Spark In Darkness

Evil things actually. Or the evil things people do. I’m not going to talk about evil people - not really. Partly because I think genuinely evil people are rare to the point of being non-existent (oh there are plenty of BAD people, but evil?) but mainly because I think calling people evil is one of the biggest cop outs of all time.

And that’s what I’m mainly going to ramble on about - cop outs. All the little excuses we use every day to ignore evil. I don’t mean justify evil (though, gods know, we do enough justifying evil) I mean all those little lies and assumptions we tell and make so we don’t have to think about it too hard.

Let’s take one of the common ones - computer games (or whatever music genre you don’t like or books or violent horror films, take your pic). It seems that the German kid who has committed one of those sensational and tragic massacres recently was a fan of Counter Strike. Suddenly, that’s it - we have vast numbers of people who really should know better deciding this is the reason.

And they should know better, because it is ridiculously stupid. Let’s have a quick and easy research - hell, let’s just use Wiki, the lasiest research tool known to man. Now, according to Wiki Counter Strike ALONE (not including spin offs, different editions or any other game in the Shoot ‘em Up genre) sold 4.2 MILLION copies.

Now, if this game was a significant cause of people snapping and opening fire on those around them wouldn’t you expect the body count to be a mite higher by now? I mean, 4.2 million people for this game alone (so we can comfortably say, what, 8, 10 million for people exposed to games of that type?) then we’re going to have a lot of people sat alone in small rooms polishing weapons and cackling “one day, one day they’ll paaaaay!!!” Now throw in all the other media that are supposed to be a cause of such violence - just about every music form ever (hells, they were saying it about 50s rock and roll which is snooze-worthily tame. I bet back in the 18th century people were tutting angrily about that terrible Mozart music causing violent crime left right and centre) films, books - you name it. Well, if all of these were a major factor in killing sprees we’d have to employ an army of people just to move the bodies.

I don’t mean to diminish the tragedy of this or any other massacre. They are horrific, heart rending events. The fact these events are so terrible is why we need to look at them and not dismiss them. And that’s what blaming music or computer games or dress sense or whatever does. It dismisses it. Why did he go on a killing spree? He played counter-strike. Right, tut under your breath, engage in moralising, mention bibles in schools, move on to next sound bite.

It’s not the computer games. It’s not the music. It’s not the clothes. It’s not the films. It’s not because someone’s weird or insane or odd or off - or rather that’s part of the result along with the killing. It’s not because someone’s inherently evil. All these are excuses. Convenient ways to file the event away. Easy ways of saying “It won’t happen here.” Or, more tellingly, “me and mine would never do such a thing.” “Real people don’t do that kind of thing.”

Because that’s part of the scary part, isn’t it? The idea that these killers are people - not crazy, not insane, not corrupted by some evil influence. Just people. Maybe sick people. Maybe hurting people. Maybe people that our societies have pushed aside or pushed away. Maybe just people who needed help. In the end we don’t want to think that, hey, we failed this person. That it might just be our fault. That something is wrong with us and the way we do things. That maybe we could have fixed this.

It’s important to talk about evil. But not evil people - evil people can be shut away and forgotten. No, it’s important to talk about evil things and the whys and the hows because otherwise it’s going to keep on happening.

Now this has been something of an issue being batted around at the moment since Geert Wilders and the crazy Rev Phelps have both recently been denied access to the country.

Now we could have an argument about freedom of speech

We could have a debate about whether local freedom of speech (protecting the rights of our citizens) means we have to let the world dump their crazies over here to mouth off

We can even have a debate about EU rights in the case of Geert Wilders.

However, these have been batted around already - I'm going to have an argument about the argument.



See, all of these arguments are being made now. Why now?

We have been refusing access of radical islamic preachers into the UK for years now. No-one cracked their teeth. We have DEPORTED radical and hateful islamic preachers for the venom they have spewed.

This is not a new thing. Keeping our foreign preachers of hate has been happening for some time now - only it never pinged anyone's radar then. It never concerned anyone then. It never made anyone splutter out outraged protestations of free speach and oppression etc. Why is that? It's not a matter of severity. Phelps is pretty up there when it comes to extreme hate speach



Because that's the thing kiddies. If you let in Geert Wilders spitting venom about muslims. If you let in Rev. Phelps inciting violence against gays. Then you are going to have to let in radical preachers who are going to be preaching hate against you and yours as well. It's both or neither here. Either you have freedom of speach or you don't. Either you refuse access to hate speakers or you don't.

A couple of related issues have swirled around the internet lately and though I am rather late on both I do wish to put my oar in.

I’m not going to comment on specific issues in too much detail because a) they’ve already been debated at length by many many people who know more than I and b) I know that in at least on case one of the participants has no wish to be embroiled in the drama any further - he has my full support and agreement of his position but the vitriol level has been high and I have no wish to put him back in any kind of firing line.

Anyway the 2 issues:
1. A m/m romance novel entitled “Beautiful Cocksucker“
2. A Harry Potter fanfiction website using the word “miscegenation” to describe interracially themed fanfiction.

Others have gone long and in depth as to why these were silly, wrong and down right insane, so I’m not going to repeat what has been said far more eloquently and in far more detail.

No, I am going to talk about the responses (vaguely) and how we should act if we are caught in the same situation.

What was that? You all gasped and said “Sparky, I am a good, accepting, wonderful person! I would never say something racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-religious group, anti-disabled or otherwise prejudiced or bigoted.”

To which I say - you probably will. I know I will, and have. I certainly won’t mean it and I dare say you won’t either - but at some point we will say/do something that is offensive to other people whether individually or as a group.

And it usually isn’t our fault. No, I don’t mean that as a cop out. It will be a genuine mistake. Either something will slip out you never realise has been imprinted on your mind (maybe your parents left you with that rambling great uncle who was always muttering about the “darkies” once too often) you didn’t realise or maybe you were simply ignorant that a term was offensive (I still remember the horrified surprise when my dad said he was going to the ‘chinkie’ for a take away)

When it comes down to it, we’re all products of our society. And, like it or not, our societies (ALL societies) are chocked FULL of prejudice - historically, culturally and presently. It’s just there, in media, in history, in the attitudes of those around us. It’s there and will sink in to even the best and most decent of us. More, we sometimes won’t even realise it has - as the Angry Black woman says on her inestimable blog - you are not so alert to prejudice that is not aimed at you. If it’s not aimed at you it can fly under your radar completely unnoticed.

So, let me summarise before I get more verbose. You, me, everyone CAN and probably WILL say/do something offensive to other people and groups without meaning to. You will do it by accident, by mistake or through ignorance.

And, usually, that isn’t too much of a problem. Well, it is, but it’s a problem on a grander scale because our society still carries the baggage of prejudice that scars all of us. But INDIVIDUALLY it is not a problem because - and I say again - EVERYONE CAN/WILL do it AND no malice was intended.

No, what MATTERS is how you react when someone turns to you and says “I can’t believe you said that!” with a glint of outraged fury in their eye.

What you should do:
1) Apologise. Unreservedly and without qualification. This means saying “I’m sorry I said that” “I’m sorry I offended you” is acceptable but not as good as the first.

2) Explain that no malice was intended and that you acted through ignorance. Make it clear you will avoid repeating the offensive action. DO NOT EXCUSE THE ACTION/WORD USE

3) Make what amends are possible (edit the website, for example).

4) AVOID REPETITION. Doing it once is forgivable. Repeatedly doing the same thing? Yeah, see claiming ignorance doesn’t work if you’ve been TOLD what your saying is wrong.

5) If, for some odd reason (perhaps religious imperative, or a historical novel), you must continue and activity or saying that is offensive - politely explain why and, if possible, apologise and ACKNOWLEDGE the pain you are causing. Alright, you’re probably not going to win any fans, but if you’re hurting other people the least you can do is minimise the damage and try to be as decent as possible about it.

Will these stop your offended person from blowing up in your face and trying to bludgeon you with their umbrella? Usually, yes. And if it doesn’t - well some people are sensitive and also remember that just because someone is a female, black, homosexual, jewish disabled person doesn’t mean they can’t ALSO be an arsehole. Except point 5. They may not bludgeon you with the brolly but if you say “I’m sorry, I have to hurt you” then they’re perfectly within their rights to respond “I’m sorry, but I’m treating you with the same lack of respect you treat me.”

What not to do
1) Fake apology. “I’m sorry you’re offended.” Implies that you’re perfectly right and the offendee is not being reasonable. Wins few brownie points, that one.

2) Claim the term isn’t offensive. It just offended someone. Alright, there are people everywhere who are offended by everything, I know. But if you say something sexist and a woman turns round in fury, the chances are she’s better qualified to spot sexism than you.

3) Attack the offended - you may think they’re being oversensitive - but you’re not the victim here. There’s even a good chance you have NO IDEA what it’s like to be the victim in such a situation. It’s not your place to say how much someone should feel hurt by hurtful language.

4) Belittling the offence. If you refuse to take a basic action, like, say, changing “miscegenation” to “interracial” or otherwise acknowledge a problem but refuse to spend any time or effort addressing it you are dismissing it as unimportant. Saying “yes it’s offensive, but who gives a damn” is not going to make anyone a happy bunny. Obviously steps have to be reasonable and proportionate, but doing nothing or dismissing the whole thing out of hand doesn’t help.

5) “this gay/black/jewish/whatever person isn’t offended.” Uh-huh. This carries as much weight as “I have plenty of gay/black/jewish/whatever friends!” Some black people aren’t offended by the N-word either - but would any of us consider that an argument to say the word isn’t offensive?


Ultimately, like all the “pc” stuff that people fear so greatly it comes down to one basic concept. Be polite and respectful of your fellow human beings. And part of that is the basic response that you should a) try not to offend people and b) try to make amends if you do. It’s basic good manners.

From http://gwailowrite.livejournal.com/136104.html

Why do I vote? There are several reasons. But first of all I would say that voting is NOT the be all and end all. Your job does not end or even begin with voting. It begins with educating yourself. It’s about being politically aware and educated - and that means more than watching adverts and news flashes. An ignorant vote is as pointless as not voting at all - worse in many ways. If you have not studied the parties and the candidates then I will probably be the first to say DON’T VOTE. If you cannot tell me what you’re voting for - REALLY what you’re voting for - then we may as well have someone place your vote at random for all the good it will do.

That being said - the reasons I vote:

I vote in order to give respect

Not for my government but for my country. My country does well by me. I live in the kind of comfort, security and prosperity that most of the world cannot even dream of. I enjoy rights and privileges that are so blessedly rare but I can take for granted to such a degree that I can ignore them. The country gives me history, identity, culture, home, tradition and so many other wonderful gifts. With these gifts come some duties. Voting is a duty I owe my nation, my country, my home. It is not much to ask.

I vote in order to give recognition
It wasn’t that long ago that most people couldn’t vote. It wasn’t that long ago that voting didn’t exist. It still doesn’t in some places. Universal Sufferage is frighteningly recent - and though the most recent prohibitions wouldn’t have restricted me, it still wasn’t that long ago that the common man was not allowed any say in their government, their lives or their future. This changed. This changed because people fought and worked and bled and died and struggled. Not for themselves, but for their children and their children’s children and their children’s children’s children. I honour them for the sacrifices they made for me. I will not tarnish their gift by refusing to exercise the rights they gave me.

But most of all, I vote to defend myself
I am a member of a minority. Not only am I the member of a minority, but I am a member of a disempowered minority that faces considerable opposition, prejudice and hatred. There are a large number of people and forces out there that would do me harm. The reason I function as easily as I do in society is because there are laws and bodies in operation that fights for me. There are laws that prevent people hurting me. There are rules that prevent people discriminating against me. The common rights of our people apply to me as well as everyone else.

These laws are enforced and implemented by the government. These policies are put in place by the government. These rights and reinforced by the government. For any of them to work at all, the government has to make them work, the government has to enforce them, the government and its agents have to fight our corner. Rules mean nothing if the enforcement bodies are indifferent towards them. Laws mean little if new loopholes are introduced.

The government is my shield, my shelter, my protector and my champion. I have a vested interest in examining it, shaping it and, most of all, making sure I am heard by it. Because if it forgets me, if the legions of hate get to do the shaping then I and mine are in severe trouble

Becoming more pertinent with the American elections where one of the candidates is chronologically gifted I have seen some republicans lash back with what we might term the ageism card (just as complaining that Sarah Palin is bugnuts insane is apparently some kind of sexiam, but I digress). And (unlike Sarah Palin) some (but by no means all) of the criticisms of McCain are based entirely on his age - especially since his untimely (or, let's face it, at his age rather TIMELY) demise would make Palin the President of the USA. Ok, a quick break there while you all recover from the utter horror of that thought.

But is it unfair to treat age in this way? I mean (in the UK at least) we have anti-age discrimination laws. It is unfair, unacceptable and it often is based on simple prejudice rather than reality. The aged can be vibrant, alive, active, intelligent and incisive. It is wrong and unfair to assume that someone is flawed, incapable or otherwise less than a younger person

But all discrimination laws have a "reasonable requirement" exception. If you can PROVE (for whatever reason) that you need to exclude whoever then you can get round the law (it's just going to be HELLA difficult to ever prove that a woman/black man/homosexual cannot do a job). Because the law recognise that there may, sometimes, be a case where practicality prevents a principle applying (which is why I've always said it's perfectly acceptable to fire someone whose religion makes them incapable of doing the job they've been hired for) and ageism is most certainly one of them - especially when it comes to a job that is guaranteed for 4 YEARS if not 8.

Now, I may be prejudiced on this. I have my own deep seated fear of aging. ANyone reading this journal knows I freak every birthday. I don't deal with aging, not at all. Part of that comes from the genes, I think. As my mother has said - our family is cursed with longevity. The men live into their 80s and the women are usually well into their 90s.

Sounds like an odd "curse" doesn't it? Well it is a curse. They EXIST into their 80s/90s. Their bodies and minds start giving out in their early 70s. They're usually dead years before they stop breathing. Some are in constant, crippling physical pain that drugs can't touch (or the side effects were as bad as any disease). Some were so crippled they had no amenity left and lived in a prison of eternal boredom. And some, like Nana, lost their minds and lived in a world of constant terror and uncertainty. I wouldn't wish on a dog the kind of existance most of my elderly relatives had to endure before the finally succumbed to whatever slow, agonising, disgusting, dignity stealing disease that finally claims them. I more than suspect at least 2 of my relatives have been helped on their way by loved ones who can't take it any more and, frankly, I have nothing but praise for those who had the courage to end such torture. I've already made it clear to Beloved that before I get to that stage I'd rather jump out a window or be smothered in my pillows because I REFUSE to live like that.

So maybe I'm biased. But I look at a 72 year old man and think not only "there's a good chance of him dying before he finishes that term" but also of the DETERIORATION that is a natural (and cruel) part of the aging process. Physically and mentally he risks declining - even if he just gets weaker and tires more easily, he is at a time of life where sudden ailment and sudden decline are very possible. Worse, if his mind goes you will NOT notice right away. Because you don't. We didn't. But confusion and bemusement and false memories can and will strike long before anyone notices that judgement is seriously impaired.

So no, I don't think age is something you can brush under the rug here. You can't swipe down commentors with cries of ageism, it's a legitimate concern and one that is very very worrying

And, not being American, I can't say whatever he did changed my life at all. I had heard of him however and I was, frankly, horrified that such a repellant man existed outside of a comedy.

I have seen, well, subdued rejoicing coming from many quarters - people who are glad to see him gone but realise the utter tackiness of celebrating someone's death.



It is said that it's a terrible thing to speak ill of the dead and awful to celebrate anyone's passing. And maybe it's true, I can't disagree firmly there, it certainly leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouth

However, if celebrating a death is bad, then I can't help but wonder how much worse it must be to have lead such a life that so many people are gleeful when you are dead?

I am all bright and happy lately. Partly I think it’s from not being ill any more (barring the asthma-that-isn’t because all they can do is keep saying “uhhh, maybe?” so we’ve reached a compromise of keeping the blue thingy round in case I have an asthma attack) but I think it’s a result of my new resolution!

Healthy eating!

Now, I am one of the biggest critics of healthy eating fad because I think it either a) makes a huge amount of money telling people stuff they should already know (you mean eating half my bodyweight in bacon is bad for me? Who KNEW?!) or b) telling us to ignore our common sense so they can try and sell us things as healthy food even though we doubt it (with wholegrain in every sugar laden cereal and many claims of “healthy” chocolate)

So, no, I’m not a fan of healthy eating fads or schemes or diets. I like basic common sense - which I am now applying and combining with healthy paranoia.

See, I don’t mind eating unhealthy food - I love eating unhealthy food - but I am HONEST that it is unhealthy so I acknowledge it as an indulgence - which means it has to be an indulgence. If I’m going to eat something that is going to shave a couple of minutes off my total life span I demand it taste good enough to be worth it! (And preferably contain bacon).

And this is the problem, because analysing my diet with paranoid label reading I find that even though the copious piggie sandwiches are not good for me, the bacon may actually be more healthy than the bread it’s laid upon! “Wholemeal bread, no artificial preservatives or flavourings” uh-huh, it has 3 different E-numbers, 2 acids and an obscene amount of salt in it according to the label. It’s BREAD - flour, yeast, water, sugar - the label should be very short. It shouldn‘t have a dozen extra ingredients. Half of them SHOULDN‘T sound like the liquids we used in chemistry class. What is this crap you have put in my bread?

So much of our food is messed with that it’s unbelievable what you’re eating these days - especially when you make convenience food. And this is where I slip up. Ready sauces, ready made meals are so EASY at the end of the day. But I sit down to a moderately decent but nothing special bowl of pasta with some ready-made pasta sauce on it or a stir fry with some brand’s sweet and sour slathered through and a quick check of the label tells me that I may as well have just chewed down some sugar coated lard with extra salt. And this bugs me - if I’m going to eat something this unhealthy it should at least be special taste/food experience wise. And it isn’t. I’m packing my body with chemicals and salt and crap and my only reward is, what, 30 minutes extra time? Screw that.

So, for the past few weeks I’ve been buying food that is as un-screwed with as possible. As an extra bonus I’m using Beloved’s bread maker (one of the gadgets that is stuffed in the cupboard of doooom) which is great. Put it on in a morning (it takes 10 minutes) and come home to bread for the evening and next morning - and the only crap that goes in it is crap I put in (which may involve bacon.)

It’s shocking really, I mean, I’m no cook. I’m a lousy cook - but anyone can throw together sauce for pasta or chicken or stir fry and it’s amazing how much tastier meals are. Yes we have cooking disasters but it still has more substance than a salt ridden, monstrosity you warm in the microwave. And the cost?! It’s amazing how much cheaper some of it is!

So I’ve decided, it’s a success and from this day forth the only people screwing around with my food are going to be people who are actually COOKING it (and regard it as cooking - not producing industrial style).

I was trying to think what to say on this day, but I remembered a post I made back in 2005, and I think it largely remains unchanged

Some call this day Veterans day. I think I am glad that we don't over here.

We remember the veterans sacrifice. We honour them for what they did and we thnk them from the bottom of their hearts for what they did.

But even this vital part is secondary to the true point of the day. It was a point that hit me hardest not when I listened to the quiet, sad words of elderly relatives, nor the solemn hours in history lessons or watching the depressing scenes on television.

No, the point hit me when I went to Normandy and saw the fields of graves and to know that that vast sea of death was only a tiny fraction of the overall tally.

Today is remembrance day. Today is the day we remember what the world would rather forget. Today is the day we remember, because it must NEVER happen again.