple of 4.
Multiples of 4 in this case are the way to go. If you as the player say 4 then you have won, so long as you keep on your toes. You can keep saying the next multiple of four as long as you have said the previous one as the difference is never achievable in the opponent's one go ie. 1, 2 3 4, 5 6, 7 8, 9 10 11, 12, 13 14, 15 16, 17 18 19, 20, 21 Orange wins as he always keeps onto the multiples of four. This principle works for all 'counting to' numbers one after a multiple of four, 13, 401, 50197 etc...
The same idea can be applied to other games if you want to change the numbers around - a fair few people have cracked 21 and by changing it up may throw them off. Take 34 as the number to count to; one greater than 33, a multiple of 3. You can count up in numbers of 2. ie. 1 2, 3 4, 5, 6 etc. in each case the person who says the first multiple of 3 can keep onto consecutive multiples of 3 for the rest of the game and win it with the same principle as above.
So if you want to compose a game where you can say up to 5 numbers, and win, then take a multiple of the number 6 (one above the counting number) and then add one ie. 37 (the number to count to) and go second, keeping to the multiples of 6. Try to steal these multiples from an opponent if they don't know the value.
Say to them; "I'll go first to show you how it's done". When you presumably win they will assume it had something to do with going first even though second is actually the better position, setting you up for later games when they ask to go first.
Noughts and crosses
There are a set of moves to learn that means you can never loose a game.
1 ¦ 2 ¦ 3
___ __¦__ __¦____
4 ¦ 5 ¦ 6
___ __¦__ __¦____
7 ¦ 8 ¦ 9
¦ ¦
Drew up this labelled square so it's easier to refer to individual squares. 'X' are used for our move; 'O' for the opponent.
The whole game is much easier to win when you start first, there are two opening moves to go with that will help lead to a win, either the middle square (5) or one of the corners (1, 3, 7, 9, ) which all behave the same.
If you start in the middle (5) then they have the option to go either on a side or a corner.
If they go in the side, say 2, then you should go 3 (or 9). This sets up a position where they have to block you at 7 to stop a win there. After you can set up this 'V' on its side shape (3, 5, 9) whereby there are now two options for winning, at 1 or 6, the opponent can't defend against the both and so looses.
¦ O ¦ X
___ __¦___ _¦____
¦ X ¦
___ __¦_ ___¦____
O ¦ ¦ X
¦ ¦
You've started in the middle and now the opponent goes for a corner space, say 1. By going now for 9 on the opposite side you start to set up this sideways 'V' again. At this point he can either choose for an edge, where he looses or a corner where he draws.
If he chooses the edge at 2, go for 3; the sideways V and win on 6 or 7. If he goes for 6, go for 7 setting up this upside-down 'V'. This V is the key. Top pic. below.
If after 5, 1, 9 he goes for either corner piece then he will stop this V forming and stop you winning - a tie. Second pic. below.
O ¦ ¦
___ __¦____¦____
O ¦ X ¦
___ __¦_ ___¦____
X ¦ ¦ X
¦ ¦
O ¦ ¦
___ __¦_ ___¦____
¦ X ¦
___ __¦_ ___¦____
O ¦ ¦ X
¦ ¦
Instead by going in a corner, as the opening move, use a three corner square to set up the "can't defend against two at once".
Start with a corner, say 1. There are many possible moves he can run from here; middle, opposite corner, non-opposite corner, attaching side or non-attaching side. Each has a different outcome.
1) If he chooses the opposite corner ie, 9 to your 1; then go for another corner, he blocks you and you set up the same 'three corner plot' to win
2)If he chooses the non opposite corner then exactly the same principle applies, choose the opposite corner first to make him block you then 'three corner' him to win.
3)If he chooses conjoining side ie, 4 to your 1 then choose the corner remaining that is not opposite ie; 3 this sets up the same as before to win
4)If he chooses non-conjoining side ie, 6 to your 1 then choose a non-opposite corner and the same principle to win.
5) If he chooses the centre then form a straight line diagonal at 9. A corner move from him will allow you to set up this three corner set and win on one of the sides. ie: 1, 5, 9, 3, 7 then win on 4 or 8.
6) In fact the only way that the opponent can draw to this strategy is by going to the centre, you going opposite and then him going on a side ie; 1, 5, 9, 2, he forces you to block him at 8 and so you don't get to set up your three corner.
5) X ¦ ¦ O
____ _¦___ _¦____
¦ O ¦
__ ___¦_ ___¦____
X ¦ ¦ X
¦ ¦
When you go second, then you can only force a draw unless your opponent slips up. You can do this by stopping the two patterns ((the V shape ie; 1, 5, 3 when they start with the middle) or (the three corners ie; 1, 3, 7 when they start in a corner))
Play between decent players will always end in a draw, as there are just so few possible variations to the game.
Was a long one today
:)
Until next time xx
Counting - 21
21 is a counting game, for those who don't know, in which players take it is turn to say between 1 and 3 consecutive numbers up until 21, the person who says 21 looses. For example: 1 2, 3 4 5, 6, 7 8, 9 10 11, 12, 13 14 15, 16 17 18, 19 20, 21 and red wins.
A lot of people have already debunked this game, but for those who haven't, it can be rather embarrassing. The idea behind this game revolves around multiples; in 21 the key number is 4. 21 is not a multiple of four, but 20, is:
1111
1111
1111
1
With this you can see that once all the multiples of four have been said the next person has lost. It is your job therefore to say the last multiple of 4.
Multiples of 4 in this case are the way to go. If you as the player say 4 then you have won, so long as you keep on your toes. You can keep saying the next multiple of four as long as you have said the previous one as the difference is never achievable in the opponent's one go ie. 1, 2 3 4, 5 6, 7 8, 9 10 11, 12, 13 14, 15 16, 17 18 19, 20, 21 Orange wins as he always keeps onto the multiples of four. This principle works for all 'counting to' numbers one after a multiple of four, 13, 401, 50197 etc...
The same idea can be applied to other games if you want to change the numbers around - a fair few people have cracked 21 and by changing it up may throw them off. Take 34 as the number to count to; one greater than 33, a multiple of 3. You can count up in numbers of 2. ie. 1 2, 3 4, 5, 6 etc. in each case the person who says the first multiple of 3 can keep onto consecutive multiples of 3 for the rest of the game and win it with the same principle as above.
So if you want to compose a game where you can say up to 5 numbers, and win, then take a multiple of the number 6 (one above the counting number) and then add one ie. 37 (the number to count to) and go second, keeping to the multiples of 6. Try to steal these multiples from an opponent if they don't know the value.
Say to them; "I'll go first to show you how it's done". When you presumably win they will assume it had something to do with going first even though second is actually the better position, setting you up for later games when they ask to go first.
Noughts and crosses
There are a set of moves to learn that means you can never loose a game.
1 ¦ 2 ¦ 3
___ __¦__ __¦____
4 ¦ 5 ¦ 6
___ __¦__ __¦____
7 ¦ 8 ¦ 9
¦ ¦
Drew up this labelled square so it's easier to refer to individual squares. 'X' are used for our move; 'O' for the opponent.
The whole game is much easier to win when you start first, there are two opening moves to go with that will help lead to a win, either the middle square (5) or one of the corners (1, 3, 7, 9, ) which all behave the same.
If you start in the middle (5) then they have the option to go either on a side or a corner.
If they go in the side, say 2, then you should go 3 (or 9). This sets up a position where they have to block you at 7 to stop a win there. After you can set up this 'V' on its side shape (3, 5, 9) whereby there are now two options for winning, at 1 or 6, the opponent can't defend against the both and so looses.
¦ O ¦ X
___ __¦___ _¦____
¦ X ¦
___ __¦_ ___¦____
O ¦ ¦ X
¦ ¦
You've started in the middle and now the opponent goes for a corner space, say 1. By going now for 9 on the opposite side you start to set up this sideways 'V' again. At this point he can either choose for an edge, where he looses or a corner where he draws.
If he chooses the edge at 2, go for 3; the sideways V and win on 6 or 7. If he goes for 6, go for 7 setting up this upside-down 'V'. This V is the key. Top pic. below.
If after 5, 1, 9 he goes for either corner piece then he will stop this V forming and stop you winning - a tie. Second pic. below.
O ¦ ¦
___ __¦____¦____
O ¦ X ¦
___ __¦_ ___¦____
X ¦ ¦ X
¦ ¦
O ¦ ¦
___ __¦_ ___¦____
¦ X ¦
___ __¦_ ___¦____
O ¦ ¦ X
¦ ¦
Instead by going in a corner, as the opening move, use a three corner square to set up the "can't defend against two at once".
Start with a corner, say 1. There are many possible moves he can run from here; middle, opposite corner, non-opposite corner, attaching side or non-attaching side. Each has a different outcome.
1) If he chooses the opposite corner ie, 9 to your 1; then go for another corner, he blocks you and you set up the same 'three corner plot' to win
2)If he chooses the non opposite corner then exactly the same principle applies, choose the opposite corner first to make him block you then 'three corner' him to win.
3)If he chooses conjoining side ie, 4 to your 1 then choose the corner remaining that is not opposite ie; 3 this sets up the same as before to win
4)If he chooses non-conjoining side ie, 6 to your 1 then choose a non-opposite corner and the same principle to win.
5) If he chooses the centre then form a straight line diagonal at 9. A corner move from him will allow you to set up this three corner set and win on one of the sides. ie: 1, 5, 9, 3, 7 then win on 4 or 8.
6) In fact the only way that the opponent can draw to this strategy is by going to the centre, you going opposite and then him going on a side ie; 1, 5, 9, 2, he forces you to block him at 8 and so you don't get to set up your three corner.
5) X ¦ ¦ O
____ _¦___ _¦____
¦ O ¦
__ ___¦_ ___¦____
X ¦ ¦ X
¦ ¦
When you go second, then you can only force a draw unless your opponent slips up. You can do this by stopping the two patterns ((the V shape ie; 1, 5, 3 when they start with the middle) or (the three corners ie; 1, 3, 7 when they start in a corner))
Play between decent players will always end in a draw, as there are just so few possible variations to the game.
Was a long one today
:)
Until next time xx
Tuesday, 5 June 2012
Latin American Captials
Pointless is, like, my favourite show.
Now, it's not as if I go out of my way to revise different topics that may be handy for future shows or anything... But I plan to start :) And i think it would be mutually beneficial to share the experience.
South American capitals CONSTANTLY come up and here's me just writing them out in a way that I remember them; don't feel obliged to read it out of courtesy. I'm writing this out for myself :) You could test yourself! See you at the end if you don't read :) xx :
Peru's capital is Lima [Llama's live there and Lima kinda sounds like Llama]
Brazil's is Brasilia [...speaks for itself]
Venezuela; Caracus [Because Caracus sounds like Cactus and cacti have V (as in Venezuela) shaped arms]
Chile; Santiago [Because it sounds like San Diego; but weirdly less Spanish...]
Argentina; Buenos Aires [Know your enemy... No not really, but they need to watch themselves. No one's up for it anymore.]
Bolivia; La Paz [In Spanish Z's sound like 'th', so I go on La path to Bolivia]
Columbia; Bogotá ["Dude, pass me the 'Blow-gatá"; 'cause blow is a nickname for Cannabis and Columbia is a drug hot spot...stereotypically.]
Uruguay; Montevideo [Because Homer (from Simpson's) says it's U R GAY - therefore Montevideo is Broke back MOUNTain on VIDEO cassette]
Guyana; George Town [Ex-British colony therefore British name - also George is a GUY's name and both capital and country begin with G]
Ecuador; Quito [sounds like a very spicy latino food; Ecuador sounds like EQuator so it's hot food with the 'q']
French Guiana; Cayenne [The Cannes film festival is in France and Cayenne is in my head said the same]
Suriname; Paramaribo [Mario is a name... couldn't think of a better way to remember this one D: which in itself it a reason to remember it)
Paraguay; Asunción [said: Ash-un-she-un; sounds like ascension (to ascend) and PARAplegic people can't.]
And that's it guys! I should do the Mesoamerican one's (Honduras, Guatemala and the likes) but they're not strictly Latin American - and it's more work these'll do to start :)
Otherwise I'm fine thanks for asking, the final exams are creeping up very soon, next is a week tomorrow D:
Was listening to these whilst writing this at 2:30 in the morning; if you were interested. Don't judge me :/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6g-Vh4vcD0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbXiECmCZ94
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=ZfPOXmT9HMA&feature=endscreen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBwS66EBUcY&feature=related
Until next time! xx
Now, it's not as if I go out of my way to revise different topics that may be handy for future shows or anything... But I plan to start :) And i think it would be mutually beneficial to share the experience.
South American capitals CONSTANTLY come up and here's me just writing them out in a way that I remember them; don't feel obliged to read it out of courtesy. I'm writing this out for myself :) You could test yourself! See you at the end if you don't read :) xx :
Peru's capital is Lima [Llama's live there and Lima kinda sounds like Llama]
Brazil's is Brasilia [...speaks for itself]
Venezuela; Caracus [Because Caracus sounds like Cactus and cacti have V (as in Venezuela) shaped arms]
Chile; Santiago [Because it sounds like San Diego; but weirdly less Spanish...]
Argentina; Buenos Aires [Know your enemy... No not really, but they need to watch themselves. No one's up for it anymore.]
Bolivia; La Paz [In Spanish Z's sound like 'th', so I go on La path to Bolivia]
Columbia; Bogotá ["Dude, pass me the 'Blow-gatá"; 'cause blow is a nickname for Cannabis and Columbia is a drug hot spot...stereotypically.]
Uruguay; Montevideo [Because Homer (from Simpson's) says it's U R GAY - therefore Montevideo is Broke back MOUNTain on VIDEO cassette]
Guyana; George Town [Ex-British colony therefore British name - also George is a GUY's name and both capital and country begin with G]
Ecuador; Quito [sounds like a very spicy latino food; Ecuador sounds like EQuator so it's hot food with the 'q']
French Guiana; Cayenne [The Cannes film festival is in France and Cayenne is in my head said the same]
Suriname; Paramaribo [Mario is a name... couldn't think of a better way to remember this one D: which in itself it a reason to remember it)
Paraguay; Asunción [said: Ash-un-she-un; sounds like ascension (to ascend) and PARAplegic people can't.]
And that's it guys! I should do the Mesoamerican one's (Honduras, Guatemala and the likes) but they're not strictly Latin American - and it's more work these'll do to start :)
Otherwise I'm fine thanks for asking, the final exams are creeping up very soon, next is a week tomorrow D:
Was listening to these whilst writing this at 2:30 in the morning; if you were interested. Don't judge me :/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6g-Vh4vcD0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbXiECmCZ94
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=ZfPOXmT9HMA&feature=endscreen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBwS66EBUcY&feature=related
Until next time! xx
Friday, 25 May 2012
Luck
Passed my driving test guys!
How, I'll never know; I'd have failed me quite frankly.
With 9 minors, it was still a way to go until the 15 minors that would constitute a fail. But still, i think i'd have deserved more.
It started off with the independent drive. "Turn right out of the test centre and follow the signs for Totnes" I was told. Turning right out of the test centre was fine, finding the signs for Totnes on the other hand was not. About 5 minutes later he told me to pull over and said I'd taken a wrong turn about 30 seconds after leaving the test centre... He then told me to follow signs for Teignmouth. Inside i go "YAARSHSHS!" I live in Teignmouth, I've driven back from Newton, home LOADS of times... Didn't stop me from misreading the road markings and ending up in the wrong lane and unable to merge in... I end up in a part of Newton I'd never been before...
He tells me that where I am is not on any of the test routes and that he'll have to make it up on the spot for the rest of the test.
Only a minute later he pulls me over and it's time for the hill start. Having been bullied into 'over-the-top-checking-around-me-before-pulling-off' by my instructor for a good 8 months I do just that; failing to notice that I'm still indicating to the left and probably more importantly that I'm in neutral...
I swear to God I found the bite. Swear to God. But no, I take the hand break off and go rolling off down the hill. So it's break hard and hand break back on. "Lets try that again shall we" comes the tired sounding examiner as he scrawls in red pen again; it hasn't yet left his hand.
After this I was pretty sure I'd failed and just drove. The maneuver went okay (a reverse round corner, for those interested) and although we didn't do an emergency stop as such, an old lady tripping into the road with a pushchair constituted me doing and almost emergency stop anyway...
Drove round an industrial estate for about 20 minutes - pulled into the test centre - he told me I'd passed, - went home :)
People excited for Eurovision tomorrow?!
Until next time xx
How, I'll never know; I'd have failed me quite frankly.
With 9 minors, it was still a way to go until the 15 minors that would constitute a fail. But still, i think i'd have deserved more.
It started off with the independent drive. "Turn right out of the test centre and follow the signs for Totnes" I was told. Turning right out of the test centre was fine, finding the signs for Totnes on the other hand was not. About 5 minutes later he told me to pull over and said I'd taken a wrong turn about 30 seconds after leaving the test centre... He then told me to follow signs for Teignmouth. Inside i go "YAARSHSHS!" I live in Teignmouth, I've driven back from Newton, home LOADS of times... Didn't stop me from misreading the road markings and ending up in the wrong lane and unable to merge in... I end up in a part of Newton I'd never been before...
He tells me that where I am is not on any of the test routes and that he'll have to make it up on the spot for the rest of the test.
Only a minute later he pulls me over and it's time for the hill start. Having been bullied into 'over-the-top-checking-around-me-before-pulling-off' by my instructor for a good 8 months I do just that; failing to notice that I'm still indicating to the left and probably more importantly that I'm in neutral...
I swear to God I found the bite. Swear to God. But no, I take the hand break off and go rolling off down the hill. So it's break hard and hand break back on. "Lets try that again shall we" comes the tired sounding examiner as he scrawls in red pen again; it hasn't yet left his hand.
After this I was pretty sure I'd failed and just drove. The maneuver went okay (a reverse round corner, for those interested) and although we didn't do an emergency stop as such, an old lady tripping into the road with a pushchair constituted me doing and almost emergency stop anyway...
Drove round an industrial estate for about 20 minutes - pulled into the test centre - he told me I'd passed, - went home :)
People excited for Eurovision tomorrow?!
Until next time xx
Friday, 18 May 2012
Granted, it is similar to the Gil Gerard speech
(Not that I have a clue who Gil Gerard is, just that on Family Guy that line is used when Peter is going over a point that he's obviously made in the past. This blog was of something cliche enough for everyone to switch off; gays get a hard time, we get it, go away; but still I wanted to raise a couple of points.)
It's hard enough to find someone who reciprocates those feelings in the best of times. When the other guy's straight, it's harder; when you can't tell if the other guy is gay or not, then it's even harder. It's that verge of building expectation ('cause what gets you from day to day if not that) and at the same time restricting it in preparation for a "more than just the natural assumption he's straight" sign.
Which brings me onto the topic of what is LOVE and liking someone anyway. In my relatively short time about this place, I've already come to the completly nihilistic conclusion that love isn't really there; if you'll let me:
Social monogamy is a social expectance, (only look at a Jeremy Kyle to see that when people deviate, the rest of the pack start spitting) and aside from this the biological and evolutionary advantages include: avoiding unprotected members by pairing everyone up; ensuring offspring have two guardians and minimising the spread of sexual infections by retaining sexual partners. With this in mind it seems appropriate that subconsciously we need a strong bond with someone else, to maintain group structure and protection of offspring. Now I can't argue that love is ENTIRELY the product of fulfilling the need to pair up for evolutionary protection.
But it is true that a lot of what love begins as is playground gossip: DID YOU KNOW MISS X FANCYS YOU?! stems from the finding of one self's identity away from parents, growing up and breaking the boundaries on "taboo" subjects of which relationships (which ALWAYS tend towards sex) comes under. It's that juicy gossip that helps anneal social links, orders status on the playground and gives people that buzz when talking about - celeb magazines say it all. The need of people to buy that absolute shit weekly shows to an extent still our desire to indulge in slight taboo subjects. Love comes from in part an unconscious attempt to make ourselves more interesting; give us something to talk about - to make a stir around us, and get attention from it.
On tele we see every character has a crush on someone else and in the world too, everyone is paired up, or hunting for someone to pair up with. We conform.
Which brings me onto the next part; projecting. This is where I think most of my own personal experiences (last bit has sounded pretty snobby D: sorry, not sure how to word it differently and still get the message across) come in.
Partly to fill these social pressures, we find someone and make them our one; subconsciously usually, but more generally anyone who fits varying criteria; sexually attractive, kind, funny, you get the drill. When thinking of that person, you amplify their qualities ridiculously, seeing only of them what you want, to emphasise your image of them (much like a journalist will selectively 'hear' bits of a story to dramatise it). And your image of them? Is based around the qualities you feel you lack, for me, confidence, popularity whilst maintaining characteristics you like about yourself too.
The point is though, most of the time these things are only ever imagined; looked over because of availability (for gay people especially), the "minimal effort" principle, settling for someone who really isn't fitting, but they're a relationship (sex) in the end.
The point of this is that Love, in sense, is not the magical-spiritual fancy shmancy happening. Almost anyone will do for almost everyone else in the end. It can seemingly be put right down to biological, sociological psychological and availability phenomenon.
But don't get me wrong, I'm not against it at all; I'm just a bit of a mechanist. I appreciate all the social, physical, emotional and financial benefits of loving relationships, but just think they should be built around people who you get along with better than any one else - generally best friends. Which would involve more same-sex living arrangements come in, like sharing at Uni, only more permanent. If you can live with a wife then a best friend would be even better. Think it would be healthier if society felt it necessary to love the people they shared a child with? It's a child who'll do just as well in another (but more stable) environment - living with friends. 21st century and we still live in small small units based around sex... Getting along is surely better than the high-divorce prone/domestic abuse filled "modern" family.
Love in the husband-wife sense fails in modern life without the clammy hand of God round peoples' necks to keep them together. A new approach of friendship groups seems more apt, with a platonic love/respect; which would avoid all the issues around 'Love' love - insecurity, inefficiency; the need to constantly validate and qualify each other...
Sex is sex, and why should living environment be built around it other than for easy availability? Happiness and lack of nagging (forcing together socially expected couples who fall apart) seems the next stage in social liberation.
If people can think of any aspect of love that can't be explained in some way by these points or other psycho-social points then please let me know and I might stop being such a bore :)
Some links for fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeZMIgheZro
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9981-instant-expert-love.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnbnmoDm1R0
If you haven't already got it, I'm writing this in a vague attempt to satisfy myself unto the fact that I'm not with anyone and am okay with that.
Finding excuses to justify me not telling people how I feel nor actively looking for someone.
Thanks for listening. xx
It's hard enough to find someone who reciprocates those feelings in the best of times. When the other guy's straight, it's harder; when you can't tell if the other guy is gay or not, then it's even harder. It's that verge of building expectation ('cause what gets you from day to day if not that) and at the same time restricting it in preparation for a "more than just the natural assumption he's straight" sign.
Which brings me onto the topic of what is LOVE and liking someone anyway. In my relatively short time about this place, I've already come to the completly nihilistic conclusion that love isn't really there; if you'll let me:
Social monogamy is a social expectance, (only look at a Jeremy Kyle to see that when people deviate, the rest of the pack start spitting) and aside from this the biological and evolutionary advantages include: avoiding unprotected members by pairing everyone up; ensuring offspring have two guardians and minimising the spread of sexual infections by retaining sexual partners. With this in mind it seems appropriate that subconsciously we need a strong bond with someone else, to maintain group structure and protection of offspring. Now I can't argue that love is ENTIRELY the product of fulfilling the need to pair up for evolutionary protection.
But it is true that a lot of what love begins as is playground gossip: DID YOU KNOW MISS X FANCYS YOU?! stems from the finding of one self's identity away from parents, growing up and breaking the boundaries on "taboo" subjects of which relationships (which ALWAYS tend towards sex) comes under. It's that juicy gossip that helps anneal social links, orders status on the playground and gives people that buzz when talking about - celeb magazines say it all. The need of people to buy that absolute shit weekly shows to an extent still our desire to indulge in slight taboo subjects. Love comes from in part an unconscious attempt to make ourselves more interesting; give us something to talk about - to make a stir around us, and get attention from it.
On tele we see every character has a crush on someone else and in the world too, everyone is paired up, or hunting for someone to pair up with. We conform.
Which brings me onto the next part; projecting. This is where I think most of my own personal experiences (last bit has sounded pretty snobby D: sorry, not sure how to word it differently and still get the message across) come in.
Partly to fill these social pressures, we find someone and make them our one; subconsciously usually, but more generally anyone who fits varying criteria; sexually attractive, kind, funny, you get the drill. When thinking of that person, you amplify their qualities ridiculously, seeing only of them what you want, to emphasise your image of them (much like a journalist will selectively 'hear' bits of a story to dramatise it). And your image of them? Is based around the qualities you feel you lack, for me, confidence, popularity whilst maintaining characteristics you like about yourself too.
The point is though, most of the time these things are only ever imagined; looked over because of availability (for gay people especially), the "minimal effort" principle, settling for someone who really isn't fitting, but they're a relationship (sex) in the end.
The point of this is that Love, in sense, is not the magical-spiritual fancy shmancy happening. Almost anyone will do for almost everyone else in the end. It can seemingly be put right down to biological, sociological psychological and availability phenomenon.
But don't get me wrong, I'm not against it at all; I'm just a bit of a mechanist. I appreciate all the social, physical, emotional and financial benefits of loving relationships, but just think they should be built around people who you get along with better than any one else - generally best friends. Which would involve more same-sex living arrangements come in, like sharing at Uni, only more permanent. If you can live with a wife then a best friend would be even better. Think it would be healthier if society felt it necessary to love the people they shared a child with? It's a child who'll do just as well in another (but more stable) environment - living with friends. 21st century and we still live in small small units based around sex... Getting along is surely better than the high-divorce prone/domestic abuse filled "modern" family.
Love in the husband-wife sense fails in modern life without the clammy hand of God round peoples' necks to keep them together. A new approach of friendship groups seems more apt, with a platonic love/respect; which would avoid all the issues around 'Love' love - insecurity, inefficiency; the need to constantly validate and qualify each other...
Sex is sex, and why should living environment be built around it other than for easy availability? Happiness and lack of nagging (forcing together socially expected couples who fall apart) seems the next stage in social liberation.
If people can think of any aspect of love that can't be explained in some way by these points or other psycho-social points then please let me know and I might stop being such a bore :)
Some links for fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeZMIgheZro
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9981-instant-expert-love.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnbnmoDm1R0
If you haven't already got it, I'm writing this in a vague attempt to satisfy myself unto the fact that I'm not with anyone and am okay with that.
Finding excuses to justify me not telling people how I feel nor actively looking for someone.
Thanks for listening. xx
Thursday, 15 March 2012
Freedom of thought.
With the massive viral (in every sense of the word) commotion of kony2012 (doesn't deserve capital letters (and I will discuss my quams with the word "deserve" in a future post...)) came the first view, for me at least of a world still in the grips of pure idiocy, face value acceptance and with generally no free-thought at all. It has always been clear that the population is all too heavily influenced by the media, through (as cliche as it really is) video games and music stars ( you can say that it doesn't have a influence on you and that you know right from wrong, but shut up, yes it does) and the opinions of their friends, as well as primal instinct and hormones. Yet I feel that what kony2012 shows more clearly than these other signs is just simply how feeble the human race is. There are people, and the invisible children corporation have it to a tea, who can manipulate large numbers of people. You need to start looking at things in wider context. They dazzle you with pictures of suffering, they show you the good-hearted, cool, relevant and hansom presenter and his son and people fall for it like shit from a gull. Anyone who's been within smelling distance of an English GCSE should see the immediate use of "emotive language" and "persuasion". Yes, we don't like child soldiers, they made you feel like you could do something about it, by retweeting them, re-linking, posting it on your FB wall, etc. Step back from the face value of things, please. D'you know what advertising is?
I won't go into how the group behind it is really a right-wing Christian organisation with an anti-gay and xenophobic agenda. Which makes it so much more disgusting that so many people will jump through "the hoop" because they think their friends should know they don't enjoy child slavery. You should naturally assume your friends automatically think that you disagree with it, showing them is a pointless, jump on the band wagon activity with no real beneficial consequences. The idea that together we can punish kony is nonsense; a) no one knows where he is, b) he stopped all this in 2006; c) even if we did know where he was, d'you think the UN/NATO/Arab league etc. would go after ONE man in UGANDA when they won't aid Syrians from an actively oppressive regime. Invisible children could have used HUNDREDS of examples: have you heard of the Srilankan atrocities or Chinese oppression, or how the UEA and Iran still murder gay people... They personify dislike in one person; kony, to whom you're supposed to swarm against like flies in protest.
If people are really persuaded to this extent in making this video THE most viral video EVAR then I can say I don't have much hope for humanity. Read 1984, look up the Chinese cultural revolution - the cult of personality turned people against each other - in the same way NAZI's were able to coax the ordinary people of Germany into complete atrocities against Jews and so. If a relatively small "CHARITY" is able to induce hysteria on an international scale like this then it just shows how manipulatable the world still is. Who's the next scape goat then? Muslims? Jews? Who do they want you to hate next? Has the Indonesian government been kidnapping children and harvesting their organs to sell?! NO! Of course they haven't but if people can be so convinced of something without all the evidence and without a desire to find out for themselves if the source is valid, if the contributors are fascists or what not, can you imagine the outcome?! Massive problems for everyone! Hysteria, panic...a holocaust? You get the picture.
The point of this blog (as I write at 12:03 on a friday morning after being been incredably pissed off by homophobic comments left on a youtube video by Santorum supporters) is to think about what you're doing, there's having an opinion and then there's being fed an opinion because you haven't looked at the alternative - been shown a "shiny shiny" ;got distracted and accepted it as just fantastic.
Look at the whole picture guys, you don't HAVE to do something because you're friends are, you're being influenced subconsciously all the time, recognise the fact and come up with you're own opinions about things. If you've come to the same opinion as someone else after reasoned thought, then well done, you should vote the same way.
This was NEVER about child soldiers.
Here are a few links to kony2012 sites:
http://jezebel.com/5892566/kony-2012-and-invisible-children-are-funded-by-antigay-creationist-groups
So share this blog if you want kony to die, if you want cancer to be cured, if you're aged 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20..., or if you own a car or if you don't own a car. And share it if you want our troops out of Iraq, and if 10,000 people share this blog then the government said they will give EVERYONE an iPAD 3!
DISCLAIMER: Sharing this blog or liking this post will not cure cancer. Everyone assumes you really hate cancer already, it's a terrible thing, but little things like liking a large facebook post generally only provide advertisement for companies, their products or indirectly other moneymaking schemes with facebook's (and etc's) support.
Until next time guys :) Sorry for the rant. x
Monday, 6 February 2012
Nailed it.
Just this second I've managed to crack my partial fractions (all three types I'll have you know). Stayed after college for extra help with it and meerly 3 hours later it's CLICKED! BOYA.
Anywhooo, another month has been and gone and I thought a catch up maybe in order; what on earth I'll have for you is to be seen...
So I've been offered a place at university for the medical course that I want :'} Firstly it is just feels so rewarding - those hours of preperation paid off for the better, and if all goes as planned in terms of exam results (and not dying; contracting a lifelimiting illness or disability or commiting a henous crime) all will be set for me to start in September. SEVEN MONTHS AWAY. -bites knuckle- I know someone with some maturing to do. If medicine was purely academic then PHEW, I could carry on casting spells with that twig I call a 10.25 inch dragon heartstring unyielding elm wand and staying up late looking through maliculously numerically ordered Pokemon card collections. En realite, cependant, it isn't. I'll need to be SPEAKING!... D: ...TO PEOPLE...D'; WHO I DON'T KNOW! O': -hyperventilates- and that, well... that scares me.
Especially if they're nasty, and especially if "their life is in my hands" (or something not quite as melodramatically cliche) and of most especially of allest, if there is bad news to break...
That concludes this month's installment/instalment/instalmant (?) of this thing that I'm writing now
Until next time x
Anywhooo, another month has been and gone and I thought a catch up maybe in order; what on earth I'll have for you is to be seen...
So I've been offered a place at university for the medical course that I want :'} Firstly it is just feels so rewarding - those hours of preperation paid off for the better, and if all goes as planned in terms of exam results (and not dying; contracting a lifelimiting illness or disability or commiting a henous crime) all will be set for me to start in September. SEVEN MONTHS AWAY. -bites knuckle- I know someone with some maturing to do. If medicine was purely academic then PHEW, I could carry on casting spells with that twig I call a 10.25 inch dragon heartstring unyielding elm wand and staying up late looking through maliculously numerically ordered Pokemon card collections. En realite, cependant, it isn't. I'll need to be SPEAKING!... D: ...TO PEOPLE...D'; WHO I DON'T KNOW! O': -hyperventilates- and that, well... that scares me.
Especially if they're nasty, and especially if "their life is in my hands" (or something not quite as melodramatically cliche) and of most especially of allest, if there is bad news to break...
That concludes this month's installment/instalment/instalmant (?) of this thing that I'm writing now
Until next time x
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
