Jul 172016
 

As seen from afar, the USA seems to be having a problem with racial tensions – police shootings, protests, “Black Lives Matter“, etc., and racial inequality such as found at Facebook. Nobody with any sense doubts that there is racism in the USA – everywhere there are bone-headed bigots worrying about the colour of the dead stuff that keeps the squishy bits on the inside.

But we may be too quick to assume that it is simply racism; many of the symptoms could well be caused by wealth inequality and relative poverty.

The wealthy (and their children) are more like to succeed because of a number of factors :-

  1. They are more able to afford private education – either to supplement state education or to replace it with presumably higher quality private education.
  2. They are more able to afford higher education; even though it is possible for those who cannot afford it to get loans to pay for higher education in the USA, this will leave those in debt at a disadvantage.
  3. Social networks (the “old boy network”) that the wealthy have access to includes greater opportunities at internships at organisations that give their children greater opportunities.
  4. And internships themselves seem designed to favour the children of the wealthy – unpaid work in the hope of getting a better job at the end of it is something that is only a suitable option if you already have money to live on.

There are those who point at people from relatively poor backgrounds who have “made it”, and there’s certainly no doubt that exceptional people can succeed whatever their background. But most of us are not exceptional.

Relative poverty and lack of opportunity can easily lead to frustration with the system, and amongst the criminally inclined a tendency to resort to crime – those with more wealth or more opportunities will not resort to crime to the same extent.

So does the USA have a racism problem or a wealth inequality problem? I’m not sure what the answer is, but I would not be at all surprised if the answer is both.

2012-05-19-sheep standing guard.small

Jul 142016
 

You do surprise me. Who would have thought it? If you go to work in a place with zillions of sick people each of whom gets a stream of visitors, you get sick more frequently than other jobs?

The accountants have been at work and decided that the NHS could save up to 2 billion by “doing something” about the sick days. Perhaps they should consider banning sick people going to hospital.

B84V1827t1-elderley-man-past-gravestones

Jul 142016
 

… and it pretty much does.

The “lock ’em up and throw away the key” crowd are keen on pointing out that life should mean life. Meaning that those sentenced to life imprisonment should be inside for the rest of their lives.

Everyone “knows” that murderers sentenced to life are often freed after 10-25 years or so.

What is less well known is that when someone sentenced to life is released, they are released “on license”, and are definitely not free in the normal sense of the word.

For a start, lifers do not get released until they have convinced the relevant authorities that they are no longer a risk to society (in theory). When you come down to it, there is no point keeping a murderer in prison after 20 years if the circumstances have sufficiently changed that they are no longer likely to murder anyone – that 60-year old woman who went berserk and killed her children when she was 40 isn’t likely to have more children.

Bear in mind that keeping murderers in prison is expensive and the expense of the big TV and playstation a lifer gets in their cell is irrelevant compared with the cost of the bare cell.

Even when lifers are released, they are released on license, and monitored (although I dare say there are not enough resources allocated to monitoring). And if the lifer gets up to anything that makes their monitor feel uncertain, they’ll find themselves back inside without going through court. There have been lifers who have found themselves back inside because they were drinking too much.

So, no a murderer is never truly free.

B84V1827t1-elderley-man-past-gravestones

Jun 092016
 

The grammar nazi. The scourge of the Internet who are responsible for flaming to a crisp anyone who dares let slip an aberrant apostrophe. They can often seem a bit extreme – does it really matter if someone accidentally uses “their” instead of “they’re” ? Well yes it does, and I write as someone who all too often makes mistakes myself.

Firstly the improper use of certain words can dramatically alter the meaning of a sentence – your readers will not know what you intended if you make mistakes in the wrong place.

Secondly, the more mistakes you make, the less understandable you become; at a certain point you will give up trying to read something if it is too impenetrable such as “When u wana rip ppsls faces off but kno il get into a teeny bit of trouble n I hav white on blood is a…” (a real example). I can work out what that means, but I really can’t be bothered.

So go ahead grammar nazis; unleash the flame throwers, because some people need it.

B84V1827t1-elderley-man-past-gravestones

Jun 022016
 

A bit late to comment on this, but why not?

So we have a gorilla that has been shot dead to prevent him possibly injuring a four-year old that had somehow managed to get into the enclosure. Which is obviously a shame.

Having said that, and despite the fact that I’m fully behind limited rights for great apes, I believe that shooting Harambe was probably the right thing to do. Harambe could have ripped that four-year old apart, and from the videos I have seen, he didn’t look exactly calm. And when you come down to it, the decision has to be down to the zoo keepers.

Of course you could just let the four-year old get ripped to pieces, but you would have to be a gorilla to think that was a good idea.

But how did the four-year old get into the enclosure in the first place?

There’s two parts to that. Why did the zoo not make their enclosures toddler-proof?

And why did this toddler’s mother let him get away? Admittedly controlling a toddler makes herding cats look easy, but keeping a toddler on a leash around dangerous animals would seem to be a sensible idea.

Harambe