Archive for the ‘Religion & Politics’ Category

Recently, the US Patent office revoked some of the patents owned by the Washington Redskins because their name was offensive to Native Americans.

This follows on from a long campaign against the american football team to change their name because it is incredibly racist. Earlier this year the National Congress of American Indians launched a new advert to bring the point home.

Of course, it is not really like the point needs to be brought home. It’s obvious. There is simply no way this can be viewed as anything but offensive:

For example, what happens when you take out one derogatory term for a group of people and put another one in:

As if anyone would stand for that! It’s time for a name change.

What should they change it to? I’m angling for the Washington Filibusterers.

If Stephen Hawking were British, he would be dead. That is what one critic of Obamacare said.

You can probably safely assume then that the author did not consult the latest World Health Organisation rankings of the world’s healthcare systems. It was getting increasingly out of date, with the latest rankings being published in 2010. However, even back then it could be seen that Britain ranked a reasonable 18th while the United States could only manage 37th, equal with Costa Rica.

However, a new study by The Commonwealth Fund has ranked the NHS at the top.

It is quite a selective list. No Spain or Italy for example, both who ranked excellently in WHO’s 2000 report, along with many very small nations such as San Marino that arguably do not count. But does include a health selection of systems including France (the 2000 first place) and Sweden and Norway that you would expect to do very well in all things quality of life.

In fact Britain does so well that it comes first in every category but three – equity (joint second), timeliness (third) and healthy lifestyles (tenth).

Click for a larger view.

Not everyone agrees with the report though. The Euro Health Consumer Index (EHCI) produce rankings also and their 2013 report puts Britain a lot further down the list.

Click for a larger view.

However, as I will almost certainly lead a happy life in the belief that I do have the best healthcare in the world, I’m going to choose to believe the former. Go NHS!

People often refer to Britain as a Christian country. You can make this argument, but as the BHA points out, not if you look at the stats. They are quite clear. Most people in Britain have no religion.

“Hello, welcome to the polling station. Are you voting fraudulently?” “No” “Okay, wonderful. Go right ahead then”.

Sounds ridiculous of course. However, in the UK, that is pretty much what we do. Without bothering to ask the question explicitly. In some parts of the country they were apparently turning EU citizens away saying they had not completed a UC1 form whatever that is.

That certainly was not the case in Leeds. The two non-British EU citizens I spoke to said they had the same experience. No one asked to see their polling card. No one asked to see their ID. They didn’t even need to know their own name.

When Elina went down to the polling station she was armed with her polling card and password. However, she didn’t need either. They just asked for her address. She could have given any. After she did that, they read out her name and asked if that was her. She said it was, and was given a ballot paper.

I’ve never tried electoral fraud, so I am not an expert in it. However, I can see a few ways in which this system would be undermined. For example, I could have given my neighbours address. Very easy when you live in sequentially numbered flats. Even if they had then asked me to confirm my name, I could have just read it upside down while they were looking for the address and given it back to them. And all of that is only based on a scenario where I don’t know the name of my neighbour.

Luckily, because everyone in Britain is totally honest, this isn’t a problem.

The UK currently has an opt-in system for organ donation. That means that unless you have specifically opted-in to donate your organs after you die, the NHS cannot have them. Sort of. Actually, whether you are signed up or not, they just ask the family. The NHS advice that making your views clear can be helpful. But actually, it is fairly irrelevant.

So a graph like this might look pretty scary:

But actually, it is not a complete disaster, because they will just ask the family anyway. I still think it would be worthwhile for the UK to switch to an opt-out system though. In general, you get higher donation rates in countries with an opt-out system.

If they also just ask the next of kin, it is not immediately obvious why this should be the case. Perhaps the relatives are less likely to say no if they do not feel the individual felt strongly enough to opt out, or perhaps there is just a general culture of that being the done thing. I am just speculating, I have no idea.

To me though, I wonder why there would be an opt-out at all?

What is the point? I cannot think of a good reason why the NHS should not just have a free right to help themselves to my organs after I am dead.

Perhaps you could make the argument that the family don’t like the idea. Or that it makes some people uncomfortable with the idea that their organs will be removed after they are gone. But organ donations save lives. Are these the reasons that are worthy of condemning someone to death? I would argue they are not.

Lovely cartoon by Joel Pett.

Apparently, Paddy Power think he is not.

It is always good to really challenge your beliefs when you can, so last night I tried to put aside any biases I hold and read through the Green Party manifesto.

I had previously written them off as sexists who support homoeopathy. Taking a look at their manifesto they talk a lot of sense though.

Here is what I like:

• They make the case that inequality is bad for everyone (I have a blog post coming on this)
• They want to reduce government borrowing
• They aim for a 35 hour working week
• Not increasing the rate of corporation tax for small businesses
• Ensuring the NHS is entirely publicly run
• Get rid of academies and free schools
• Treat drug abuse as a health issue rather than a crime
• Ending religious opt-outs of equality legislation
• Reformation of the House of Lords

Here is what I do not like:

• Their plan to pay for their pension plan is based on removing the tax incentives for people to pay into private pensions
• Increased tax on fuels including its introduction on aviation fuel
• Significant restrictions on air travel
• Supporting the Post Office which is an appallingly-run and non-essential organisation that we can afford to and should let fail
• So-called “business protection zones” to stop supermarkets
• Removing the internal market from the NHS
• Decentralise the NHS – they claim they can do it without it becoming a postcode lottery, but I am not convinced
• Complementary therapies being available on the NHS
• End mixed-sex accommodation in hospitals – why? Surely the Greens should be gender progressive?
• Provide funding for women’s refuges (but not men)
• Provide funding to tackle violence against women (but not men)
• Forcing companies to hire women onto their boards
• Reducing the voting age to 16
• Move towards a written bill of rights
• Oppose nuclear power
• Reduce motorway speed limits to 55mph
• Support organic food and oppose GM food

I was originally going to end this blog post with something like this:

There is certainly plenty in their I dislike. But the question is, do they talk less nonsense than the other political parties? I think it is quite possible that they actually do.

However, on reading through the list I have just made, there really is some unscientific stuff in there. So I don’t really know where to go with this ending now…

I’m not actually going to comment on any issues in this short piece. I just wanted to point a link over to this blog post where Chris H has catalogued a few interesting research papers showing clear evidence for sexism.

Ally Fogg recently published a very good article in The Guardian regarding Alan Turing. It said basically the same thing I wrote back in July. Sure, his writing is more poetic and his spelling may be correct. But… I don’t really have an end to this sentence.