Chilling words which could become frustratingly and sometimes oppressively frequent in this green and pleasant land. The one bit of the prospectus I like is the idea of only having to have a credit-card sized bit of plastic rather than a passport to go round Europe. But then I recall that in order to have that bit of plastic I'd have to realise that "Once you are on that database, you can never come off it.
'From the moment you're registered you'll have to tell the authorities of any change in your circumstances for the rest of your life - and pay whatever fees they ask for the 'service. You'll never know who's looking at your details. It won't protect our safety. It won't be convenient - except for Whitehall. This scheme is an expensive and dangerous con"
Better off with the passport; except that under the legislation that'll be linked to the same database too. Good job travel will get so expensive with realistic pricing of fossil fuels that we won't want to go abroad in future! Still, it makes me seriously consider emigrating and becoming a citizen of some other country; Eire looks good ....
More at Undercurrents Alternative News: Show me your ID:
31 July 2009
Energy in U.S. -signs of hope
It's not as sexy as some sci-fi style techie things but ...Worldchanging: Bright Green: Energy Efficiency Gains in U.S. Could Cut Sharply Energy Use, Study Says: "A crash program to improve the energy efficiency of American homes, offices, and factories could slash energy consumption by 23 percent by 2020 and produce $1.2 trillion in savings, according to a report by the McKinsey consulting firm." Did you get that: nearly one quarter(that's a fourth to our cousins over the pond) of power could be saved. Contrast with The folly of 'magical solutions' and add to the mix the intriguing hopefulness of USAmerican figures for building wind generation capacity in a recession, and you get the idea that USA-China co-operation on climate and energy might just begin to do what's needed. Might. Just.
Non story of the month: Marriage-with-baptism
I am frankly a little surprised about the legs that this story grew. Mainly for all the reasons that the various reports have outlined. The CT report is here: Church Times - Marriage-with-baptism defended. And of course, the most salient facts summarised thusly: "WEDDINGS at which the couple’s children are also baptised have been legal for years, a Church House spokesman said this week. An initiative promoting such services had been criticised for giving tacit approval to sex outside marriage." So it should have been a case of 'move along folks, nothing to see here', but somehow it wasn't. Of course, the sticking point is that it seems to licence extra-marital sex; but hang on let's get over the tut-tut reaction and engage our brains a moment: do we really want to be heard to say, in effect: "We'd rather you just didn't bother us if you have made life-choices we don't like". It does seem to me that we want to be heard saying: "It's never too late to try to get things back on track". Now that's the PR angle.
The other angle is a little more tricky.
The sacramental thing.
Marriage is one thing: it's 'a gift of God in creation' and as such is something the church solemnises as part of celebrating Gods common grace. Baptism is a gift of God in the order of redemption. Unfortunately the CofE has inherited a situation it partly created, unwittingly, where baptism is used in popular culture as a creation-rite (ie to celebrate the birth of a child etc) on a par with marriage, in that sense. So the real rub is not the marriage but the confusion about baptism and that is only a problem in situations where both are contemplated togethr where the couple concerned are not really in a position psychologically or spiritually to attempt to make good on the very explicit promises required of them in the baptism service. It's a different matter if the couple concerned have come to a point where they are starting to respond actively to the gospel: in that case it is very appropriate for wedding and baptism to be held together. However, if that is not the situation it really would be better for churches to have a policy of using a very first rate non-baptismal 'christening' (a suitably well-done Thanksgiving is actually more appropriate to the needs, see my research and various church policies being operated up and down the land without any serious problem).
But then I would say that; I'm on the exec of Baptismal Integrity ...
The other angle is a little more tricky.
The sacramental thing.
Marriage is one thing: it's 'a gift of God in creation' and as such is something the church solemnises as part of celebrating Gods common grace. Baptism is a gift of God in the order of redemption. Unfortunately the CofE has inherited a situation it partly created, unwittingly, where baptism is used in popular culture as a creation-rite (ie to celebrate the birth of a child etc) on a par with marriage, in that sense. So the real rub is not the marriage but the confusion about baptism and that is only a problem in situations where both are contemplated togethr where the couple concerned are not really in a position psychologically or spiritually to attempt to make good on the very explicit promises required of them in the baptism service. It's a different matter if the couple concerned have come to a point where they are starting to respond actively to the gospel: in that case it is very appropriate for wedding and baptism to be held together. However, if that is not the situation it really would be better for churches to have a policy of using a very first rate non-baptismal 'christening' (a suitably well-done Thanksgiving is actually more appropriate to the needs, see my research and various church policies being operated up and down the land without any serious problem).
But then I would say that; I'm on the exec of Baptismal Integrity ...
Why dowsing makes perfect sense -kindo'
We need to pay attention to this kind of thing because it relates strongly for some people to issues of belief and spirituality. The New Scientist opinion piece is not unympathetic and it's value is in drawing attention to one factor involved for some in issues of belief etc. It's here: Why dowsing makes perfect sense - opinion - 29 July 2009 - New Scientist. A concluding sentence from the article gives us the skinny: "We take a perverse pleasure in things that confound our senses, which is why conjuring tricks are delightful and science can seem a killjoy. The physicist Richard Feynman once said that science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. What he didn't say was just how much fun fooling yourself can be."
So for many people involved in New Spiritual Milieu stuff, this is a factor. And, actually, for some involved in some signs and wonders Christian stuff, this is a factor too. I would also suggest that it it part of the popularity of fantasy novels and the like. We have a serious cultural 'thing' going on in reaction to the erosion of mystery and the prosaic-ness of science as popularly perceived. Perhaps part of the difficulty in getting kids to study science is cultural disenchantment? And in such an atmosphere perhaps a greater proportion of those who do are then reacting against the romantic wistful 'magicalism' abroad in some popular culture? That could explain the Dawkins' types to some extent.
How to respond as Christians? Well, I think we have a difficulty; largely the heavy-handed debunking Dawkins-style is not a straightforward choice: there are personal issues related to helping people to mature in belief, for example within the Christian faith and a bull-in-a-china-shop approach to challenging people's beliefs is often counter-productive; gently, gently does better; direct challenge usually produces retrenchment. The same goes for those involved in new spiritual milieu circles: I want to affirm their curiosity and openness to there being more things in heaven and earth than dreamt of in our philosophies, but I also want to question the credulity -especially as it is a selective credulity which not only is incredulous of certain aspects of science but also of Christian claims too. It is a delicate operation to encourage people to emotionally detach from cherished beliefs, especially when they have the frisson of 'confounding our senses' and tapping into that delighted-child emotion when seeing a conjuring trick done well. "If anyoen causes one of these little ones to stumble ... " ?
So for many people involved in New Spiritual Milieu stuff, this is a factor. And, actually, for some involved in some signs and wonders Christian stuff, this is a factor too. I would also suggest that it it part of the popularity of fantasy novels and the like. We have a serious cultural 'thing' going on in reaction to the erosion of mystery and the prosaic-ness of science as popularly perceived. Perhaps part of the difficulty in getting kids to study science is cultural disenchantment? And in such an atmosphere perhaps a greater proportion of those who do are then reacting against the romantic wistful 'magicalism' abroad in some popular culture? That could explain the Dawkins' types to some extent.
How to respond as Christians? Well, I think we have a difficulty; largely the heavy-handed debunking Dawkins-style is not a straightforward choice: there are personal issues related to helping people to mature in belief, for example within the Christian faith and a bull-in-a-china-shop approach to challenging people's beliefs is often counter-productive; gently, gently does better; direct challenge usually produces retrenchment. The same goes for those involved in new spiritual milieu circles: I want to affirm their curiosity and openness to there being more things in heaven and earth than dreamt of in our philosophies, but I also want to question the credulity -especially as it is a selective credulity which not only is incredulous of certain aspects of science but also of Christian claims too. It is a delicate operation to encourage people to emotionally detach from cherished beliefs, especially when they have the frisson of 'confounding our senses' and tapping into that delighted-child emotion when seeing a conjuring trick done well. "If anyoen causes one of these little ones to stumble ... " ?
27 July 2009
Cadbury Fairtrade: "This feels like a dream"
There will now be a brief moment of rejoicing. (Sound of chocolate wrapper) Cadbury Fairtrade: "This feels like a dream": "100 years ago William Cadbury chose beans from Ghana. A year ago we founded the Cadbury Cocoa Partnership. And from Autumn 2009 Cadbury Dairy Milk will be Fairtrade certified."
Which voting system is best?
The answer to this is that there is no clear winner for the title of 'best', it depends on the criteria you think most important; so part of the argument is what constitutes a good balance of advantages and downsides. However, as to what are the upsides and disadvantages, well you could do worse than to look at the front running options here with a fair-looking set of assessments. LabourList poll: Which voting system is best? | LabourList.org
26 July 2009
We shall see ....
Report here: Labour plans election day poll on new ways of voting | Politics | The Observer seems to indicate a good thing; "plans are being considered to hold a referendum on general election ... called Alternative Vote (AV) ... Government insiders say the plan would be a step towards fairer voting. But they also believe it has tactical attractions as it would force Cameron, a staunch supporter of first-past-the-post, to campaign actively against change and for a 'no' vote ahead of an election. ... 'It has the added attraction that if the Tories won power and the answer in the referendum was 'yes', the first act of a Cameron government would be to do something he was fundamentally opposed to, or overturn the will of the people.'"
It's a shame that it would come about for 'mere' political embarrassment, but it could be a step in the right direction. Of course, Cameron could decide that the logic of his position on reform could push in a still more radical direction and he could outflank by saying 'yes' and press for multi-member constituencies ...
It's a shame that it would come about for 'mere' political embarrassment, but it could be a step in the right direction. Of course, Cameron could decide that the logic of his position on reform could push in a still more radical direction and he could outflank by saying 'yes' and press for multi-member constituencies ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)