The History of Now

Hindsight is a powerful thing. Looking back at things retrospectively, it becomes easy to categorise history into distinct, tangible periods. The Industrial Revolution, The Renaissance, The Dark Ages etc. We learn about these defining periods of human history, their significance, and how they changed the world forever.

In the next couple of centuries, when the internet is embedded within every device in every single home, when Terabytes of data fit onto a device the size of a postcard, they will look back at where it all started, and the beginning of the technological revolution will be dated to somewhere around the development of the internet.

Nowadays, Pythagoras' Theorem is taught to children whose age is barely in double figures. Mathematical discoveries like that took years to research and uncover in the old days, and now infants learn them with ease. The mind boggles at the opportunities that befall those in the future considering the current growth rate of technology. In future centuries and millennia, I am sure people will look back on this period, the late 20th - 21st century as a defining period of technological advancement. They will learn how we learned to harness electricity, how we developed the internet, how quickly it grew, how data transformed from requiring whole buildings and tons of equipment in order to store megabytes of data to being able to fit gigabytes on a persons lap or in their mobile phones. They will learn how we had practically the sum of all knowledge available at our fingertips, and how for the most part, it was inconceivably cheap. And then they will come to learn with disbelief, how we used such fantastic technologies; How we spend hours upon hours sat in front of our screens, looking at pictures of kittens and puppies, sending anonymous hate to each other on sights like reddit, the amount of mindless accounts dedicated solely to the worship of teen idols like Justin Bieber and the rise of the so-called internet celebrities, those who make videos of themselves playing video games for others to waste their time watching, how dictionaries have to be updated to accommodate so-called words like "selfie" and "lol", and perhaps more maliciously how we willingly gave up our personal privacy to governments without a fight, giving them free reign to monitor our every communication.

They will cherish the ingenuity of those geniuses, those pioneers who led the revolution, those like Tim Berners-Lee, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Alan Turing and others. They will praise these precious inventions that were born in our times, the doubtless impact they will have over future inventions, and then they will look down upon is with contempt at how we wasted such gifts.

House of Commons decorum

The Speaker of the House of Commons has an important duty, chief of which is to maintain order among MPs within parliament. With over 50 new SNP MPs venturing south of Holyrood to take their seats in Westminster, many of whom were likely unaware of the differences in custom between Scottish Parliament and Westminster, the Speaker found it necessary to reprimand the Scottish MPs for clapping in the chamber, which he informed them went against the "long established traditions" of the house. That's a nice sentiment, but rather misguided I fear. 

I rarely bother to watch discussions from the house, and not for a lack of interest. One would imagine that seeing politicians debating things in the house where laws are passed will give a real sense of what their motivations and beliefs are, hopefuly informing of what our elected politicians our doing to represent us. But, if one is to tune in, perhaps to watch Prime Ministers questions for example, what is to be found is not a constructive debate about issues, but non-stop jeering across the floor, infantile posturing and juvenile digs being exchanged in a manner that wouldn't be out of place on a school yard. Clapping is a rather dignified sign of support compared to the typical behaviour displayed within the commons. It's nice to hear them refer to each other as "my honourable friend" or "the honourable gentleman", but when such referrals are followed with the most juvenile of comments, whose seemingly only purpose is to command self-congratulating affirmations from fellow party members, it becomes difficult to see exactly what it is within the house that clapping is actually detracting from, or what it is that the "long established traditions" are supposed to be upholding. The House of Commons may very well be a place where tradition is important, but in the context of a political chamber, perhaps those traditions are somewhat outdated. Perhaps one might consider that an apt definition of what tradition is...

A British tragedy...

The news play a vital function in today's world. Through news outlets on websites, their pages on social network sites, and physical print papers if that's still your thing, people from around the globe are able to learn about events happening on the other side of the world as they unfold. The manner in which these stories are reported influences the way in which they're interpreted, and it is the role of reporters to present the facts so that people may be reliably informed about what is going on around the world. Which brings me to a real tragedy that happened today, and the audacious way it has been reported by certain news outlets.

When I woke up today, i checked my computer and learnt there had been an Earthquake in Nepal. An absolute tragedy in which thousands have perished. However, certain headlines about this infuriated me. For example, here is a headline (in fact the first headline) that I saw, from the Daily Telegraph:

"Dozens of Britons missing after Nepal earthquake and avalanche"
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/nepal/11563414/Dozens-of-Britons-missing-after-Nepal-earthquake-and-avalanche.html

What an utter fucking disgrace. A human tragedy being manipulated into a British tragedy. THOUSANDS of people lose their lives, and instead of focusing on that, one of the most insignificant details of the story is blown up to inconceivable proportions, such that any meaningful information is hidden away, barely noticeable. It does briefly mention that a few hundred people are feared dead or missing, but that is the only mention of the non-Brits in the article, which then goes on talking about a Suffolk woman (mentioned by name) for 13 lines, including inexplicably the fact that she graduated in law last summer. What value does this add?

Is it impossible to feel sympathy or compassion about a story of thousands of people dying in a natural disaster unless there's a chance you may personally know some of them? I was plenty upset at the news without considering some of them may have been British. Are British so self involved as to show no interest whatsoever in any event unless given a case study of another Brit involved, so much so that we need to know her education history, birthday, how long she'd been on holiday and what she'd been planning to do? What it be far too frivolous had such details not been known? Obviously, the family of Britons who are on holiday over there are going to be worried. But I was under the impression that that fact was so obvious, it didn't even need mentioning. I wonder who else is worried besides the families of the "dozens" of Brits who were over there. Oh, hmm, perhaps the families of the HUNDREDS/THOUSANDS OF OTHER PEOPLE IN NEPAL AT THE TIME.

Putting the dozens of Britons ahead of the thousands of others belittles the situation immeasurably, and the manner in which it was done in this particular instance is an abomination and an affront; and affront to basic compassion for our fellow man (everyman, not just countryman) that is instilled within human nature, instead favouring some absurd sense of nationalism, because the headline "Dozens of Britons missing after Nepal earthquake and avalanche" really reads "Tragedy for dozens of our poor, unfortunate (which they are), fellow Brits and then some insignificant foreigners".

Cyclists vs Cars

I've grown to love cycling. Living in Cambridge, it is by far the best way to get around, especially since car traffic is gridlocked basically all the time. But nothing comes close to the terrifying experience of almost being mown down by thoughtless drivers. As a cyclist, one has to be extra vigilant on the roads, because a collision between a cyclist and car is unlikely to leave the car coming off worse. Nothing is more infuriating than coming close to death through the carelessness of someone else's driving rather than ones own lack of respect for the road. It's some retribution to see a driver give you a signal to indicate they know they were in the wrong and wish to apologise for it, but it is more often that they'll drive past entirely indifferent to the damage they nearly inflicted. Those ignorant bastards who just drive recklessly with no thought for any other road users are amongst the worst scum I have the misfortune of coming across. It's not as if I am a careless cyclist who gets myself into these situations. So often, a driver simply doesn't bother to look in their mirrors, something that is so simple to do which would prevent so many accidents. I'm not a driver, but even I know most of the rules of the road. And these aren't just arbitrary rules, they're laws, designed to protect people. The roads are only safe when drivers stick to all of the laws that are in place, not pick and choose which to stick to and when to do so. I wish the road laws were more like those in Amsterdam, where cyclists are recognised as vulnerable road users, because that's exactly what we are when compared to the other people on the road. Drivers need to appreciate the fact that they do not own the roads, and stop acting like inconsiderate bullies, because when they're involved in accidents with cyclists, the consequences are usually highly catastrophic for the 2-wheeled commuters.

Mobile Phones

Ah the Mobile Phone, how far you've come! It's transformed from a huge, heavy, cumbersome device that you'd lug around to one that can fit in the palm of your hand (or even your wrist), but the habit of making them smaller is a trend that is slowly being reversed. After striving to make them as small as possible, we're now seeing them increase in size, or at least their screens are getting bigger. But as phones have progressed, so have their features. Nowadays, the phone feature on a phone is superfluous to it's primary use as a device to connect to the internet for social networking. People are spending more and more time checking Facebook, Twitter, Vine et all., and it won't be long until they get rid of the phone feature altogether. I remember when got a phone as they first entered into the mainstream (when I was in my early teens in the mid-noughties), I would ring my friends every day. Slowly, calling evolved into texting, and now nobody bothers to talk to each other directly, they merely post an update on their social network and allow others to respond, resulting in passive conversations: Speaking to everybody and nobody at the same time. Technology has given us the ability to talk to our friends over vast distances in real time, with practically no delay, and we use it for constant, mindless updates over impersonal, virtual, social networking.

'Tis a shame.

British "Democracy"

With 2015 marking the first time I'll be able to vote in a UK general election, like many others I am at a loss as to who to vote for. And is it any wonder, when the state of "democracy" in our nation is an utter shambles...

My whole objection to the British electoral system, is the vast inconsistency between the number of votes a party gets across the nation, and the number of seats this translates to in Parliament. It seems a fundamental betrayal of the whole idea of democracy when some votes count more than others: The whole idea of democracy is that each person gets an equal say in how their nation is governed, and in a representative democracy a vote, an equal vote, to elect a representative. So how can 10% of votes earn anything other than 10% of the representative seats in Westminster? To put things in to perspective, let me highlight some peculiarities that occurred in the 2010 General election.

The Green Party managed to earn a single seat, earning 265,000 votes nationally. The Scottish National Party earned 6 seats with 491,386. Meanwhile, the despicable British National Party earned over 560,000 votes nationally, yet (thankfully) failed to secure any seats in parliament, and likewise with almost a million votes (919,000+), UKIP too failed to gain any representation in Westminster. I have the utmost respect for both the Greens and the SNP, but the numbers just don't add up. The small parties seem disproportionately disadvantaged, especially when you see how at the other end of the ladder, the Conservatives gained 47% of seats with 36% of the votes. To put this in to perspective, here is the average number of votes each party got for each of their seats, as well as the number of votes and seats earned (sorry for the overload of numbers here!)

Conservatives: 35,313 per seat (10,806,015 votes [36.4%], 306 seats [47.1%])

Labour: 33,370 per seat (8,609,527 votes [29%], 258 seats [39.7%])

Lib Dems: 119,944 votes per seat (6,836,824 votes [23%], 57 seats [8.8%])

Scottish National Party: 81,898 votes per seat (491,386 votes [1.7%], 6 seats [0.9%])

Green Party: 265,243 votes per seat (265,243 votes [0.9%], 1 seat [0.2%])

UK Independence Party n/a (919,471 votes [3.1%], 0 seats)

British National Party n/a (564,321 votes, 0 seats)

The point I'm highlighting here, is how the nation's desires are so poorly reflected in parliament. As you can see above, the green party averaged 265,243 votes for their one seat, but that seat, Brighton, was won by the greens with only 16,238 votes in that constituency, meaning almost 250,000 votes cast on them (93.9%) were wasted! First Past The Post (the voting system used in UK general elections) is shambolic and the very reason why so many people don't bother to vote. Why would you vote when, unless you live in one of the marginal constituencies where the seat is tightly contested, you're vote makes no difference whatsoever? As a matter of fact, only 2% of the voters, those who happen to live in those marginal constituencies actually affect the outcome of the election. It's a widely known fact, Michael Gove, the Tory chief whip openly talked about it on BBC Question Time (02/04/2015). It is no less than an outrage.

Parenthood

Is there any aspect of life more beautiful than raising a child? The idea seems divine to me, I cannot think of anything that is a greater privilege than being capable of creating the gift life. The journey of child and parent is the most profound one my puny mind can imagine.

Creating a life that starts off as an almost entirely useless and caring for it, feeding & cleaning it before it's capable of doing those things for itself. Then as it's brain begins to develop, you start teaching it these magical things called words, and how words work together. Once language is acquired though, that's when things really get interesting. The things that shape how your child will perceive the reality around him, and his place within it, the conversations you have with them, the stories you tell, the wisdom you impart, the words you decide to utter to them, have such an unfathomable influence. Until all of a sudden, they're capable of cleaning themselves, feeding themselves, learning for themselves, all the things they used to rely on you for they can now do for themselves. And whats more, they can become more than you ever dreamed of! Thanks to the loving nurturing of it's parents, the teachings you give on to them, a tiny, useless, helpless being grows to become equipped with tools making it capable of expanding his own skills and transform into a being unimaginable from that which it started off as. You create life, and only through seeing that life transform through your guidance to decide to take it's life in whatever direction it chooses and become whatever it desires, only then can one really appreciate the value of their own lives.

"Jihadi John"

I am truly disgusted. Never before have I been so outraged at the media as I have been over the "Jihadi John" naming that has been given to one of the most infamous members of IS. For months, the gross injustices being committed by their hands have been dutiful reported by the worlds press. Indignation and fury soon followed as the world began hearing of the atrocities. The world is almost universal in it's condemnation of the dangerous terrorist group.

So why on earth have various media groups seen it fit to give one of the most high-profile terrorists a nickname befitting only to a comic-book villain? Are we weren't already looking upon what is going on in horror? Is it entirely necessary to give such a juvenile name to a despicable human? "Jihadi John" sounds like the name of a toy company's latest action figure, "Get your Jihadi-John doll today!"

I don't know about you, but I am not to keen on the prospect of giving this head-chopping monster celebrity status. Because that is all that is achieved by the monicker he has been given. I was plenty disgusted when he was just a regular, anonymous, masked head chopper. The acts alone were enough to get me upset about what I was reading about. But now, as I see the words "Jihadi John" written on news articles, I can't help but to feel noticeably less outrage (though the disgust is still uncontrollable), but a newfound (or newly rediscovered) contempt for the sources who are perpetuating an infantilization of one of the worlds most despicable, despised men. Almost the exact same thing happened when Rolling Stones magazine decided to make one of the Boston Marathon bombers look like a rockstar on their front cover, though thankfully that was an isolated incident. Now, thanks to the media's absolutely unnecessary portrayal, all I can imagine when they talk about "Jihadi John" is him going back to wherever the hell these maniacs hang out at night saying to all his terrorist colleagues "Move aside boys, JIHADI JOHN IS IN THE HOUSE!" before kicking his feet up drinking hot chocolate from the hollowed out head of his latest victim. It is laughable, and I am disgusted and ashamed that I am able to say such a thing, but the story has become less important than the man involved thanks to this silly moniker, and IS is almost just a side show to the big Jihadi John show.