During the summer i had the pleasure of travelling around Israel. It's an incredibly beautiful country and one of those rare places of living history, where you're surrounded by streets and buildings which are thousands of years old. I have to say that it is the nicest, friendliest, and most inspiring country i have had the luck of visiting. We even ventured into the borders of Syria and Lebanon during our travels, at one point parking next to a sign warning of "military fire" and climbing an abandoned, bombed mosque.
I was desperate to go back this summer but unfortunately, the political situation in Israel means it is not currently an ideal holiday destination. The Government website warns that "there is a general threat of terrorism", and to stay away from Gaza, the border of Lebanon, and the entire West Bank. Most disconcertingly for a would be tourist it is warning to be incredibly vigilant in the Old City of Jerusalem, a city which i loved during my visit, due to the recent unrest.
It is not suprising that there are currently Government warnings on travel to Israel, with the unrest on temple mount, and most recently Israeli air strikes into Lebanon, it is not difficult to foresee the situation getting worse in the very near future.
Moreover, on Monday Israel signed into law a Bill which legally distinguishes between Christians and Arabs. This demonstrates, the continued religious and cultural tension in the country. This Bill is particularly troubling for a human rights activist as it suggests that your religion can de-certify you from being a race. Why is an Arab only allowed to be a part of the culture if they are a Muslim and not a Christian? It is the start of a slippery slope if we can start picking and choosing the members of our race as a result of their religion; is that not how the holocaust started?
Surprisingly, it was Christians who largely supported this bill believing it would increase their employment opportunities and wanting to be "recognized without being lumped together with any Arab party". The Bill was interestingly opposed by the majority of Muslims in Israel who argued that it undermined the Arab culture within Israel. Regardless of which group was advocating this bill, it is still another form of segregation to divide the country rather than uniting the cultural groups.
Israel is currently a country with ever increasing cultural strife and the growing threat of war with Lebanon. Moreover, there is a general danger of terrorism which means that no part of the country is currently safe. However, one should not discount future travel to Israel when it is safer. It is a country that you cannot help but fall in love with. Furthermore, the people there, both Palestinian and Israel, are some of the friendliest and most accommodating people in the world, to tourists that is.
My thoughts and prayers are with the country that things might settle back down to security again in the near future.
I am amazed by how far behind public knowledge the media appears to be in recent days. Previously we saw the shockingly outdated articles discussing the "new phenomenon" of prinking, an activity which has been around long before our generation took it up. Most recently, the BBC published an article entitled "eating disorders can be fatal".
No shit Sherlock.
It is not unreasonable to assume that it is public knowledge that routinely starving yourself can have serious health implications on the body. I would hazard a guess that the majority, if not all, people suffering from an eating disorder know full well that there is the potential it can be fatal. They are told it on a frequent basis by doctors, psychiatrists, family and friends.
A quick glance at any of the pro-ana and thinspiration websites online, and there are many, shows numerous references to the fact that the disorder is fatal. People suffering from ana, mia or any other eating disorder, don't continue out of ignorance, out of some misguided belief that their behavior is healthy or cannot kill them. They know that the disorder can be fatal. Instead, they continue restricting, calorie counting, binging and purging because they have a psychological illness which, on the most part, they cannot choose to stop.
Moreover, when the BBC says "eating disorder" it is merely referring to anorexia and bulimia. However, binge eating and obesity can surely be included as eating disorders as well. The compulsion to keep on putting food in your mouth long beyond the point of being full, as a result of emotional or psychological desires. This can just as easily be fatal. It is just as harmful to your body to over eat as it is to under eat.
Shows such as Supersize vs Superskinny have made great steps into demonstrating the health implications of both over eating and under eating. I learnt many new things from there that i had not previously been aware of, the dangers of not eating enough fiber, the risk of scurvy from being deficient in vitamin c, the myth that only fat people have heart attacks. However, one thing that the show did not need to tell me is that both conditions can be fatal.
Sufferers of eating disorders know full well their condition can be fatal, how could they not in contemporary society where the knowledge is widely available. Maybe the BBC, and other media outlets, need to spend a bit more time in reality to understand what is really going on with eating disorders, rather than naively proclaiming that it is down to ignorance over the dangers.
Lets just continue to remind ourselves that both over eating and under eating is extremely dangerous for our health. The only way to be healthy is to have a balanced diet and to exercise.
As a result of a vote in Parliament, it will soon be a criminal offence to smoke in a car with children present. Surely a massive step forward in the protection of children. After all, second hand smoke alone causes 600,000 related deaths a year, including sudden death in infants. In fact, 31% of the deaths linked to second hand smoke are in children. It begs the question, what parent would smoke in a confined environment with a child in the first place?
However, that very question should make us stop and reconsider the celebrations over this new law. For surely, the very type of parent who would smoke in a car with their child, is the type of person who is far more likely to ignore the law and do it anyway. The same sort of person who will ignore the law and drive whilst on their phone or not worry about whether or not their child is wearing a seat belt.
In reality, this law is no more than a gesture to child protection agencies which is all show and will change very little in real behavior. Rather than changing anything, a law like this will simply increase the pressure on the already over stretched law enforcement services costing the tax payer and wasting more police time. In fact, it will be virtually impossible for the police to enforce. It would make far more economic sense to spend money on improving the education around smoking, with hard hitting adverts designed to shock smokers into thinking especially about the effect they are having on their children. Creating a law rather than doing something which will actually make a difference is the governments attempt to look like they are acting, a quick gesture without thinking about the real implications of their actions.
Furthermore, whilst this law will have little consequences in our daily liberties, one must fear that it is another step on the slippery slope. The government clearly has good intentions in protecting children, however, it is another Utopian law which cuts away at freedoms in an attempt to eradicate any suffering. The problem with utopia is that it can only exist if we eradicate all freedom. Liberal Democrat Health Minister, Norman Lamb, said, "you have to ask yourself the question, how important is the liberty that we're infringing here? The liberty to smoke in your car in front of a child doesn't seem to me that important and protecting a child's health does seem incredibly important." (BBC NEWS)
I in no way disagree with Lamb that it is not a cherished human right to be able to smoke in a car with a child. However, at what point do we decide the state is interfering too much? It is not difficult to envisage a future where every aspect of our personal lives is governed by law and freedom is extremely restricted. How long will it be before the government places restrictions on parents giving their children fast food? After all giving a child fast food puts them at risk of obesity, heart disease, strokes, depression and cancer. It's clearly as damaging as smoking in front of them. From there, how long before the government starts restricting more important freedoms? Such as the freedom to bring up your child with your own beliefs? There are many critics who argue it is child abuse to enforce religion on a child; it can make them close minded to other views and increases the likelihood of conflict in society. Or bringing up a child as vegetarian or vegan despite the clear health benefits of meat: a lack of iron in the diet can make a woman infertile.
Dwight Eisenhower said "if you want total security go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom."
If we want to be a modern democratic society with real and genuine freedom, rather than a society where every part of our lives is governed by law, we should be looking to educate citizens into becoming responsible individuals, rather than resorting to laws which restrict liberties and remove all sense of individual responsibility.
"Responsibility is the price of freedom" (Hubbard)
Lets focus on creating responsible, educated, human beings rather than obedient clones free of all choice.
Flappy bird took the world by storm, leaving chaos in its trail. Fans worldwide lamented that the game had ruined their lives and countless smartphones were thrown in fits of rage when once again the stupid bird hit the pipe it was NOWHERE NEAR. There was even one harrowing rumour of a guy who killed his brother, for getting a higher score than him on the game. Even the creator of this monstrosity, Dong Nguyen, has turned his back on it, withdrawing it from the market in a hope of reclaiming his previously uneventful life. Yet with the death of flappy bird, the madness has only increased. Since removing the game, Nguyen has been hit with death threats from desperate fans of the game. Fans tweeted sophisticated threats such as "you best not be deleting Flappy Bird because I will murder you if u do" and "you're a f*****g pussy kill yourself". What's more the madness spread to ebay with phones possessing this rare and much in demand app selling for thousands of pounds. One Iphone 5 was even seen to be selling for $90,000 despite the retail value of a new Iphone 5 being only around £300! The sanity of a society where a phone can sell for thousands because it contains a monotonous, incredibly frustrating , and once FREE app on it, must certainly be called into question. It is easy to sympathize with the critics of democracy when considering the mania and irrationality sparked by a simple game. Can we really trust this desperate mob with such an important decision as who should run the country? It's almost enough to make me grateful that we don't have referenda in this country because the idea of trusting this crowd with real decisions is frankly quite terrifying! We need to take a long look in the mirror as a nation if we can place such priorities on an app, which will have been largely forgotten about in a few weeks, rather than real issues such as the flooding destroying thousands of homes in Britain. Now excuse me while i put my phone on ebay. Any takers?
The torture scene in GTA V has led to many claims that this time Rockstar have crossed the line with the violence. For those of you who have not played the game, or not yet reached the level, in the torture scene the player, as Trevor, is required to torture a man for information on an assassination target for Michael. In order to get the highest score the player should use all available instruments of pain from water boarding to electricity. It is certainly a brutal scene, and any game or film representing torture needs to tread carefully. However, I believe that Rockstar were being cleverer with this scene than some of the critics have given them credit for. The information the player collects using the torture is very vague and largely unhelpful. He has a beard. He is a smoker. Facts which could apply to any number of the targets Michael is viewing through the sniper scope. Indeed, when the player (as Michael), does finally shoot a subject it is largely guess work over who to shoot. Later on in the game, the assassination is discussed on the radio and it is suggested that the guy who was shot was innocent. Torture therefore did not aid the mission therefore but simply gave a pretense that the assassination was more than guesswork. It was certainly a subtle critique of the use of torture, at the hands of Rockstar, therefore to demonstrate it in use, and failing to provide adequate intelligence. It is the conversation between Trevor and his victim which really succeeds in proving the torture scene was an attempt to satirize America, and other governments, who have been guilty of using torture in recent years. Trevor, hardly the most intelligent of characters, quite wisely says: “Torture’s for the torturer. Or the guy giving the order to the torturer. You torture for the good times! We should all admit that. It’s useless as a means of getting information.” Indeed, given the events of recent years, the use of water boarding as a weapon of choice is particularly poignant. And particularly effective as a satire of countries which may or may not have recently used torture...
Rather than glamorizing torture, in GTA V Rockstar have shown it up as the farce it is. Don't let the violence fool you, this scene is a sophisticated satire on the use of torture which fully demonstrates how useless and horrific the practice is. If nothing else, it should be agreed that anything which Trevor gets enjoyment out of should generally be avoided by the masses!
Zamyatin wrote "...and if the world is to be kindled into youth again, it must be set on fire". Revolution can not be creeping and quiet, in order for it to inspire real change it must be an explosion. Of ideas, of words, of actions. In every generation, there is the heart of a revolution. It is not the crazy "anarchists" and "heretics" challenging the system which should scare us, it is the moment in which they stop. The biggest danger for a society is stagnation; it is in stagnation that we stop noticing the flaws and begin blindly accepting what life throws at us.
I am not an advocater of utopia; human nature is not made to fit into that perfect picture. Rather, it is wild and ever evolving. One person's utopia, one generation's utopia or indeed, one culture's utopia, is another's hell. Instead, "revolution is everywhere, in everything. It is infinite". It is constant.
It is in our nature to question everything. To refuse to accept at face value what we are told or what we are given. To carve our own destinies and never accept that something is impossible. Moreover, we should not just be seeking to revolutionize the abstract society, but ourselves as individuals. To better ourselves both inside and out.
The aim of this blog is to do just that.
"The law of revolution is red, fiery, deadly; but this death means the birth of new life, a new star" (Zamyatin).
Carrie
Sources
Ginsburg, Mirra (1970) A Soviet Heretic: Essays by Yevgeny Zamyatin London: University of Chicago Press
