Backwards and forwards

So! 2008 was definitely different. I also read 53 books, which is quite a lot (I think, this is the first year I’ve kept track).

What might 2009 have in store? I have no idea. I always want to do more: more exercise, more crafting, more ‘cultural’ stuff, but I don’t see my work schedule or commute becoming less hectic. So I expect next year to be more of the same: computering, very occasional crafting, and lots of whining.

I am, however, definitely looking forward to:

  • my annual pilgrimage home (and meeting the new addition to the extended family)
  • the new Star Trek movie
  • my sister’s wedding (I still have no idea re: the bridesmaid question)
  • Coraline
  • a decision on the ‘Netbook or Android phone?’ question

I am so ambitious.

Happy Hogmanay!

Take That Come to Town

As Take That’s biggest fan, I cleared my schedule and watched Take That Come to Town (actually I had no idea it was on and stumbled on it on ITV2 +1 and I haven’t bought Circus yet). This bit is one of my favourites: Grumpy Gary.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is okay by me

It’s not often I agree with someone so religious they are appointed head of an entire faith, but there you go. This crisis has been made massive by the inability of government — who, IMHO, are there to make the tough decisions but are paralysed by celebrity culture — to look critically at the economy and offer sustainable solutions.

Why I don’t lifestream

If I were to lifestream the way people are expected to lifestream, people would very quickly realise that I am much more juvenile than I already appear on this here website. And you would also have to put up with inanity such as, “Today I will either attempt to stitch up the beginnings of a split side seam on my over-a-decade-old pencil skirt or admit it is time to say goodbye.” Oh wait, that’s what Twitter is for (the inanity, not the immaturity).

Be pragmatic and seize the initiative

I was watching The Daily Show last night (Tuesday’s edition) and Mike Huckabee was on. Jon Stewart was debating the wisdom of banning same-sex marriage, and it kind of went back and forth but it was all very civilised.

And it got me thinking. People who oppose same-sex marriage tend (note I used the word ‘tend’) to be of the religious persuasion, so as a general rule, conservative branches of religion wouldn’t welcome homosexuals with open, unconditional arms anyway, married or not (no matter what they say). So why try and play their game? Their attitudes aren’t going to change.

In most countries (I expect), legal adults who are sane and sober can enter into legally-binding contracts. Getting married means there is an implicit contract between two people, and the rights and responsibilities are spelled out in state or national legislation. Is that right? Maybe I should have brushed up on this before I got married, but hey.

Anyway. so two people who live in a country or state that has banned same-sex marriage could enter into an explicit contract with each other, a contract that spells out the rights and responsibilities of their relationship, and what should happen if the relationship ends. I don’t think this would be that different from a prenuptial, and it’s just as good as a marriage contract.

The law would therefore recognise their connection to each other. Which is pretty much identical to marriage but with less baggage. And they would have to examine the terms of the contract carefully to make sure this is really what they want to do, which is a damned sight more considered than a drunken weekend in Vegas. Win-win!

Assuming this doesn’t already happen, a law firm could provide boilerplate contracts to make things easy for most same-sex couples to sign. I don’t get why it’s so important for homosexuals to gain the recognition of people who don’t want to recognise them as normal human beings who happen to play for a different team.

(I am not a lawyer, my experience is limited to two commercial law units at Uni. This is only my opinion.)

Face it, the welfare state is unsustainable

No effort, no benefit, Labour tells jobless:

After a year out of a job people will be assigned to a private or voluntary provider appointed by the Government to help people back into work. They will be expected at that point to do four weeks’ full-time activity to get them back into a 9-to-5 routine.

If they are still unemployed after two years they would have to work full time, doing community jobs such as street-cleaning, volunteering or work experience to help people to keep the habit of working.

…

Others who refuse to take part in schemes to help them into work could lose up to a week’s benefit. Those with debt or drug problems will be expected to sign up to counselling.

Incapacity benefit is being phased out and will be replaced by the employment and support allowance, which includes a medical assessment for new claimants.

Brendan Barber, the TUC General Secretary, said: “At a time of rapidly rising unemployment, the Government needs to stop talking as if every benefit claimant is a potential scrounger. People losing their jobs need practical help as quickly as possible.”

I saw a report on this plan on the teevee last night, too. The benefits claimants were pretty indignant. Here’s a wake up call: the government needs to consider the lowest of the low, so they need to take into account the dole bludger who is screwing the taxpayer.

Someone who has been unemployed for a long time and is claiming benefit should prove that they aren’t playing the system. This is not an issue. Only those who have found it more profitable to claim benefit (and/or work cash in hand) than find a job will lose out — so what the hell is wrong with this new policy?

(Besides, it’s not as if it will be implemented immediately. They can rape the system for a few months yet.)

Updated to add: Claiming benefits: Your stories — everyone quoted in this follow-up piece is a legitimate claimant, which changes my opinion not one bit.

The right to die at a time we choose

I think Right to Die is on Sky Real Lives tonight. If I remember I might watch it. This is one of those issues where there is no one answer — perhaps the best compromise would be to engage in some sort of psych session to make sure they are making the decision for themselves, not out of obligation to family or due to mental illness.

Do as I say, not as I do

In a stroke of irony apparently lost on the Scottish Government, Sir Sean Connery stars in an advertisement extolling the virtues of Scotland when he hasn’t lived here in decades.

Next »