In the UK, we now live in the most comprehensively surveilled society ever. It is something even George Orwell didn't fully foresee. In his book, The Road To Southend Pier, Ross Clark sets himself the challenge to travel from his home in East Anglia to the end of the eponymous pier, avoiding, if possible, the all-seeing cameras which now pervade our lives; a journey of about 50 miles.
He fails, quite comprehensively. And he fails because it is now almost impossible to go about out daily lives, our innocent daily lives, with being caught on CCTV many times.
Of course, we are told that crime is being prevented, and criminals are being caught as a result of this increased intrusion into our private lives. Whenever questions are raised as to the efficacy of the burgoning CCTV culture, the grainy, low quality footage of Jamie Bulger's kidnap is rolled out and paraded as a trophy to assure us all. But unfortunately, it is not reassuring. If the only piece of evidence of the effectiveness of increased CCTV is video footage from February 1993, then we are in deep trouble.
The very fact the whole TV programs are now being produced, for our delight and delectation, from CCTV footage, is proof, surely, that CCTV is not reducing crime. Rather it has made thugs, vandals, and the anti-social into TV stars, albeit anonymous ones because they are rarely caught.
So, what then is the point of all this expensive hi-tech equipment? Well, it is proving its worth, but not in catching thugs and criminals, but in reaping large financial rewards for local councils who are using it to catch motorists parking illegally. Yes, you will be pleased to know that while many of our city centres have become virtual no-go zones at certain times, the forces of law and order and catching errant car parkers. It makes it all worth while! Doesn't it? Well, no it doesn't.
Why doesn't it? As a society we are being routinely spied upon by our government, and its various agencies. Those who were traditionally there to protect us, are now those who are watching our every move, not for our good, but because we are all now regarded as potential criminals, and worse, as potential and possible terrorists.
Section 44 of the Anti-Terrorism Act is now, routinely and on a daily basis being evoked against the innocent citizens of the UK for all manner of minor things. For instance, point a camera at a building in London, and there is a very good chance that you will be approached by the forces of law and order and challenged under Section 44. This is happening regularly. Watch this video from the BBC and wonder what is happening to this country. You will note in the video that the Police Officer states that they had stopped lots of people.
So, next time you are snapping a few photos for the family album, be aware that your government, and the forces of law and order, will now be regarding you as a possible terrorist.
The final irony in all this is that anyone planning a terrorist attack has no need to wander the streets with a camera. They have only to go online and all the major cities can be viewed in excellent detail, with photo-quality images and in some cases, stunning 3D, on the internet.
Expect the government to announce very soon that, because anyone using the Internet could be a potential terrorist, it will be monitoring Internet usage on a daily basis.
Oh, wait a minute, they already do that.
Sunday, 28 February 2010
Sunday, 10 January 2010
Football, Beer and Health Equality
A few years ago I had a conversation, at a local healthy living exhibition, about how to get the health message across to men. The person I was chatting with, apart from being a friend, was also a trained nurse and a health promotion professional.
She had come to the conclusion that holding events, such as the one we were at, was simply not working; men didn’t, by and large, attend and were showing no real interest in their health. The conclusion was that, almost evangelically, the message had to be taken out into the ‘market place’. The market place was broadly defined as football grounds and pubs. In other words, places that the target demographic were likely to be, in large numbers, on a regular basis.
Now, to put this in a geographic context, the demographic in question is situated in the North-West of England where, for a majority of men, football and beer are two of their most important life-aspects. Conversations around healthy eating, the benefits of vegetables, the danger of excessive cholesterol and a regime of regular exercise are fairly rare, and often viewed as deeply un-manly and possible even somewhat feminine.
Imagine my surprise when, having reached that certain dangerous age of such previously unmentionable subjects as furring arteries, expanding waistlines and heart-attacks, that upon enquiring of my GP whether I could have a Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) blood test I was refused.
Now, here was a presenting bloke actually interested in health prevention. I was questioned as to whether there was a reason for asking for the test; had I any symptoms that were worrying me? I hadn’t. Did I know the test was not conclusive? I did. So could I have the test? No.
Over the next 2 years I broached the subject two more times, and the answer was always the same. If you have no symptoms, you can’t have a PSA blood test. In other words, unless the medical profession thought there was a good chance that you might already have Prostate Cancer, you were not going to get a test.
So much for preventive medicine in the male population.
Compare this to health prevention in the female population. Breast screening is now an almost universally accepted option as are cervical smears and even, in young girls, cervical cancer inoculations (but that is a whole other issue). All these measures are now an integral part of female health prevention.
But for men?
So eventually it came to the point where, nearly 3 years after that first conversation with my Doctor, I was discussing another health issue with my GP Nurse, and the PSA subject came up again. I was asked the same questions and gave the same answers. I then asked the nurse whether that, If I was a woman, and I asked you for a cervical smear, would I get one? She thought for a few seconds, and admitted that, yes, I would. She immediately wrote me in for a PSA test. The results were negative, and all is fine.
However, the point of this is not my health. It is to do with the reluctance to offer equal preventative health options to men as to women. Simple as that. As far as I can tell, this inequality still broadly exists. It is not good enough to say that men are just not interested in their own health. It is the job of the health service to be far more pro-active in reaching out to the male population, especially where it is more difficult to connect to that population, with preventative care.
We cannot really talk about equality and diversity, etc., and ignore such an outrageous situation. Men’s health and Women’s health are equally important, other equality means nothing.
She had come to the conclusion that holding events, such as the one we were at, was simply not working; men didn’t, by and large, attend and were showing no real interest in their health. The conclusion was that, almost evangelically, the message had to be taken out into the ‘market place’. The market place was broadly defined as football grounds and pubs. In other words, places that the target demographic were likely to be, in large numbers, on a regular basis.
Now, to put this in a geographic context, the demographic in question is situated in the North-West of England where, for a majority of men, football and beer are two of their most important life-aspects. Conversations around healthy eating, the benefits of vegetables, the danger of excessive cholesterol and a regime of regular exercise are fairly rare, and often viewed as deeply un-manly and possible even somewhat feminine.
Imagine my surprise when, having reached that certain dangerous age of such previously unmentionable subjects as furring arteries, expanding waistlines and heart-attacks, that upon enquiring of my GP whether I could have a Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) blood test I was refused.
Now, here was a presenting bloke actually interested in health prevention. I was questioned as to whether there was a reason for asking for the test; had I any symptoms that were worrying me? I hadn’t. Did I know the test was not conclusive? I did. So could I have the test? No.
Over the next 2 years I broached the subject two more times, and the answer was always the same. If you have no symptoms, you can’t have a PSA blood test. In other words, unless the medical profession thought there was a good chance that you might already have Prostate Cancer, you were not going to get a test.
So much for preventive medicine in the male population.
Compare this to health prevention in the female population. Breast screening is now an almost universally accepted option as are cervical smears and even, in young girls, cervical cancer inoculations (but that is a whole other issue). All these measures are now an integral part of female health prevention.
But for men?
So eventually it came to the point where, nearly 3 years after that first conversation with my Doctor, I was discussing another health issue with my GP Nurse, and the PSA subject came up again. I was asked the same questions and gave the same answers. I then asked the nurse whether that, If I was a woman, and I asked you for a cervical smear, would I get one? She thought for a few seconds, and admitted that, yes, I would. She immediately wrote me in for a PSA test. The results were negative, and all is fine.
However, the point of this is not my health. It is to do with the reluctance to offer equal preventative health options to men as to women. Simple as that. As far as I can tell, this inequality still broadly exists. It is not good enough to say that men are just not interested in their own health. It is the job of the health service to be far more pro-active in reaching out to the male population, especially where it is more difficult to connect to that population, with preventative care.
We cannot really talk about equality and diversity, etc., and ignore such an outrageous situation. Men’s health and Women’s health are equally important, other equality means nothing.
Wednesday, 23 December 2009
Do We Live In A Christian Country?
Do We Live In A Christian Country?
I have a confession to make: along with a significant number of others, I have for a number of years accepted a premise. That premise is this: that because we have become an increasingly secular society, that because only a minority of our citizens regularly attend a place of Christian worship and that because a significant number of those people who have come to live in this country share non-Christian belief systems, we have become a non-Christian Country.
It is understandable that we have fallen into this premise.
Since the mid-1960s, when there were huge cultural shifts in our nation, and the established church system in the UK began loosing its way, we have become, as a nation, far more secularly orientated.
Also, over the last 50 years, large numbers of people have come to live in the UK who do not have a Christian belief, but have beliefs that are totally non-Christian. These communities have grown not only in number, but in political and social power, to the point where our traditional lifestyle is now lived in the context of the opinions of these other beliefs.
So it is understandable that we have accepted the premise. It is, however, a false premise. It is a false premise because who we are as a country is not based solely on how many people go to church regularly, not on how many citizens have no belief, not on how many people have different beliefs.
Our whole way of life in the UK; our laws, our justice system, our democratic style of Government, our ethical beliefs, are based on traditional Judeo-Christian belief and have been for hundreds of years. This may not be a country where enormous amounts of people still attend church regularly, but we are a Christian based country.
What, therefore, are the implications of this?
In a nutshell, those of us who do share a Christian belief should not, any longer, accept that we now live in a non-Christian country. We should not accept that, increasingly, our society will devolve into a totally secular society, nor that we are going to evolve into a society where Christian belief becomes marginalized beyond other beliefs simply because they shout louder or because they instil fear of opposition into their fellow citizens via threats of orchestrated violence.
Rather, we should remind ourselves what the Christian mission truly is: to go into all the world and make disciples, to live our lives as Christ wants us to live them, and that sometimes that may involve turning over metaphorical tables in metaphorical temples and driving the metaphorical money-changers away.
How those metaphors work out in actuality has yet to be seen, but if we surrender the Christian legacy of this country too easily, we, or our children, or their children, may regret this, deeply.
I have a confession to make: along with a significant number of others, I have for a number of years accepted a premise. That premise is this: that because we have become an increasingly secular society, that because only a minority of our citizens regularly attend a place of Christian worship and that because a significant number of those people who have come to live in this country share non-Christian belief systems, we have become a non-Christian Country.
It is understandable that we have fallen into this premise.
Since the mid-1960s, when there were huge cultural shifts in our nation, and the established church system in the UK began loosing its way, we have become, as a nation, far more secularly orientated.
Also, over the last 50 years, large numbers of people have come to live in the UK who do not have a Christian belief, but have beliefs that are totally non-Christian. These communities have grown not only in number, but in political and social power, to the point where our traditional lifestyle is now lived in the context of the opinions of these other beliefs.
So it is understandable that we have accepted the premise. It is, however, a false premise. It is a false premise because who we are as a country is not based solely on how many people go to church regularly, not on how many citizens have no belief, not on how many people have different beliefs.
Our whole way of life in the UK; our laws, our justice system, our democratic style of Government, our ethical beliefs, are based on traditional Judeo-Christian belief and have been for hundreds of years. This may not be a country where enormous amounts of people still attend church regularly, but we are a Christian based country.
What, therefore, are the implications of this?
In a nutshell, those of us who do share a Christian belief should not, any longer, accept that we now live in a non-Christian country. We should not accept that, increasingly, our society will devolve into a totally secular society, nor that we are going to evolve into a society where Christian belief becomes marginalized beyond other beliefs simply because they shout louder or because they instil fear of opposition into their fellow citizens via threats of orchestrated violence.
Rather, we should remind ourselves what the Christian mission truly is: to go into all the world and make disciples, to live our lives as Christ wants us to live them, and that sometimes that may involve turning over metaphorical tables in metaphorical temples and driving the metaphorical money-changers away.
How those metaphors work out in actuality has yet to be seen, but if we surrender the Christian legacy of this country too easily, we, or our children, or their children, may regret this, deeply.
Sunday, 20 December 2009
So What Is Christmas All About?
Here's a clue: Christ-Mass.
Unsurprisingly, in our post-Christian, post-modern world, even that clue may remain unfathomable to some.
In most peoples' minds, December 25th means some or all of these things: Father Christmas (aka Santa Claus, aka St. Nichols aka Chris Tingel), reindeer, cards, holiday, decorations, lights, food, drink, presents, turkey, excess, indigestion, robins, snow and trees. At a push there may be a passing nod to something about a baby in a stable.
Father Christmass
Father Christmas is based on a real person, St. Nicholas, which explains his other name 'Santa Claus' which comes from the Dutch 'Sinterklaas'. Nicholas was a Christian leader from Myra (in modern-day Turkey) in the 4th century AD. He was very shy, and wanted to give money to poor people without them knowing about it. It is said that one day, he climbed the roof of a house and dropped a purse of money down the chimney. It landed in the stocking which a girl had put to dry by the fire! This may explain the belief that Father Christmas comes down the chimney and places gifts in children's stockings. When the Dutch settled what was to become New York, Sinterklaas became Santa Claus.
Christmas Trees
Some authorities consider the Christmas tree to be a survivor of pagan worship and trace it to Egypt and ancient Rome. Others say that the first real Christian Christmas tree dates back to 8th century Germany where it was used as a replacement for pagan worship. However, it was not until the beginning of the 19th century that the Christmas tree as we know it really became part of celebrations in England. Although Christmas trees were not unknown in England in Georgian times, In 1834, it was Queen Victoria's husband, Prince Albert of Saxony, who set an example and encouraged people to have a decorated tree at Christmas.
In the early 1840s the North American town of Fitzwilliam, N.H., was lining its Unitarian church with evergreen trees at Christmas time. They seem to have been undecorated, and were left up till late spring, when a bonfire celebrated their demise. By 1850, the Christmas tree had become fashionable in the eastern states. Until this time, it had been considered a quaint foreign custom.
But centuries ago in Great Britain, Druid priests used evergreens during mysterious winter solstice rituals. They also used holly and mistletoe as symbols of eternal life, and place evergreen branches over doors to keep away evil spirits.
Legend has it that Martin Luther began the tradition of decorating trees to celebrate Christmas. One Christmas Eve, around the year 1500, while walking through snowy woods, he saw a group of small evergreens with their branches dusted with snow. He was so taken with the sight that he brought a small fir tree indoors so he could share this with his children. He decorated it with candles in honour of Christ's birth.
Christmas Cards
The Christmas card is a Victorian creation, and was started by Sir Henry Cole who worked for the British Postal Service. He hired an artist named John Horsley. Between them they designed the first Christmas card which was a depiction of a Christmas scene framed in three panels. Underneath appeared the now famous phrase "A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to You."
Christmas cards went on to be an essential part of Christmas and are now big business.
Christmas Gifts
On New Years' Day in ancient Rome, people gave each other gifts as a means of saying "Happy New Year". These might be gifts of food, or, depending upon the families wealth, more valuable gifts such as jewellery or pieces of gold and silver. With the coming of Christianity, the giving of gifts was established as being in honour of the gifts brought by the Three(?) Wise Men or Kings. When the Apostles brought the Gospel to Rome, the people learned of the Three Wise Men who came from the Orient to present gifts to the newborn King. From then on, the old custom was only slightly changed. The exchanging of presents remained, but now it was done in imitation of the Three Holy Kings.
Customs and dates for Christmas gift-giving vary from country to country, as do the supposed donors of the gifts. Depending upon the place, the gifts allegedly are delivered by elves, angels, the Christ Child, and even by Jesus' camel. They are provided by the Three Kings or Wise Men, or by Saint Nicholas or his derivative, Santa Claus. When the Dutch settled what was to become New York, they brought with them an annually reappearing Saint Nicholas or, as they called him, Sinterklaas. From there his name was altered to Santa Claus. In Brussels, it is a custom to give living gifts such as birds, pets, flowers. In the West Indies it is the custom to exchange or give hospitality, service or talent. Material gifts are not exchanged.
25th December?
The early Christian Church celebrated Christ's birth on various days; Jan 6th, April 21st, May 1st. In the 4th century Julius (337-352), Bishop of Rome, perhaps encouraged by the Emperor Constantine, declared December 25th to be the time to celebrate the birth of Christ. He probably favoured this date to counteract a very popular pagan holiday celebrating the rebirth of the sun. However, although the actual solstice is on 21st December, the 25th was as near as the crude instruments available to the ancient astronomers were able to place the it.
Will the real Christmas please stand up!
The Christmas season has long since degenerated into commercialism and material excess which has little or nothing to do with the birth of Christ or the celebration of Emmanuel, God with us; of God becoming Man. Indeed, in some parts of the UK, the corporate celebration of Christmas has been officially banned by Local Councils for fear of upsetting other faiths. Interestingly enough, one Local Council encouraged the Hindu celebration of Diwali (festival of Truth and Light) without any care of offending Christians. What hypocrisy!
So why do Christians persist in hanging on to the tattered remnants of this discredited season, this Winter Celebration? Is there a valid argument for saying that Christians should stop celebrating the traditional, atheistic, humanistic, pagan Christmas altogether? But if they do stop, there surely should be a time to remember the real birth of Christ?
Step forward a Campaign for the Real Christmas
In the biblical accounts of the birth of Jesus we read that the Shepherds were out on the hills with their sheep. They would not have been on the hills in December in the middle of Winter. It is also unlikely that the census, for which Mary and Joseph travelled to Bethlehem, would have been called in the middle of Winter. So if not December, when?
But let's paint in the background a little. The Jews celebrated a number of "feasts" during their year. One of these was the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkoth). Beginning five days after Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement) on the fifteenth of Tishri, Israel's seventh month (Usually around the end of September or beginning of October in the Gregorian Calendar), it is a drastic change from one of the most solemn holidays in the Jewish year to one of the most joyous. The word Sukkoth means "booths", and refers to the temporary dwellings that Jews are commanded to live in during this holiday, just as they did during the wilderness wanderings. The Feast of Tabernacles lasts for seven days and ends on the twenty-first Tishri.
Why is this significant? In John's Gospel the Apostle wrote these words (in English translation), "... and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us". The original meaning of the wording was, "... and the Word was made flesh and tabernacled among us". In all likelihood, therefore, it was at the Feast of Tabernacles that Jesus was actually born. It may also explain why Bethlehem was crowded; everyone was there to celebrate the Feast.
We have, therefore a reasonable indication of the true time of Jesus' birth. Not 25th December, but earlier in the year, around Autumn; the end of September or the beginning of October.
Realistically, it is extremely unlikely that the traditional celebration of Christmas on the 25th December is ever going to be "reclaimed". So it might make sense that a new celebration of Jesus' birth be instituted by Christians to coincide with the Feast of the Tabernacles, thus giving the Birth of Jesus the spiritual and Christian, prominence it deserves.
PS - it wasn't a stable either, and the 'Kings' weren't there just after the birth, neither was...... well, never mind for now.
A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to You
Unsurprisingly, in our post-Christian, post-modern world, even that clue may remain unfathomable to some.
In most peoples' minds, December 25th means some or all of these things: Father Christmas (aka Santa Claus, aka St. Nichols aka Chris Tingel), reindeer, cards, holiday, decorations, lights, food, drink, presents, turkey, excess, indigestion, robins, snow and trees. At a push there may be a passing nod to something about a baby in a stable.
Father Christmass
Father Christmas is based on a real person, St. Nicholas, which explains his other name 'Santa Claus' which comes from the Dutch 'Sinterklaas'. Nicholas was a Christian leader from Myra (in modern-day Turkey) in the 4th century AD. He was very shy, and wanted to give money to poor people without them knowing about it. It is said that one day, he climbed the roof of a house and dropped a purse of money down the chimney. It landed in the stocking which a girl had put to dry by the fire! This may explain the belief that Father Christmas comes down the chimney and places gifts in children's stockings. When the Dutch settled what was to become New York, Sinterklaas became Santa Claus.
Christmas Trees
Some authorities consider the Christmas tree to be a survivor of pagan worship and trace it to Egypt and ancient Rome. Others say that the first real Christian Christmas tree dates back to 8th century Germany where it was used as a replacement for pagan worship. However, it was not until the beginning of the 19th century that the Christmas tree as we know it really became part of celebrations in England. Although Christmas trees were not unknown in England in Georgian times, In 1834, it was Queen Victoria's husband, Prince Albert of Saxony, who set an example and encouraged people to have a decorated tree at Christmas.
In the early 1840s the North American town of Fitzwilliam, N.H., was lining its Unitarian church with evergreen trees at Christmas time. They seem to have been undecorated, and were left up till late spring, when a bonfire celebrated their demise. By 1850, the Christmas tree had become fashionable in the eastern states. Until this time, it had been considered a quaint foreign custom.
But centuries ago in Great Britain, Druid priests used evergreens during mysterious winter solstice rituals. They also used holly and mistletoe as symbols of eternal life, and place evergreen branches over doors to keep away evil spirits.
Legend has it that Martin Luther began the tradition of decorating trees to celebrate Christmas. One Christmas Eve, around the year 1500, while walking through snowy woods, he saw a group of small evergreens with their branches dusted with snow. He was so taken with the sight that he brought a small fir tree indoors so he could share this with his children. He decorated it with candles in honour of Christ's birth.
Christmas Cards
The Christmas card is a Victorian creation, and was started by Sir Henry Cole who worked for the British Postal Service. He hired an artist named John Horsley. Between them they designed the first Christmas card which was a depiction of a Christmas scene framed in three panels. Underneath appeared the now famous phrase "A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to You."
Christmas cards went on to be an essential part of Christmas and are now big business.
Christmas Gifts
On New Years' Day in ancient Rome, people gave each other gifts as a means of saying "Happy New Year". These might be gifts of food, or, depending upon the families wealth, more valuable gifts such as jewellery or pieces of gold and silver. With the coming of Christianity, the giving of gifts was established as being in honour of the gifts brought by the Three(?) Wise Men or Kings. When the Apostles brought the Gospel to Rome, the people learned of the Three Wise Men who came from the Orient to present gifts to the newborn King. From then on, the old custom was only slightly changed. The exchanging of presents remained, but now it was done in imitation of the Three Holy Kings.
Customs and dates for Christmas gift-giving vary from country to country, as do the supposed donors of the gifts. Depending upon the place, the gifts allegedly are delivered by elves, angels, the Christ Child, and even by Jesus' camel. They are provided by the Three Kings or Wise Men, or by Saint Nicholas or his derivative, Santa Claus. When the Dutch settled what was to become New York, they brought with them an annually reappearing Saint Nicholas or, as they called him, Sinterklaas. From there his name was altered to Santa Claus. In Brussels, it is a custom to give living gifts such as birds, pets, flowers. In the West Indies it is the custom to exchange or give hospitality, service or talent. Material gifts are not exchanged.
25th December?
The early Christian Church celebrated Christ's birth on various days; Jan 6th, April 21st, May 1st. In the 4th century Julius (337-352), Bishop of Rome, perhaps encouraged by the Emperor Constantine, declared December 25th to be the time to celebrate the birth of Christ. He probably favoured this date to counteract a very popular pagan holiday celebrating the rebirth of the sun. However, although the actual solstice is on 21st December, the 25th was as near as the crude instruments available to the ancient astronomers were able to place the it.
Will the real Christmas please stand up!
The Christmas season has long since degenerated into commercialism and material excess which has little or nothing to do with the birth of Christ or the celebration of Emmanuel, God with us; of God becoming Man. Indeed, in some parts of the UK, the corporate celebration of Christmas has been officially banned by Local Councils for fear of upsetting other faiths. Interestingly enough, one Local Council encouraged the Hindu celebration of Diwali (festival of Truth and Light) without any care of offending Christians. What hypocrisy!
So why do Christians persist in hanging on to the tattered remnants of this discredited season, this Winter Celebration? Is there a valid argument for saying that Christians should stop celebrating the traditional, atheistic, humanistic, pagan Christmas altogether? But if they do stop, there surely should be a time to remember the real birth of Christ?
Step forward a Campaign for the Real Christmas
In the biblical accounts of the birth of Jesus we read that the Shepherds were out on the hills with their sheep. They would not have been on the hills in December in the middle of Winter. It is also unlikely that the census, for which Mary and Joseph travelled to Bethlehem, would have been called in the middle of Winter. So if not December, when?
But let's paint in the background a little. The Jews celebrated a number of "feasts" during their year. One of these was the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkoth). Beginning five days after Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement) on the fifteenth of Tishri, Israel's seventh month (Usually around the end of September or beginning of October in the Gregorian Calendar), it is a drastic change from one of the most solemn holidays in the Jewish year to one of the most joyous. The word Sukkoth means "booths", and refers to the temporary dwellings that Jews are commanded to live in during this holiday, just as they did during the wilderness wanderings. The Feast of Tabernacles lasts for seven days and ends on the twenty-first Tishri.
Why is this significant? In John's Gospel the Apostle wrote these words (in English translation), "... and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us". The original meaning of the wording was, "... and the Word was made flesh and tabernacled among us". In all likelihood, therefore, it was at the Feast of Tabernacles that Jesus was actually born. It may also explain why Bethlehem was crowded; everyone was there to celebrate the Feast.
We have, therefore a reasonable indication of the true time of Jesus' birth. Not 25th December, but earlier in the year, around Autumn; the end of September or the beginning of October.
Realistically, it is extremely unlikely that the traditional celebration of Christmas on the 25th December is ever going to be "reclaimed". So it might make sense that a new celebration of Jesus' birth be instituted by Christians to coincide with the Feast of the Tabernacles, thus giving the Birth of Jesus the spiritual and Christian, prominence it deserves.
PS - it wasn't a stable either, and the 'Kings' weren't there just after the birth, neither was...... well, never mind for now.
A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to You
Fame - I'm Going To Live Forever....
In the 60's, when Andy Warhol made his interesting prediction - that in the future we would all be famous for 15 minutes - we had, as a society, begun throwing off the perceived shackles of the post war culture and belief systems.
It was a time of, "if it feels good - do it" "let it all hang out" and "if you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with". Traditional moral and religious restraints were cast to one side in a tidal wave of post-modern thinking about, who we were, what we should be allowed to do, with whom we should be allowed to do it and the very nature of truth and belief.
Paradoxically, the desire for someone or something greater than ourselves remained. With the intelligentsia, and certain sections of the established church, declaring that, 'God is dead', a vacuum formed. As the orthodox Judaeo-Christian religious foundation to our society was dug up and carried away by the barrow load, a rainfall of different beliefs and ideologies soon flooded into the empty diggings; New Age mysticism, rights of the individual, freedom of expression without responsibility, sexual freedom with no thought for tomorrow, feminism, freedom of abortion, consumerism and much more.
However, the need to worship something 'higher' is built into the human spirit, and over the decades following the 60's this need would begin to find its fulfilment in the worship of the 'famous', the 'celebrity'.
Of course, famous people, those who achieved greatness, were born great, or had greatness thrust upon them, have always been among us. National Leaders, Soldiers, Politicians, Royalty, Rogues, Desperados, Adventurers, Villains, Film Stars, Sports Stars, Musicians, Footballers etc., made obvious candidates. Usually these people were high profile, maybe rich and powerful, often able to manipulate the publicity machine, or have it manipulated for them, to reach the dizzy heights of fame.
So we find, just a few years into the 21st Century, a curious situation. In the general clamouring to find objects to satisfy our need to worship, almost anyone will do in this devotion to the cult of celebrity, and the sensation hungry media, especially television has become the new evangelist. G.K. Chesterton observed, 'When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything'.
Fueled by the ever growing pressure of ratings, TV has created its very own Frankenstein's Monster; the TV Celebrity. Now, given a modicum of media coverage, anyone can be 'famous'. Gardeners, airport security officers, topless models, murders, footballers, prostitutes, driving test failures, bus drivers. Most, if not all, quite ordinary people doing whatever they choose to do, who have been sucked into the TV machine and transmitted to millions. What is even more remarkable is that those millions, generally, deem the fact that they have seen these people on TV and enough to bestow on them the accolade of, 'celebrity'.
And so the wheel begins turning with a horrible momentum. Because they are now personalities, they appear on TV and the other media at even greater regularity. This reinforces their status, and soon their opinions on the state of the world is sought, and they appear on chat shows, the news, and in previously serious debate programmes, thus building their pedestals ever higher. We are invited to share their lives through magazines and the Internet. Vicariously, we go to their weddings, sit in their bedrooms, watch the birth of the babies, know the perfume they use, the toothpaste in their bathrooms and almost every other intimate detail of their lives.
Thus the cult of celebrity bestows on its worshippers the ultimate accolade - intimacy. We 'know' these people, we have become part of their social circle; we are now rubbing shoulders with the famous by association. And there lies the power of the cult of personality. We want to worship, and we want to feel something in return; to feel good, to feel blessed, to feel the hand of some god on our heads, and in feeling that we are satisfied.
As devoted worshippers and disciples of Celebrities, we want not only to know them, but we want to be like them. So the purveyors of fame eagerly sell us the trappings of fame. We buy the products they use, holiday in the countries they holiday in, buy the clothes they wear (or at least expensive, but inferior copies), adopt their hair-styles, believe what they believe. As we do this the circle is complete. Their fame increases and our devotion becomes evermore intense; well for 15 minutes anyway.
Fame, though, is a transient beast. No human can maintain the life required to receive adoring worship for great periods of time. For one thing, we are all mortal and disappear in the fullness of years. After all, there will always be another along in a minute; someone else whose teeth shine brighter, whose hair is glossier, whose breasts are larger, who can kick a ball harder, who can sing more sweetly. Someone who is younger.
So what happens to the post-famous, the now un-famous? Perhaps they may appear on TV shows where they can debase themselves, like sacrifices before the braying crowd, in the hope of rekindling past glories in the hope that somebody out there still loves them. They may retire to a rich and idle empty life in a tax haven abroad, or perhaps they'll become PR Managers and run agencies for the next phenomenon who comes along.
And what of the devotee? What of those who have lain prostrate at the foot of the alter? They'll flit from one personality to another, like moths to flames, ever seeking but never finding a true outlet for their inner selves; their empty inner selves.
....Baby remember my name.......Please!
It was a time of, "if it feels good - do it" "let it all hang out" and "if you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with". Traditional moral and religious restraints were cast to one side in a tidal wave of post-modern thinking about, who we were, what we should be allowed to do, with whom we should be allowed to do it and the very nature of truth and belief.
Paradoxically, the desire for someone or something greater than ourselves remained. With the intelligentsia, and certain sections of the established church, declaring that, 'God is dead', a vacuum formed. As the orthodox Judaeo-Christian religious foundation to our society was dug up and carried away by the barrow load, a rainfall of different beliefs and ideologies soon flooded into the empty diggings; New Age mysticism, rights of the individual, freedom of expression without responsibility, sexual freedom with no thought for tomorrow, feminism, freedom of abortion, consumerism and much more.
However, the need to worship something 'higher' is built into the human spirit, and over the decades following the 60's this need would begin to find its fulfilment in the worship of the 'famous', the 'celebrity'.
Of course, famous people, those who achieved greatness, were born great, or had greatness thrust upon them, have always been among us. National Leaders, Soldiers, Politicians, Royalty, Rogues, Desperados, Adventurers, Villains, Film Stars, Sports Stars, Musicians, Footballers etc., made obvious candidates. Usually these people were high profile, maybe rich and powerful, often able to manipulate the publicity machine, or have it manipulated for them, to reach the dizzy heights of fame.
So we find, just a few years into the 21st Century, a curious situation. In the general clamouring to find objects to satisfy our need to worship, almost anyone will do in this devotion to the cult of celebrity, and the sensation hungry media, especially television has become the new evangelist. G.K. Chesterton observed, 'When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything'.
Fueled by the ever growing pressure of ratings, TV has created its very own Frankenstein's Monster; the TV Celebrity. Now, given a modicum of media coverage, anyone can be 'famous'. Gardeners, airport security officers, topless models, murders, footballers, prostitutes, driving test failures, bus drivers. Most, if not all, quite ordinary people doing whatever they choose to do, who have been sucked into the TV machine and transmitted to millions. What is even more remarkable is that those millions, generally, deem the fact that they have seen these people on TV and enough to bestow on them the accolade of, 'celebrity'.
And so the wheel begins turning with a horrible momentum. Because they are now personalities, they appear on TV and the other media at even greater regularity. This reinforces their status, and soon their opinions on the state of the world is sought, and they appear on chat shows, the news, and in previously serious debate programmes, thus building their pedestals ever higher. We are invited to share their lives through magazines and the Internet. Vicariously, we go to their weddings, sit in their bedrooms, watch the birth of the babies, know the perfume they use, the toothpaste in their bathrooms and almost every other intimate detail of their lives.
Thus the cult of celebrity bestows on its worshippers the ultimate accolade - intimacy. We 'know' these people, we have become part of their social circle; we are now rubbing shoulders with the famous by association. And there lies the power of the cult of personality. We want to worship, and we want to feel something in return; to feel good, to feel blessed, to feel the hand of some god on our heads, and in feeling that we are satisfied.
As devoted worshippers and disciples of Celebrities, we want not only to know them, but we want to be like them. So the purveyors of fame eagerly sell us the trappings of fame. We buy the products they use, holiday in the countries they holiday in, buy the clothes they wear (or at least expensive, but inferior copies), adopt their hair-styles, believe what they believe. As we do this the circle is complete. Their fame increases and our devotion becomes evermore intense; well for 15 minutes anyway.
Fame, though, is a transient beast. No human can maintain the life required to receive adoring worship for great periods of time. For one thing, we are all mortal and disappear in the fullness of years. After all, there will always be another along in a minute; someone else whose teeth shine brighter, whose hair is glossier, whose breasts are larger, who can kick a ball harder, who can sing more sweetly. Someone who is younger.
So what happens to the post-famous, the now un-famous? Perhaps they may appear on TV shows where they can debase themselves, like sacrifices before the braying crowd, in the hope of rekindling past glories in the hope that somebody out there still loves them. They may retire to a rich and idle empty life in a tax haven abroad, or perhaps they'll become PR Managers and run agencies for the next phenomenon who comes along.
And what of the devotee? What of those who have lain prostrate at the foot of the alter? They'll flit from one personality to another, like moths to flames, ever seeking but never finding a true outlet for their inner selves; their empty inner selves.
....Baby remember my name.......Please!
Sunday, 13 December 2009
Victims of Consensus
Question: What is the purpose of national government?
Answer: To know how to best serve the people for whom they are their elected representatives, and to then serve them.
At least that is probably what the answer should be..... if only!
Are you aware that those who govern us are in a continual struggle for our hearts and minds? The answer you would probably give is, 'yes of course I am. Every political statement I hear or read is a mix of truth, lie, misdirection and propaganda', and of course this is true. However, despite the fact that those who govern us, our elected representatives, are supposed to be our 'humble servants', the truth of the matter is that they are engaged in a constant war of attrition which seeks to continually persuade us that everything they do, propose, suggest, think, is right and that we must be persuaded to fall in line with it; whether higher taxes, lower wages, military action, etc. To do this they must ensure that their citizens should not think too deeply about such matters, should not engage too deeply in the debate, should not oppose the leaderships' rationale. In other words, we should not think for ourselves.
But do we want to be concerned with such matters? It is extremely important that we are.
Modern history offers us a prime example of what can happen when a population, apparently unable or unwilling, to think for itself and engage in the political processes of its Government, allows it's Government to carry out atrocities that, many decades later, still fill people with horror.
I am of course talking about the German Nazi party's extermination of millions of Jews, Poles and Gypsies during the course of the Second World War. Although there were many factors involved; severe financial breakdown and national racism being just two, the result was that the German population stood aside while its own citizens were first persecuted, scapegoated, ghettoised and then systematically exterminated. Shamefully, whilst this was going on, even the German Church turned the other cheek; the one body of people whom you would hope would stand against such evil, did not do so.
There were or two exceptions, and history records their bravery, and in some situations, their executions.
How did this happen? It happened because a consensus was reached within the population that what their Government was doing was right and in the best interests of its citizens.
There are a number of varied and complicated psychological and sociological processes involved for this to happen within a population. Malcolm Gladwell, author of, The Tipping Point, has shown that when something new appears on the horizon, be it philosophical, ideological or socialogical, there is a period of time when this new idea germinates. A period of time when, albeit slowly, the new idea gains a foothold, perhaps through active promotion, i.e. media advertising, televised propaganda, TV, Radio, Internet, Film, public promotion, debate, etc. But eventually the 'tipping point' is reached when the acceptance of this new idea cascades into the public consciousness, and almost overnight, or so it seems, a majority of the population find themselves agreeing with the new idea for no other reason than the common belief that, 'everyone believes that....', and thus it becomes, in sort, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once this tipping point is reached, the promoters of the new idea can push ahead because it has reached consensus.
Take, for example, the global warming debate. Despite enormous scientific evidence in opposition to the basic premise, a consensus seems to have been reached that human produced CO2 is the prime cause of global warming.
Once consensus has been reached, it becomes more and more difficult for anyone to stand opposed to that consensus. They will find that their voice is increasingly isolated, their opinion increasingly marginalised, and that the consensus is less and less willing to bear with such opposition.
So how does a Government effectively persuade its citizens towards this tipping point? Of course, different Governments use different methods; terror, oppression, fear, reasoned argument, debate, democratic process, etc. The danger is that, within a democratic process, there is always the possibility that the population might be swayed to an opposing, undesired opinion. One way to deal with this would be to remove the opposition. That raises the question as to whether the democratic process is also removed at the same time. One other way to limit the rise of opposing argument is to reduced the ability of the population to engage in reasoned debate; to remove the populations' ability to reason out the arguments, to reach a decision based on intellectual effort; in other words, to think for itself. But how does a Government thus reduce a population's ability?
One way would be to, over a period, 'dumb down' the population, reducing the ability of that population to think for themselves; to form opinions based on reasoned argument, philosophical or religious ethical ideology. This could lead to a situation where the Government of a country can more easily persuade a population, or the majority of a population, along a course of its own choosing, to consensus, without the danger of that population raising serious objection.
So, is the British population being dumbed down? It's a question which merits consideration. Universities report that increasingly, entrants display the lack of adequate literacy and numeracy skills. Our school system has been systematically pulled apart since the introduction of the comprehensive education system, and certain governments have all but destroyed Grammar schools. Add to that the apparent goal of our state owned broadcasting system to rot our brains with a diet of 'reality TV' and 'celebrity' led opinion. All of which, despite the apparent increase in 'A' Level results, may be leading to a generation less able to truly think for itself.
It is vital that we retain the ability to think for ourselves. If we do not, we are in danger of becoming victims of consensus, victims of a non-intellectual mob-rule that may see some of us swimming against the stream of majority opinion.
Remember, what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular.
Makes you think, doesn't it?
Answer: To know how to best serve the people for whom they are their elected representatives, and to then serve them.
At least that is probably what the answer should be..... if only!
Are you aware that those who govern us are in a continual struggle for our hearts and minds? The answer you would probably give is, 'yes of course I am. Every political statement I hear or read is a mix of truth, lie, misdirection and propaganda', and of course this is true. However, despite the fact that those who govern us, our elected representatives, are supposed to be our 'humble servants', the truth of the matter is that they are engaged in a constant war of attrition which seeks to continually persuade us that everything they do, propose, suggest, think, is right and that we must be persuaded to fall in line with it; whether higher taxes, lower wages, military action, etc. To do this they must ensure that their citizens should not think too deeply about such matters, should not engage too deeply in the debate, should not oppose the leaderships' rationale. In other words, we should not think for ourselves.
But do we want to be concerned with such matters? It is extremely important that we are.
Modern history offers us a prime example of what can happen when a population, apparently unable or unwilling, to think for itself and engage in the political processes of its Government, allows it's Government to carry out atrocities that, many decades later, still fill people with horror.
I am of course talking about the German Nazi party's extermination of millions of Jews, Poles and Gypsies during the course of the Second World War. Although there were many factors involved; severe financial breakdown and national racism being just two, the result was that the German population stood aside while its own citizens were first persecuted, scapegoated, ghettoised and then systematically exterminated. Shamefully, whilst this was going on, even the German Church turned the other cheek; the one body of people whom you would hope would stand against such evil, did not do so.
There were or two exceptions, and history records their bravery, and in some situations, their executions.
How did this happen? It happened because a consensus was reached within the population that what their Government was doing was right and in the best interests of its citizens.
There are a number of varied and complicated psychological and sociological processes involved for this to happen within a population. Malcolm Gladwell, author of, The Tipping Point, has shown that when something new appears on the horizon, be it philosophical, ideological or socialogical, there is a period of time when this new idea germinates. A period of time when, albeit slowly, the new idea gains a foothold, perhaps through active promotion, i.e. media advertising, televised propaganda, TV, Radio, Internet, Film, public promotion, debate, etc. But eventually the 'tipping point' is reached when the acceptance of this new idea cascades into the public consciousness, and almost overnight, or so it seems, a majority of the population find themselves agreeing with the new idea for no other reason than the common belief that, 'everyone believes that....', and thus it becomes, in sort, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once this tipping point is reached, the promoters of the new idea can push ahead because it has reached consensus.
Take, for example, the global warming debate. Despite enormous scientific evidence in opposition to the basic premise, a consensus seems to have been reached that human produced CO2 is the prime cause of global warming.
Once consensus has been reached, it becomes more and more difficult for anyone to stand opposed to that consensus. They will find that their voice is increasingly isolated, their opinion increasingly marginalised, and that the consensus is less and less willing to bear with such opposition.
So how does a Government effectively persuade its citizens towards this tipping point? Of course, different Governments use different methods; terror, oppression, fear, reasoned argument, debate, democratic process, etc. The danger is that, within a democratic process, there is always the possibility that the population might be swayed to an opposing, undesired opinion. One way to deal with this would be to remove the opposition. That raises the question as to whether the democratic process is also removed at the same time. One other way to limit the rise of opposing argument is to reduced the ability of the population to engage in reasoned debate; to remove the populations' ability to reason out the arguments, to reach a decision based on intellectual effort; in other words, to think for itself. But how does a Government thus reduce a population's ability?
One way would be to, over a period, 'dumb down' the population, reducing the ability of that population to think for themselves; to form opinions based on reasoned argument, philosophical or religious ethical ideology. This could lead to a situation where the Government of a country can more easily persuade a population, or the majority of a population, along a course of its own choosing, to consensus, without the danger of that population raising serious objection.
So, is the British population being dumbed down? It's a question which merits consideration. Universities report that increasingly, entrants display the lack of adequate literacy and numeracy skills. Our school system has been systematically pulled apart since the introduction of the comprehensive education system, and certain governments have all but destroyed Grammar schools. Add to that the apparent goal of our state owned broadcasting system to rot our brains with a diet of 'reality TV' and 'celebrity' led opinion. All of which, despite the apparent increase in 'A' Level results, may be leading to a generation less able to truly think for itself.
It is vital that we retain the ability to think for ourselves. If we do not, we are in danger of becoming victims of consensus, victims of a non-intellectual mob-rule that may see some of us swimming against the stream of majority opinion.
Remember, what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular.
Makes you think, doesn't it?
Thursday, 26 November 2009
Hands Off My Organ(s)
One of the miracles of modern medicine is the ability of skilled surgeons to replace non-functioning human organs with donated human organs.
This is a wonderful thing; the tragic loss of one person saves the life of another, or in many cases, the lives of more than one person. Those condemned to long term disability, those who are blind, those suffering from terminal illness, etc., can be saved and go on to live fulfilled lives.
The current mode of participation is that a healthy person makes a decision to become an organ donor, so that in the event of their death, others, strangers most likely, will benefit. It is possibly the most personal act of charity one can make. And this is the crux of the matter; that it is indeed a personal decision, that one makes a positive choice at some point in their life to become an organ donor.
However, there is now a shortage of voluntary donated organs, and this has led to a radical proposal; that it should no longer be left to the individual to decide whether to donate their organs, but it shall be asummed that everyone's organs will be available for harvesting unless a person 'opts out'. This sounds very logical, very humanitarian. It would solve, overnight, the shortage of organs. Many more lives would be saved. How can this possibly be a bad thing?
Let me name the ways!
It makes the assumption that a person's body parts are not, in fact, their property, but the property of the state/NHS/medical establishment (i.e. nominated organisation) to do with as they will. That the nominated organisation owns the rights to those organs unless the person whose organs they are specifically states that they do not want their organs harvested after death.
It is worth asking whether the harvesting of human organs, without consent, has happened already in the UK. The appalling answer is, yes it has.
In 1998, the news broke that organs and tissue, from babies who had died in two British hospitals, had been harvested without the permission of the parents, sold to pharmaceutical companies for monetary gain, or used for research within the hospitals. The two hospitals involved were Birmingham's Diana Princess of Wales Children's Hospital and the Alder Hey Children's Hospital, in Liverpool. Indeed, the practise was so established as to have been going on for decades.
Lets pause for a moment to contemplate this: That the medical establishment we trusted to look after us and our children in times of illness were routinely cannibalising dead humans for, in some instances, monetary gain.
You can read the full story here.
The proposal by various branches of the medical establishment, that organ donation should be an 'opt out' scheme, has been around for a number of years, and in 2009 the debate became more official when the NHS Blood and Transplant put on their website, that The British Medical Association (BMA), many transplant surgeons, and some patients' groups and politicians are keen to see Britain adopt a system of "presumed consent", where it is assumed that an individual wishes to be a donor unless he or she has 'opted out' by registering their objection to donation after their death. Full article here
Thus does the NHS make the presumption that a designated organisation should have rights over your bodily organs by default, unless you say no, i.e. unless you 'opt out'.
If anything is a breach of human rights, it is this. Once it is presumed that the state has a right over your bodily parts, how soon before it becomes law that the state owns the rights to your bodily parts, and organ cannibalisation becomes legal?
For those who say that this is not an important issue, that once you are dead it really doesn't matter what happens to your body (and putting aside the centuries of traditional respect for the dead) imagine this scenario. You are lying in hospital, near to death, but not dead yet, and along the corridor in a private room is a millionaire/member of the government/important individual also near to death and requiring an organ donation. By happy chance, you are a perfect match, and for a large donation to the hospital, the hospital administration are sad to announce your death, but that happily the aforementioned individual was able to live thanks to the 'opt out' scheme.
The harvesting of human organs for monetary gain in a hospital? Outrageous and could never happen? Sadly, of course, it already has.
This is a wonderful thing; the tragic loss of one person saves the life of another, or in many cases, the lives of more than one person. Those condemned to long term disability, those who are blind, those suffering from terminal illness, etc., can be saved and go on to live fulfilled lives.
The current mode of participation is that a healthy person makes a decision to become an organ donor, so that in the event of their death, others, strangers most likely, will benefit. It is possibly the most personal act of charity one can make. And this is the crux of the matter; that it is indeed a personal decision, that one makes a positive choice at some point in their life to become an organ donor.
However, there is now a shortage of voluntary donated organs, and this has led to a radical proposal; that it should no longer be left to the individual to decide whether to donate their organs, but it shall be asummed that everyone's organs will be available for harvesting unless a person 'opts out'. This sounds very logical, very humanitarian. It would solve, overnight, the shortage of organs. Many more lives would be saved. How can this possibly be a bad thing?
Let me name the ways!
It makes the assumption that a person's body parts are not, in fact, their property, but the property of the state/NHS/medical establishment (i.e. nominated organisation) to do with as they will. That the nominated organisation owns the rights to those organs unless the person whose organs they are specifically states that they do not want their organs harvested after death.
It is worth asking whether the harvesting of human organs, without consent, has happened already in the UK. The appalling answer is, yes it has.
In 1998, the news broke that organs and tissue, from babies who had died in two British hospitals, had been harvested without the permission of the parents, sold to pharmaceutical companies for monetary gain, or used for research within the hospitals. The two hospitals involved were Birmingham's Diana Princess of Wales Children's Hospital and the Alder Hey Children's Hospital, in Liverpool. Indeed, the practise was so established as to have been going on for decades.
Lets pause for a moment to contemplate this: That the medical establishment we trusted to look after us and our children in times of illness were routinely cannibalising dead humans for, in some instances, monetary gain.
You can read the full story here.
The proposal by various branches of the medical establishment, that organ donation should be an 'opt out' scheme, has been around for a number of years, and in 2009 the debate became more official when the NHS Blood and Transplant put on their website, that The British Medical Association (BMA), many transplant surgeons, and some patients' groups and politicians are keen to see Britain adopt a system of "presumed consent", where it is assumed that an individual wishes to be a donor unless he or she has 'opted out' by registering their objection to donation after their death. Full article here
Thus does the NHS make the presumption that a designated organisation should have rights over your bodily organs by default, unless you say no, i.e. unless you 'opt out'.
If anything is a breach of human rights, it is this. Once it is presumed that the state has a right over your bodily parts, how soon before it becomes law that the state owns the rights to your bodily parts, and organ cannibalisation becomes legal?
For those who say that this is not an important issue, that once you are dead it really doesn't matter what happens to your body (and putting aside the centuries of traditional respect for the dead) imagine this scenario. You are lying in hospital, near to death, but not dead yet, and along the corridor in a private room is a millionaire/member of the government/important individual also near to death and requiring an organ donation. By happy chance, you are a perfect match, and for a large donation to the hospital, the hospital administration are sad to announce your death, but that happily the aforementioned individual was able to live thanks to the 'opt out' scheme.
The harvesting of human organs for monetary gain in a hospital? Outrageous and could never happen? Sadly, of course, it already has.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)