Mike's musings

Whatever thoughts have been on my mind will probably end up here. Updated weekly, but perhaps more initially as I throw in some older things.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Man-ic


One of the blogs I love to read, and which astonishes me by being updated daily is Tom Reynolds' Random Acts of Reality.

Usually I enjoy reading it and am fascinated by both the content and style of writing.

But something jumped out one day. Just tucked on the end of the post.

"*I was told off for not being politically correct when calling the staffing of motors 'manning', hence 'resourced'."

I take HUGE objection to this nonsensical changing of words in the interests of 'Political Correctness'. We have person-hole covers, chairperson and Personchester United FC. OK, I made that last one up.

There was an article in yesterday's local paper about this too.

We have to get rid of any words ending in -ess, as it's sexist and discriminatory? Maybe it's because I'm male, but I don't get it.

I also find something strange about Kate Dean's comment "I would say being able to use the term "Mrs" is one of my achievements." It seems unlikely to me, but then, on second thoughts, I have seen pictures of Kate Dean, and it's quite an achievement that she got someone to marry her. Is that cruel? Perhaps, but there are lots of reasons to dislike and make fun of this woman. Or should I say person?


But I digress. Among rules being imposed by Glasgow Council is the order that the word "manpower" should be replaced by "staff" or "workers", otherwise women feel excluded or ignored. The discriminatory "mankind" should be replaced with "human beings".

Aah yes, that hugely discriminatory word "Mankind". In fact, shouldn't we be replacing it with hu-person beings? Similarly, this is Glasgow City Council, I'm not sure that 'workers' is accurate either.*

The problem is that this slavish devotion to 'Political Correctness" ignores the root of our language. You see, "mann" is an Anglo-Saxon word.

In Anglo-Saxon the word 'mann' meant human beings of both sexes and no disrespect was intended to the female of the species.

So let's just get over it and go back to agreeing on how much we all hate MANchester United.



*We knew it already, but there was a letter written recently by a council worker complaining she only had 1 day's worth of work each week. I'll link it when I find it.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Crucify me.


Running a bit behind, but still courting controversy. I'm going to wade into the debate over PDRAs. Public Displays of Religious Affiliation.

You see, I really don't mind what you believe.

I'm actually having trouble finding anything in English stating that women must wear the niqab, but maybe you think that men will only judge a woman by her body, and so women are better to cover themselves from head to foot. (Just don't say that it's the eyes you judge people by).

Perhaps the truth is that eating meat on a Friday is forbidden. Or that in fact it's eating shellfish such as lobsters, oysters, shrimp, clams or crabs that will see you facing an eternity in hell.

Maybe each one of us is followed around by hundreds of spirits of alien life forms that were killed in a nuclear blast after being captured and frozen flown through space to volcanoes. No, really..

You can believe exactly what you want, but don't tell me that I'm wrong to believe something completely different.

Similarly, you should ideally not go around shouting your belief or lack thereof from the rooftops. That would be distasteful.

So a member of British Airways staff believes that she is the victim of racial discrimination as she's not allowed to wear her cross at work. Actually, that's not true. She IS allowed to wear it at work, as long as it is underneath her uniform. So there goes the argument that BA are vampires..

BA has said " "British Airways does recognise that uniformed employees may wish to wear jewellery including religious symbols. These items can be worn, underneath the uniform." They make an exception for Sikh turbans and Muslim hijabs, (and presumably for Jewish Yarmulke (or Kippah)) as these can't be covered up. Actually, a yarmulke could be covered up with a hat, unlike a turban.

Nadia Eweida argues that since Sikhs and Muslims can wear a visible sign of their faith, well then she should be able to as well.

Is it me, or is this as childish as arguing that since men do it, then she should be allowed to P standing up?

You see, I think she has a flaw in her argument. Now, I'm no expert on religious teachings, nor on the contents of the bible in whichever language you might choose to follow it, but I don't remember any rule saying 'thou shalt wear a cross'. In fact, a number of groups that follow a Christian path think that wearing a replica of a torture instrument is a bit, well, weird.


Disciplinary action from an employer for wearing a cross isn't in fact new.


Brenda Nichol, of Indiana County was suspended on April 8, 2003, for wearing a cross to work and not being willing to either remove it or tuck it in. In June of the same year, she won the first round in her federal court battle yesterday when a judge said her employer must reinstate her. It seems her argument was that not displaying the cross was equal to "denying Christ"

In the end, she seems to have won her job back, as the school's lawyers and her own came to some sort of agreement.

Well, I'm sure that was an effective use of court time.

There is a difference in the cases. Nadia Ewelda is saying that, as with others, she is wearing something that demonstrates her faith, while Brenda argued that covering it or not wearing it denied hers.

I have to wonder if wearing a cross makes someone a Christian? Does not wearing one make someone not a Christian? In the vast majority of cases, crosses are not a demonstration of faith, they're jewellery.

Don't believe me?

Well, try treasurebox, and look under jewellery - gothic chic.

Or knock yourself out at icedoutgear.com - (Google 'bling') and check out hip-hop combos.

Of course, speaking from experience I know that crosses are popular in Japan, a country where a massive 1% of the population are Christian


Yeah, I'm a hardened cynic.

Monday, October 16, 2006

Atomic


I mentioned before, that once upon a time, we thought that the atom was the smallest thing in the Universe.

The word 'atom' means 'no cut', or 'can't split'. A- tom from 'tomer' - to cut, and the prefix 'A' meaning not.

But now we know it's not. The atom is made up of ..... other stuff.

I can hear you saying, what, Mike? What stuff exactly?

Well, it's mostly made of nothing.

An atom is more nothing than anything solid. Protons and neutrons in the middle - the nucleus, surrounded by the magic orbitting spinny bits, called electrons.

Ernest Rutherford, the first person to describe the inside of an atom likened the electron in an atom to a few flies in a cathedral.

The simplest element in the universe is hydrogen, a nucleus of a single proton orbitted by a single electron. If the proton was the size of a drawing pin, then the electron would be a pinhead, and it would be 1 kilometre away.

So basically, everything is mostly made of nothing. Good to know next time someone tells you that something is impossible.

He's making stuff up now!! Honest, I'm not.