Feb 072011
 

Sometimes it seems like breast cancer gets a little too much publicity in comparison to other cancers.; it seems that breast cancer gets 10 mentions in the media to every mention of prostate cancer; not to mention lung cancer which causes more deaths in women than breast cancer.

I’ll be using figures from Cancer Research UK to make the points throughout this posting …

First of all lets get the big figures out of the way. In 2008, breast cancer killed 12,047 women (and 69 men) in comparison to total deaths from cancer of 156,723 – “only” 7%; even excluding cancer deaths for men, breast cancer claimed 16% of all cancer deaths for women.

Lung cancer is the one that claims the most lives – 22% of all cancer deaths are from lung cancer, but we can ignore them because it’s the fault of those smokers. Although according to the Wikipedia article on lung cancer between 10-15% of all deaths from lung cancer are from non-smokers – probably all passive smokers.

After the two big cancers, we get prostate cancer which claimed the lives of 10,168 men, or 6,5% of all cancer deaths – not much behind the levels of breast cancer And just for those who aren’t paying attention, no there were no deaths amongst women from prostate cancer.

Including all deaths from gender specific cancers (and I’ll cheat and include the breast cancer figures for both men and women), male specific cancers account for 6.65% of all cancer deaths, and female specific cancers count for 12.5% of all cancer deaths. That is quite a significant difference, and significantly more than the figure of 7% for breast cancer deaths amongst women.

If you look at cancer as a whole, 52% of all cancer deaths were men, and 48% women. It’s relatively even despite the increased risk women run of dying from a female specific cancer. Of all non gender specific cancers, men had a higher number of deaths in 22 out of 27 different cancer categories.

So let us have a look at the figures from the media. Specifically counting the search results from the BBC News website :-

Search Phrase Number of results Percentage of mentions Percentage of deaths
“Cancer” 14401 100% 100%
“Breast Cancer” 2206 15% 7%
“Prostate cancer” 606 4.2% 6.5%
“Lung Cancer” 758 5.2% 22%
“Rectal Cancer” 40 2.7% 10.4%

I think it’s more than obvious that breast cancer gets a little more attention than the others. That’s not to say it gets too much attention – it’s the others that get too little.

Jan 282011
 

This is a general waffle in relation to the Jasmin Revolution (although the Wikipedia article concentrates on the Tunisian revolution, this phrase is beginning to be used more generally) – no news here.

We often hear that no government can survive without the consent of the people, but what does that mean ? In this case it means that a significant proportion of the people are sufficiently angry with their government to risk violence, arrest, and even death to demonstrate their need for a change. The governments involved can try a variety of tactics to deal with the protestors but their first reaction – violent repression – will only make the protestors more demanding. Ignoring the rights and wrongs of punishing protestors, violence can work if the protestors are a small enough minority, but at a certain point it becomes self-defeating.

If a government offers change, it needs to do so before it resorts to violence – the government wants to offer as little change as possible, and violence means the protestors are more demanding of change. Indeed the government needs to offer just a little more change than it wants to. Offering too little change such as President Mubarak appears to have done, does little to stem the anger of the people.

What makes people annoyed enough with the government to take to the streets ? There are a whole variety of reasons not limited to :-

  • The absence or perceived absence of a say in the composition of the government. Or in other words the lack of a genuinely democratic government. That is not to say that merely having some form of democracy means that a government is immune to this effect as even in a democratic society, there can be those who believe they have no say in their government. For example the UK democratic system can be subject to this effect as people in “safe” constituencies will often believe that they have no say in their government if they do not vote for the party that always wins.
  • A belief that their government does not act in the best interest of the people. This includes but is not limited to the perceived level of corruption within the government or society.
  • Injustice where the people are subject to arbitrary arrest and punishment for “crimes” that most would regard as completely normal activities.
  • A lack of personal freedom (closely associated above) including but not limited to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and the freedom to go about one’s daily business without undue interference from the government.
  • How old a government is. People can put up with a bad government for a year, or even five, but sooner or later it becomes unpalatable. In fact that even applies to a good government – if it stays in power too long, not only will it be subject to strains that make it a bad government, but even if it avoids those it will be condemned simply because people want change from time to time.
  • The economy. If the economy is poor enough that people are suffering, or income inequalities reach the point where the difference between rich and poor becomes excessive, that is in itself a source of grievance.

Dictatorships are more subject to this kind of problem than democracies, but democracies are not immune.

It is perhaps unfortunate that mass protests usually descend into violence. However it is perhaps inevitable particularly when the forces of control are also violent. There are those who claim that the violence by protestors is somehow caused by “dark forces”. Nothing could be further from the truth – the violence is merely an expression of the level of anger felt. President Mubarak’s “dark forces” cannot instigate these level of protests and when they are underway have no way of controlling them.

It is likely that these accusations are themselves enough to cause the protests to continue.

Jan 132011
 

Sarah Palin has recently made a speech on the recent shooting spree in Arizona where a congressperson was shot (and probably targeted by the shooter) in relation to the media noise about the aggressive and combative attitudes in US politics at the moment. In it she claimed the media was launching a ‘blood libel‘ against the right-wing in US politics in its criticism of the political debate.

Whether or not she has a point to make, the use of the phrase ‘blood libel’ here is grossly inaccurate and an example of exactly what the media is talking about. Blood libel is the phrase used to describe the hysterical accusations of anti-semites accusing Jews of sacrificing Christian children and draining the blood for some religious purposes – if it hadn’t been used as the excuse for slaughtering Jews throughout history, it would be ridiculous. I am hardly an expert on the US media, but I find it extremely unlikely that anyone from the US media is likely to hunt down any right-wingers, kill them, and drink their blood.

Sarah Palin’s remarks are merely a hysterical over-reaction to a perceived attack on the right-wing. To be fair I should point out that apparently others have used the phrase in US politics recently. Which just goes to show that US politics is little over-heated. Interestingly a conservative commentator has pointed out that the use of this phrase is an indication that Sarah Palin just isn’t of presidential material – presumably presidents are expected to behave and talk in a slightly more dignified fashion.

Did the US media attack the right-wing ?

The US media did comment after the shootings that there is a considerable level of aggression in US politics today, and used an example showing certain US congressional areas targeted with rifle cross-hairs which was published by the right-wing. This could be said to be unfairly criticising the right-wing except that the reason that example was used was that the congressperson who was shot (Gabrielle Giffords) had previously complained about that very publication in which she was targeted.

Personally I don’t believe the right-wing was specifically targeted in the various suggestions that US politics can be a little aggressive. There is a lot to be said for lowering the temperature in US politics – opposition, criticism, discussion and debate are all a part of politics and essential in any healthy democracy. But there’s no need to go too far, and throwing around inappropriate phrases like “blood libel” is certainly an example of that.

I have no doubt that there are Democrats who go too far too.

We have no way of knowing how much the current atmosphere in US politics had an effect on the shooter, and will probably never know. After all he is clearly a deranged individual and he probably doesn’t know himself. The naysayers who claim it had no effect have no way of knowing that. If it did have an effect, it does not make those making inflammatory comments responsible for these shootings – not even to the extent of inciting murder.

But the current state of US politics could have an effect on deranged individuals even if it did not in this case. As such it is worth considering whether toning it down is worthwhile. Say “she’s an idiot” rather than “she’s a traitor”, say “he should be fired” rather than “he should be put in the chair and the switch thrown”. It doesn’t ruin the debate and it might just save someone’s life – isn’t that worth it ?

Dec 122010
 

A certain Pastor Jones already notorious as the idiot who threatened to burn copies of the Koran on the date of the 911 attacks is rumoured to be invited to speak at some sort of English Defence League event. Well it appears he has found his appropriate level – the gutter amongst his far right hate friends. Of course the issue of whether he should be allowed to visit the UK has been raised, and the Home Secretary is said to be considering the issue.

Pastor Jones has allegedly said that prohibiting him from visiting the UK would be “incorrect and unfair”, and even “unconstitutional”. Well I’d perhaps agree with the unfair bit, but whoever said life was supposed to be fair? As for “incorrect” and “unconstitutional”, well Pastor Jones needs to read the Wikipedia article on the UK to educate himself on the fact that the UK is not part of the US so the US constitution doesn’t apply over here, and as for “incorrect” … who knows what he means ?

On a legal level, the Home Secretary certainly has the right to prohibit aliens (which is what the Pastor Jones is if he were in the UK) from visiting within certain constraints. So it is “correct” on that level.

Of course the meanest thing to do would be to allow him to visit and then throw him into prison for incitement to religious hatred – ignoring the fact that his threat to burn the Koran would count as that, just his presence in the UK could count as incitement to religious hatred. And given his history, it seems likely that what he says is likely to count to.

Of course Pastor Jones isn’t likely to realise that he could be imprisoned over here!

Dec 122010
 

The peculiar thing about the student protests are the reactions of ordinary people – gathered through various Facebook posts. There is not a lot of sympathy for the plight of students out there. Negative reactions to the violence are all very reasonable, although there does seem to be a media slant towards the violence committed by the students as opposed to the violence committed by the police – after all the figures are something like 12 policeman injured and 43 protestors injured, which doesn’t sound very even-handed to me. Especially when you consider that many minor injuries amongst the protestors will be unreported whereas they are much more likely to be reported amongst the police (it’s an “injury at work” sort of thing).

The reactions against students in general protesting on the tuition fees issue seem to concentrate on :-

  1. Why should the government pay for the students to study anyway ?
  2. Students should go out to work to pay for their studies rather than just skiving off with a handful of lectures a week.

Basically students have a bad reputation for some reason, and most of the anti-student comments are not justified. Let’s take the work argument first.

Studying for a degree is hard work. You may well find students walking around at any time during the day, and discover that students have just 2 hours of lectures a week. All is not quite as it seems … First of all, students on 2 hours of lectures a week are pretty rare, and just because there are just two lectures doesn’t mean that’s all of the work they are expected to do.

In a typical week, a student may have lectures, tutorials, be expected to read a huge pile of books, and write an essay or six. And that’s before considering some courses where the students may have to spend time on projects – a series of themed photographs, writing a piece of software, building a high-precision lathe, etc.

And things are not always timetabled especially well for a student’s convenience – a student may have two hour long lectures in the morning with an hour’s break in between. Depending on what the student needs to do in terms of other work, that hour may not be easy to work through – sure a student can open up a netbook and write a few words of an essay, but that huge book on “Operational Management” that they suddenly realise they need may be at home, or booked out of the library. That student you see in the park outside the library messing around, may well be later working for 6-hours in the library before going home and spending a couple of hours sorting out their lecture notes.

When I started my degree many years ago, it was pointed out to me that students on the course I was on were expected to work at least 40-hours a week with the amount of time going up as it approached exam periods. Sure there are students who goof off, but most only do so for a few weeks at most; the ones who keep goofing off end up being thrown out or end up with a poor degree.

On a similar note, it is common to see criticisms of how much students spend their time drinking and partying. In University towns, it has gotten to the point that people assume that loud bunch of young people running down the street at midnight (or later) are students. How do they know ? It is not as if students are marked in some way – those young people could be anybody – students, or a group from some workplace.

And why shouldn’t students have a night out from time to time ? If you work hard, you need to play hard too – to unwind; this is particularly important when your “work” is the kind of thing that you don’t put down at the end of the day and go home, but something you take home with you.

I happen to live in a flat on a road that is fairly busy at night – it is a route commonly used by students (or anonymous young people) to stagger home after a drink or six in some of the main drinking areas. Whilst there is a few groups almost every night, people forget just how many students are around – at certain times of the year, the procession of groups is almost continuous from midnight to 2am, but for most of the year the groups are few and far between. It would seem to me that students go out for a drink or six far less often than people assume.

Now let’s tackle the thorny issue of whether the government should pay for students or whether they should pay for their own education. Let’s make it a little less vague – should the community (through taxation) pay for students to study ? Even in the most distant past, there have been communities who pay for exceptional students to go to University – at least as far back as the 14th century. In those times of course, it was only the exceptional few who got to go to University with the support of the community; the overwhelming majority were the sons (daughters were stuck at home) of the wealthy who got to go.

This led to a situation where the overwhelming majority of the population were lucky to get enough education to read and write poorly – only a tiny number were lucky enough to get a more complete education and become part of the “knowledge economy”. That was fine (if more than a little unfair) way back in the 14th Century, but what about today ?

Today, the UK economy is dependent on having a highly skilled workforce and will become more and more dependent on skilled workers., Indeed during the recent recession, it was noticeable that many firms went to great lengths to try and retain staff rather than dump them as would have happened in earlier recessions – they realised that to recover from the recession, they would need those highly skilled workers and did not want to take the chance that they would be unavailable come the recovery. The old days when money could be made by using large numbers of unskilled labour are over in this country – the places where such tactics work are places where wages are so low that it wouldn’t be possible to employ people in this country.

Today’s students are tomorrow’s “knowledge workers” – even those doing media studies, or games programming (both are useful skills for industries that bring in billions). We need young people to get good qualifications to pay the taxes of the future and ensure that the economy is healthy enough to ensure that we get a reasonable pension.

Who benefits from a plentiful supply of highly qualified graduates ? The graduate does to a limited extent – he or she has a better chance of getting a highly paid job (although that is not guaranteed). Private industry benefits because it has a work force with added value. Government does become a highly qualified work force ensures that the money coming in from taxation is high. In fact we all benefit.

So why do people insist that the prospective graduate pay ? When you consider that we all benefit when those students work for a degree, isn’t it more than a little selfish to insist that they pay ?

In addition to protesting, the students need to do a little PR work – their protests will never work until they get a significant amount of the general population on their side. And they have some negative PR to overcome – the violence at their demonstrations.