As Simple As You Make It

Lord Reith, first director-general of the BBC, once said "There are some people whom it is one's duty to annoy".

For me, these people are environmentalists. Why do I have such a beef with them? Well, its because they're prime exponents of that which we are all guilty of. Well, two things actually.

The first is confirmation bias and the second is motivated reasoning.

Confirmation bias is where you look for the thing that backs up your belief and ignore everything else. So if you are a feminist for example, you'll constantly notice ways in which women are repressed, and ignore the progress in equality.

We are all guilty of confirmation bias. One and all. However, in the case of environmentalists, they are not happy with just accepting that which they find useful and rejecting anything they don't. Instead, they aggressively attack that which contradicts or challenges their beliefs. This aggression means that they are unable to rationally discuss or intelligently defend their argument, resorting instead to childish labelling. They call anyone who opposes their view 'flat-earthers' or far more simply, 'idiots'.

For me this makes it very difficult to take anything they say seriously. The science for a lot of environmentalism is not yet proven. It remains a very difficult thing to prove. The problem is the cost of acting on this speculation or hypothesis is running into billions of pounds. I certainly hope they're right. I hope the planet is dying because if it isn't, its the biggest waste of money humanity has ever been guilty of.

Further to confirmation bias, there is motivated reasoning. This is where we accept what we wish to believe with less scrutiny than that which we don't. So anything that backs up your belief needs less proof than that which does not. Its a bit more detailed than confirmation bias but no less effective.

Wind farms for instance. An environmentalist looks at them and sees clean energy provided by Mother Nature. This is because that is what they want to believe. They don't want to know the ins and outs of it. They haven't looked into what happens when there's not enough wind to turn the turbines. Why? Because its inconvenient to their ideals. I have looked into it because I want to annoy these people with things that contradict their beliefs.

I'm churning these thoughts over in my mind because today I read a newspaper article about incineration plants. There's plans afoot to build a great many of these and to burn a lot more rubbish rather than put it in landfill. This is because the EU have imposed landfill restrictions on us and we have to bow down and do whatever it takes to make the EU happy.

Of course our friends of the earth are up in arms about it. But, they're not happy with landfill either. So, we can't burn it (CO2) and we can't dump it in landfill (damaging to the environment and also CO2).

What then, is the answer? Here's the problem: they don't know either.

Once again they're happy to point out all the things we shouldn't be doing yet never offer an alternative. If any of you have kids, you'll know what it's like to deal with an indecisive petulant child every now and then. This is the hard-core environmentalists to a tee. Whatever you suggest, they piss and whine about it yet never have an answer themselves. If you don't have an alternative, I might argue that your best course of action is silence.

We are obviously all guilty of things such as confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. We don't want to be wrong about things if we can help it, and reading or hearing evidence contrary to those opinions we've done alright with up to now can be rather scary. It means we have to re-evaluate, re-think, and perhaps admit to being wrong.

The beauty and brilliance of science is the way in which it continually questions itself. New evidence comes to light and it has an effect on previous thinking. As such, there are very few definites in the world. Obama claimed the science behind climate change is 'beyond dispute'. ALL science is subject to dispute. By its very nature it is. Just because Barack Obama says it, it doesn't make it any more true. He is a man, that's all. He takes a shit like everyone else.

It's my opinion that those that lose their cool first in an argument are more likely to be wrong. Once they start getting shirty it's because they're being backed into a corner, so they come out fighting. I look at a lot of Forums and discussion pages on the internet, and I guarantee you, those that get pissy first are the environmentalists. They act like you don't care, like no-one could possibly care as much as they do. They act like they're trying to save this planet and you're trying to destroy it. They act like you're an idiot, and they've read the lot.

The truth is most of them know as much as you. We're all just guessing, hoping, floundering. The difference is i'm not shoving my guess-work down people's throats. I'm not extrapolating billions of pounds from the governments of the world to fund my guess-work. I'm not putting my guess-work across as science.

The sad truth is, a lot of humans have it pretty good on earth right now. They don't have a war to fight, they don't have pieces of a war to pick up. They don't have to hunt for food or worry about displeasing a God. They've had the universe explained to them, they don't think illnesses are curses. They know stuff. As such, they don't know what to do with themselves. So they find themselves a catastrophe, something they can feel bad about. And then, with all the evidence of a TV evangelist, they go out into the world to put things right.

Annoy these people. Press their buttons. It's remarkably easy. They deserve to be irritated. Consider it your duty.

Perspectives

Rather than write some kind of review of the year, i thought it far better - and hopefully more interesting - to write about an observation. I've made this observation before, after i was promoted at work, but now as i find myself a mature student, this observation becomes more apparent and ultimately more grating.

My observation is difficult to spell out succinctly, and would make for a rather poor blog post so i'll explain it all and you can see what i mean.

Sometimes you do things that surprise your family, friends and best of all, yourself. Me going to College was one such move, and me going to University was another. When you become good friends with someone, its kind of the deal that you want the best for them. It comes out of love and its the same reason people in supposedly stable relationships break up; because they want the best for each other.

I only have a few good friends, friends whose opinion i'd value and take on board. I got mixed reactions to going to college, but mostly positive reactions to the news that i was going to University.

Now, here's where it gets weird. It's usually the case that you mock the things you don't understand. A lack of understanding can bring about fear, and the fear is dealt with by taking the piss. It's all very interesting and i've only touched on the surface here, but just give it some thought and you'll realise it to be true.

I had, and continue to have, some piss taking for being a mature student. This is fine, i can both take it and understand it. However, the problem i have is with people saying how much i've changed since starting University. I'm sure i have changed a bit. People always change in new situations. Its how we adapt. What i think people miss though, is how their attitude has changed towards me.

This brings about more change than i've gone through. Now, people think whenever i say a word with more than 3 syllables, it's because i've learnt it at University. Whenever i say something interesting, it's because i learnt it at University. Whenever i argue my point, i'm being arrogant because i think i know it all because i'm at University.

The sad truth is, i've always been arrogant with my point of view, i've always tried my best to say things that are relevant and interesting, and because i like to read i occasionally pick up words longer than 3 syllables. I make no apologies for any of it.

Trouble is, people seek out the things that back up their theory and ignore everything else. I'm expected to change into a smart-arse snob through University attendance, so anything that can be seen to be related to that is plucked from a conversation and expanded on. The rest, the bits that are 'still me', are ignored because they don't back up the expectations.

It's selective listening. The down-side is i get accused of changing into someone horrible when really, it's the people listening that have changed the way they're listening to me.

The environment you find yourself in changes your behaviour. It has to. People change all the time, and its a good thing. I don't know why you should be ridiculed for changing yourself, especially if the direction you're trying to head in is For The Better. I detest those people that rip the piss out of others trying to give up smoking. Anyone who does is both a smoker themselves, and utterly incapable of giving it up themselves. It's envy, pure and simple. I've seen these cunts blow smoke in the faces of those trying to give it up, in an attempt to what? Get them started again, to what? Spend tens of thousands of pounds on cigarettes, for what? To die a painful, cancer-ridden death. That's a friend is it? You can keep that kind of friend.

I suppose i should feel flattered, that the old me was such a splendid chap people don't want to see him go, but living your life to suit others is insane and will leave you very bitter. You'll say you're angry at everyone else but really you're just pissed with yourself for letting them dictate how you've lived your life.

I cannot change the behaviour of others (or can i?), but i can learn to ignore it. Of all the piss taking about being 'back at school' i seem to receive, i find it humorous that those doing the piss taking are the ones acting like they're in a playground.

The Perfect Drug

Bob Ainsworth is a home office minister, and has recently called for all drugs to be legalised in an effort to beat the criminals who supply it on the streets. Or rather, the people who supply it to the people who supply it on the streets. Tackling street dealers annoys me. Arresting a street dealer is like blocking up one of those tiny holes in the end of a watering can, and wondering why water still comes out when you tip it. You need to remove the source, then you don't have to worry about the little holes. Plus, think of all the time and money has gone into prosecuting our friend on the streets. It does nothing. Acheives nothing. Changes nothing.

It's the same as prosecuting people who download child porn off the internet. By all means find these people but don't prosecute them, offer them help. They are mentally ill and should be treated as such. I'll tell you who you can go after though: the people who make it, upload it on to the web, and charge money for the mentally ill to view it. That's where the problem is so that's where you go to solve it.

Ainsworth believes the medical profession should supply drugs through prescription. Logistically, i can see problems there. I know a huge amount of people who smoke that pathetic drug, cannabis. I can forsee very long queues of people wanting to get a 'script for that, and Boots would have to turn into a warehouse rather than a high street store to keep up with demand.

However when it comes to hard drugs, the notion of prescriptions should be welcomed. Heroin is at best 20 - 25% pure according to a recent study of heroin scored on the streets of Liverpool. What else then, is also going into their bodies? Do you even care?

Cocaine - probably a greater degree of purity, but it can be cut with glucose powder if you're lucky, and all kinds of awful things if you're not.

So not all good news for the junkie, but the idea that legalisation of such substances would take Johnny Pusher off the street is daft. The idea that it would do away with the shadowy heads of organisations that bring the drugs into the country, and cut off their earnings - which run into millions - is even more daft. These people won't just say "It was fun while it lasted" and then apply at McDonald's. They'll move on. Fraud. Identity theft. Heck, even armed robberies. Johnny Pusher will mug you, and our shadowy underworld figure will steal the passcode to your internet bank account.

As a human, in possession of a mind and body, i should be allowed to do as i wish with it.
However, we must bear in mind that some people are idiots. Well, actually there's quite a lot of idiots, just take a walk outside you'll spot 'em. I use to oppose the idea of banning films. I believed they were pieces of art, i believed they were skillfully made and i believed they had no effect on a person's disposition. I didn't believe they could influence someone in a negative fashion and that if someone wanted to perpetrate a crime, they would do so without having watched Goodfellas before hand. Now, i'm not so sure. Some people really are fucking idiots, and i wouldn't let them loose with a remote control. They cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality, and they consider themselves to be someone - or something - they're not.

If i want to take cocaine, to wake me up and make me feel good, i should be allowed to do so. I should be allowed to take the money into a reputable establishment and ask for it. The product i am given should be as pure as it can get without making my heart explode, and i should be given a clean tube with which to administer the drug. Once i've had my enjoyment, i can then just forget about it for a while until i fancy another boost.

Seems simple, but this is the pattern of drinking for some. They dip in and out, they socialise with it, then they return to life. For others, they become alcoholics, and for some social or recreational drug users, they become addicted. Just because i know when enough is enough, we must remember that some people are fucking idiots, and they don't know where the line is. Or, they do, but they want to impress their friends by stepping over it.

I read a good question the other day; "Would you rather bump into a drunk, or someone who's stoned at three in the morning on a city street?"
For me, it'd be the stoner every time. He might try and enlighten me, he might laugh at me - wouldn't be the first -, he might try and get me to 'toke' with him.
What he wouldn't do, is ask me what i was fucking looking at before threatening to harm me physically. We've all been there. Drunks are assholes. Angry drunks are cunts.

Yet alcohol is widely available. And there's good alcohol (Guinness and Jamesons) and shit alcohol (Hofmeister and Jack Daniels). So you pays your money, you gets a-wasted. The state however, makes a whole lot of cash from your booze and they have the potential to do so with legalisation of drugs.

Let's talk frankly here, they're called drugs because they make you feel better. Perhaps the root of the matter, the question of why people are feeling bad enough to want to take drugs should be addressed. Drugs are a sticking plaster, sometimes over an amputation. As such, they won't work. No matter how big the plaster, you still have a problem.

I applaud Ainsworth's style, his guts, and his attempts to try and discuss ways ahead with Britain's drug problems and its so-called 'War On Drugs'. Not sure how you can either wage or win a war with an inaminate object but there you go. Of course the hand-wringers will win, and Bob will be shouted down and probably fired.

I applaud the idea of legalistation. Because i'm a grown up. Because i'm a human. Because i believe a break from reality is essential every now and then. Because i believe the brain to be a marvellous thing, and to stimulate it in various ways through chemicals is no different to looking at porn or reading a poem. Stick your head in an fMRI machine whilst doing coke, looking at Tori Black going for it, or appreciating Yeats, and areas of your brain will fire up relating to pleasure. That's it. That's all drugs do. Fire up and stimulate areas of organic matter. It seems painfully stupid to me to try and stop people having fun and enjoying life, but certainly the coalition seem hell-bent on putting the mockers on it. Full marks to Ainsworth then.

I find it ironic also that most of the customers for coke deals are people who work in the City for huge corporations. My friend told me that i don't understand irony. Which was ironic because we were waiting for a bus.

Feeling Karma

There's an awful lot of blah about Karma on the social networking site, Facebook.

Whenever someone is appalled at the actions of others, they seem to make posts pertaining to the idea of Karma sorting this person out.

It's as if Karma is some kind of bigger brother who's always on the look out for anyone being a shit.

What's funny to me is that if these same people changed the word Karma for the word God, they'd probably feel very foolish. Or rather, if i started using the word God instead of Karma, they'd make fun of me and claim to be intellectually superior. In fact the Hindus believe God is behind Karma.

Karma certainly feels like the new lord. The omniscient, ever watchful master that makes everything all right. People will get their just desserts because Karma is on the Kase. Just like the Christian Deity, Karma has its roots in a religion and cannot be proved or disproved.

Many people understand a very simplistic idea of Karma. Namely, that if you wrong someone, you'll get yours. Not necessarily from them, but some other aspect of your life that will teach you the lesson you sorely need. Karma is more involved than that, but i feel that this Sainsbury's Basics idea of Karma is the one people allude to.

Here's my beef with Karma: it's a complete cop-out. It basically means you get to leave the entire situation alone and depend on some other-worldy form of justice to sort everyone out for you. Karma is the universal police force. Not only that, Karma transcends lives - in Buddhism at least - so you could get punished in your 'next life' for something you did in this one. This makes it completely impossible to prove. How fortunate for Buddhists everywhere.

Picture the scene; it's Christmas Day. You've got all the family round, all wearing nice clobber. All wearing silly Xmas hats but what the hey? Tis the season. There's roast turkey plus all those trimmings you hear so much about. You've exchanged gifts and all been happy with the results. You just raise a glass to toast family, friends, and the end of a hard year and what happens?

A big, sweaty, skin headed biker barges in the door. He's wearing dirty leather. His tattoos are so old they're just blue blobs, the arms they sit in could suffocate a grizzly bear. He grabs your Mother, slaps her round the face - her wine goes everywhere - and then bends her over the table. He proceeds to violate her, anally, then uses your serviette to wipe the blood from his cock, before leaving the room.

There is silence.

You lean back and say "Boy, I would NOT like to be him when Karma gets hold of him."

Or, you make every effort you can to take the brute down before he has a chance to even grab your favourite relative.

You wouldn't leave some things to a supernatural source, so why leave others if they peeve you so?

It's the same with medicine, when people claim to use Echinacea to both stave off and fight colds, or when they use any other herbal, 'alternative' medicine to help them with ailments.

Would these same people choose a herbal alternative to morphine when they're laid up with cancerous tumours? What about if they get run over and suffer massive internal injuries? Or hey, what about a routine kidney stone operation?

When you're in the kind of pain that makes you want to pass out, i somehow doubt you'll be asking what the herbal alternative to morphine is. I imagine you'd be begging the nurses to take the pain away by whatever means possible.

It's the same with Karma. There's certain things you shouldn't leave to some wishy-washy, completely unproven - and unprovable - bullshit to sort out.

Gandhi said something like the problem with an eye for an eye is that it makes the whole world blind. Karma is your eye for an eye. It just takes you out of the equation. When people bring up Karmic consequences, i have no doubt they do it with a vicious streak about them. They want to do the punishing, but it's against their character to do so. Or at least, it's against the kind of character they aspire to be.

So, they leave it to a mythical force to sort out.

The other thing with Karma is, for those that buy into it, to what extent are your actions good because you're a good person? Or, being good for good's sake?

If you act in an altruistic manner thinking "I'll do this, then buy a lottery ticket....if Karma's on my side i should win something", then apparently Karma doesn't work. It only works if its a natural action.

What garbage. How the hell does Karma know what you're thinking? The known universe is billions and billions of light years across. And i'm supposed to believe that it's bothered with the action of an insignificant human down here on a tiny planet in the Milky Way called Earth?

I doubt it. I really do.

Karma then. For those that expect rewards for good behaviour, those too gutless to sort out the bad guys, and those too intelligent to believe in God....yet not smart enough to see how Karma is a form of God.

An odd concept. And one that should be saved for TV programmes about blokes called Earl.