You an Inny or an Outy?

Holy sweet nanny of Jehova, is this referendum proving a moral quandary!

On the one hand, do we want to stick with the safety and security of the EU, ensuring solid trade links, and our human and workers' rights are maintained, but at the cost of a not-insignificant financial contribution, modestly open boarders, being held to various rules and regulations largely beyond our control, and, worst of all, supporting Dodgy Dave C and his bosom buddy, Gideon of the House Osbore?

Or, do we want to take a punt at the freedom of independence from the EU, theoretically securing our own trade deals, policing our own boarders, and distributing those contribution savings where we see fit, but at the double-whammy cost of our rights and financial distributions being dictated solely by parliament, and supporting Boris the Blond Bollock, Pob and IBS?

David Cameron's currently in a flap because it doesn't seem to matter how demonstrably full of manure the Leave campaign are, or how apocalyptic Remain claims Brexit will be, support is growing for Boris and his Outers.  The problem he appears to be having is, not one of his arguments is on particularly solid ground: the 'unique status' he negotiated for the UK amounts to little beyond possibly vetoing things we don't like if enough EU members agree with us; while we may have to work harder at securing trade deals, the UK's economy is one of the biggest in the world, and far too lucrative to be ignored (especially in these continually shaky times); and claiming it would put our 'economic growth' at risk is a bit rich coming from the man who put George 'surely if we throw everyone's money at our debt, we'll look so good the economy will heal itself' Osborne.

And this didn't help:

I see now why they're having to fuck the NHS. £9.3mil well spent. Nice one #DodgyDave #CameronOut

A photo posted by Michael Adam Brockbanks (@mabrock1980) on Apr 12, 2016 at 8:29am PDT

"We share a lot of intelligence with the EU, so Brexit could put national security at risk."
So you're saying Europe wouldn't bother telling us of an impending attack if we're not part of the club?

This could, of course, be easily solved by the one argument that would turn the tide for innumerable doubters, but the one argument DC himself can't make: "Without the EU, I'll be free to shaft you all like so much fresh pork!"

Not that claims from the other side hold enough water quench the thirst of an arid gnat.  Every argument from the leave campaign seems to have been clipped straight out of the pages of The Daily Mail: a 'news'paper so ripe with judgement, yet thin on facts you could base a church on it.

Personally, curious though I am to see what would happen if we did leave - not only would it piss on Cameron's chips and make his PMship rather tenuous, the savings could be put to good use if the people in charge of them have an iota of sense and morality (which they don't), and we could secure trade deals, that may be better than the ones we have already, as long as the people doing the negotiating aren't a bunch of autocratic self-promoters more interested in doing favours for their friends than securing a profitable position for all (which they are) - and pathetic, hypocritical and hyperbolic as a lot of the Remain rhetoric has been throughout the campaign, I feel what few potential benefits we might enjoy on the outside, don't stack up against the benefits of being a member.

At the end of the day, I must constantly remind myself that, nauseous as voting with our cretinous PM makes me feel, I'd rather drink a cocktail of bile from the bellies of all who oppose the EU than grant that Etonian swine shagger and his friends unfettered control of our rights and finances.

Where Should One Deposit One's Twos?

A couple of months ago, a bill was passed in North Carolina to dictate where people shit.  It is, on the face of it, the least news-worthy piece of news since Woman With Big Arse Shows off Big Arse.

Sadly, the face of things is rarely indicative of its substance.  This particular bill aims, among other things, to force people to use the restroom/locker matching their gender at birth, regardless of the gender they now identify as.

Proponents of the bill claim that they are trying to protect people's privacy: "There's an expectation that the only other people will be the same gender as they are and that's the way we've been doing things for a long time."

Governor Pat McCrory, from who this narrow insight comes, seems to believe that women are far more comfortable sharing a locker with someone born a woman, who now has all the features of a man, rather than someone born a man who now has all the features of a woman.

Might want to think that one through, Pat.

The talking (empty) heads have taken the argument further (and stupider) by suggesting that allowing transgender people to use the facilities most appropriate to them somehow endangers people, giving perverts carte blanch to go through the other door and molest people.

Setting aside the fact that, if these hypothetical perverts are out to molest people, they're hardly going to be put off by restroom protocol, this argument is still moronic and self-defeating; the suggestion being that a man can simply slip on a dress and walk into the ladies', claiming to be transsexual, then have his wicked way with whomever he chooses.  While under North Carolina's bill, the pervert in this hypothetical scenario doesn't even need a dress:

"What are you doing in here?"
"No, it's fine.  According to the law, I have to use this bathroom."

Of course, the arguments are nothing more than a smokescreen to disguise the discriminatory attitude of those pushing the bill.  Better to hide behind a nonsensical argument than admit to a purposeful attack on transgender people, and the LGBT community at large.

Conservatives need an enemy; someone they can point at and say, "Look, they're different form you and threatening your way of life!  Put us in charge and we'll protect you!"  Historically, race has been the easiest tool for this - "They're a different shade!  Suspect them!" - but with increasing social diversity, this argument has become a lot harder to make.

"Look out!  It's a terrorist!"

"Who, Suresh?  Doubt it.  He does amateur dramatics, and can't play CoD to save his life.  Kicks my arse at pool, though."

Not that discrimination against the LGBT community is anything new, but the sad irony of the increasing acceptance and understanding of society as a whole is conservatives can rile up their base with bullshit claims of a 'Gay Agenda' and the erosion of 'Traditional Family Values'.

As McCrory says: "Most people had never heard of this issue five months ago, until the political left started saying, 'We need bathroom rules and policies,' not just for government facilities and schools but also for the private sector."

In other words, the only reason this is a problem is because people have been made aware of the problem.  Ignorance is bliss, eh Pat?

And if the standard scaremongering doesn't work: "Leviticus 18:22 - 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.'"

Yeah, well: Deuteronomy 14:8 - 'The pig...is unclean for you. You shall not eat any of their flesh nor touch their carcasses.'  So that's bacon sandwiches and American Football out, too.  And don't get God started on polyester blends!

Side note: People with knowingly discriminatory views are always quick to quote the Bible - or whatever their preferred religious text happens to be - as a defence, but they get somewhat fuzzier on dogmatic doctrine when it comes to, say, the acquisition of wealth:  Matthew 19:24 - '...it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'

"Yeees...but, you see, what Jesus meant was...well, he was just being hyperbolic.  He didn't really mean I have to give up my trust-fund and multi-billion dollar business interests if I want to get into Heaven.  That's just crazy talk!"

Hardly surprising from people who base their 'morality' on a 400 year-old adaptation of a 500 year-old translation of 1,500 year-old texts, based on 2,000 year-old stories adapted from several thousand year-old teachings born of ignorance and a desire to control the ignorant.

Anyway, defiant as North Carolina's governor is when it comes to his barely-closeted homophobia, it's reassuring that the cost reaches further than just a reputation as a repressed, small-minded twonk.  It's a positive age we're living in when something that, at one time not so long ago, would have gone broadly unnoticed (and possibly even been widely applauded) can now hit a state's economy, with big-name artists and businesses pulling shows and investments that would otherwise have filled the state's coffers.

Feverishly Elective: an update!

Well, who'd have thunk?!  A mere two months after announcing that all schools were being forced to become academies - after a mere two months of a feckless halfwit failing to convince people who know far better than her that, 'no, really, it's a great idea!' - the government has yanked up the handbrake and swung a 180 that would make Ken Block fill his helmet with yesterday's Frosties.

"This is about being a listening government..." says the twit in question.  "Better to have reforms than have none at all."

And what are those reforms?  "We absolutely support those strong local authorities where schools are good and outstanding - they can make the choice to convert," while those that are failing or can't be supported by the local authority will be 'compelled' to convert.

Soooo they're scrapping the whole idea and going back to Labour's plan.  Way to stamp your authority, Nick.

In other election news, bugger-all has changed.  Oh, everyone's claiming some kind of victory: the Tories are now top of the lowly pile being sniggered at from on high by the SNP; Labour have held on, despite everyone assuming they'd lose big; UKIP and the LibDems have actually made some gains; and Sadiq Khan looks set to become the new Boris, despite once spending a brief evening in the same building as someone with extremist views, clearly marking him out as a terrorist sympathiser (though, when Zac Goldsmith did exactly the same thing, it was meaningless).

However, to look at these 'victories' another way: it doesn't matter who has the most of the measly number of seats left open by the SNP--being the second party in Scotland right now is like being the biggest of five field mice arguing with the farm's angry tabby; given the shit the Tories have been pulling, and their deepening well of failures, Labour should be stomping on their bacon-smelling bollocks, not merely holding on; the LibDems have risen from the doldrums of insignificance to become a protest vote for people who can't bring themselves to be racist; and the best London can hope for from a new mayor is him talking slightly less gibberish than the last one.

 

Democracy.

Yay.