Source: CBS news

Relatively minor issue, but I've not written here for a week, which is kind of going against the point of having a blog! Even more stupid as various thoughts have occurred to me, I've just not put them into words. I think in part it's because I feel if I've not got huge amounts to write (like the Angels & Demons thing) then it's not worth it, which is faintly ridiculous. Was just reading this article on the BBC site - the voting stuff generally is a bit dull, but the point I'm referring to is people complaining that some parties aren't visible because the ballot papers are folded.

Really? Is this what we've come to as a society, that folded paper presents that much of a challenge to our basic functions? Just unfold the fucking paper! There's actually another layer of idiocy here, as people would only know that parties are hidden from view if they actually unfolded the paper and realised that there are various options on the ballot paper. If they don't see them, how do they know they're there to complain that they're hidden?

This implies either people complaining on behalf of other idiots ("I know I saw what had happened because I'm a genius, but what about morons in the world who can't unfold paper?"), or else people who are expecting to see a certain political party, can't, but rather than taking the effort to glance at the ballot paper for a millisecond to work out that perhaps there's a flap of paper they've not moved, just immediately complain. And I know full well that once someone pointed out there was a fold they hadn't bothered moving, rather than say "ah yes, I see - what an idiot I am", they'd be committed to the bluster, so would have to switch their complaint to "well that's just impossible to work out" rather than having the balls to admit that they've been a bit stupid.

We all have moments of stupidity, some more than others, but having the courage to just say "I've been stupid" and move on, I hate it when people try and evade responsibility in every way possible. Morons.

In case you've missed this (in which case congratulations), a "baby shaking" application was recently available on the Apple App Store - a baby cries, and you shake your iPod/iPhone to shut it up. Hardly in the best taste, but considering everything that goes on in the world, it's not exactly bringing about the decline of civilisation. That hasn't stopped large numbers of people objecting to it, eventually forcing Apple to remove it from the store and apologise. But...

When did freedom of speech/expression stop meaning anything? It's not "freedom of expression unless you're offending someone". Of course there should be limits if harm is being done, and I realise that different people will have different definitions of "harm", but this is my blog, so we're going with mine - suck it up. Being offended is not being harmed. If someone is being offensive to the point of encouraging activity which would have wider negative implications on society, then that's probably over the line too. Looking into the limitations of freedom of speech, I've come across John Stuart Mill - a British philosopher born in 1806 whose name I've only ever heard as part of the Monty Python "Philosophers Song". My education may be questionable. Anyway, he wrote about freedom of speech and made a very similar point to the one I made above about what's over the line. I wish I could claim an equal level of intellectual brilliance, but it's most likely just because his musings have filtered through the generations.

Anyway. He believed "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." He also noted the distinction in terms of what qualifies as harm, along the line that expressing an opinion against someone in a newspaper was one thing, but expressing that same opinion to an angry mob, armed and ready for blood was something else. The first wouldn't cause harm, the second might.

Some people argue that a baby-shaking application will whet the appetite of all the keen potential babyshakers out there, making it tantamount to the "angry mob" argument above. Which seems to overestimate the number of people just waiting for an excuse to give a baby a damn good shake. Plus that attitude assumes that people can't really differentiate between a small electronic rectangle and a living child. Of course actually shaking a child is an appalling thing to do, and I have every sympathy for those affected by that, but that's an entirely different thing from a stupid game which references such behaviour. I'm not advocating that the application should be made available until the first baby dies as a direct cause of its release...although I'll admit that's how a very small bit of me thinks, protected quite strongly by the firm belief that no baby will be shaken as a result of this game - if anyone uses that justification they're either lying or such a rage-fuelled moron that they'd have done it with or without the game. I just worry that this is a slippery slope, which to be honest as a society we've been on for quite some time - the belief that anything which has the potential to cause harm must be prevented, lest it ever cause harm.

Of course the problem with that is that we end up in a hugely sanitised state where nothing remotely risky is ever allowed. It's easier talking about things like this in abstract rather than up close and personal, but I recall someone making the argument not too long ago that a few children dying as a result of playground accidents was a worthwhile price to pay for the benefits which playground activities bring to all those children who manage to live through them (ie. 99.99%). Of course on a basic human level that's a fairly unpleasant thought, but aside from the knee-jerk reaction of "a child's life is priceless" I challenge anyone to disprove it. Not that children should be sacrificed in the street, but life involves risk, and while you can reduce that risk you can't eliminate it without losing a lot more.

And it's not like we don't already condone certain risky behaviour - cars kill people on a daily basis, and yet they're so vital to daily life and the economy that anyone claiming they should be banned or that they should be limited to crawling speed anywhere near pedestrians is ignored. Obviously the beneficial effects of this application are minimal, if that, but it's representative of my general irritation at people drawing connections that don't really exist, or having reactions which can't really be justified once you stop and think.

And if you're now convinced that I'm some baby-hating freak who wants to see children killed off at every available opportunity, a few points. Firstly you're clearly the sort of person who has knee-jerk reactions to what you believe a point is, rather than the actual point. I encourage you to read more carefully and think things through, rather than just blindly reacting to what you feel the tone is. Doing that often will serve you well in life. Secondly, I'll add comments soon, so you can share your thoughts. Finally, I direct you back to John Stuart Mill, who said "There ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered." Which neatly brings me back to my original point - no matter how distasteful you may find something, that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

Reading this article about larger bras costing more, and customers being up in arms (which feels like the wrong phrase, but I can't think of a better one), has given me several causes to witter. Firstly this specific situiation - for those who can't be bothered to RTFA, M&S (big UK retailer, for overseas readers) charges £2 extra for bras larger than a DD, and this has pissed off campaigners, accusing M&S of discriminating against them. M&S has come back with the arguments a) larger bras involve more detailed work because of the extra support, and b) shut up. Both seem valid to me.

One quick aside - beyond the general term "campaigners" there's no real indication in that article how many people really object that much. Yes they make reference to a Facebook group with 8,000 members (although a quick search turns up no such group - the closest one is "Bust For Justice (M&S) Share Price Drop?", which has 187 members), but a Facebook group is hardly a reliable indicator - the group "The Hardest Part of a Zombie Apocalypse Will be Pretending I'm Not Excited" has got over 61,000 members (myself included now I've just found it), but I'm fairly sure when that day comes most of those people (myself included again) will be soiling themselves, desperately trying to find the nearest concrete bunker. The woman who set up the group has bought a share in M&S so she can go to the AGM to confront the company directly - I'm fairly sure that the cost of the share, travel, etc. will probably outweigh the few quid surcharge she's going to suffer on a couple of bras.

I digress. One thought's just occurred to me, which is just to increase the cost of all their bras - that way smaller-breasted women pay a surcharge. Of course that's just as objectionable, just to a different group of women.

The cynic in me just wants to write off these protesters (however few or many of them there are) as whiners with nothing better to do. I'm sure it's not as simple as that, but I can't quite shake it. There are lots of legitimate issues to deal with in the world, and having to pay a small amount extra for something that almost certainly costs a small amount extra to manufacture doesn't seem worth kicking up a fuss about. Apparently the most popular bra size in the UK is 36C, so anyone who's into DD territory is significantly above average.

Now, being male (and not suffering from excessive moobage) I can't pretend to relate to large-breasted women (on several levels, more's the pity), but throwing the word "discrimination" around pisses me off. At worst the argument could be made that larger size clothing doesn't cost more, but I'd counter that while I'm not a bra manufacturer, I'd not be surprised that given the structural work involved in a bra, in order to make a good quality and well-supporting larger one, the design has to be tweaked a bit.

By contrast a larger shirt just needs a bit more material, which probably doesn't cost all that much given the volumes clothes manufacturers buy it in. Even if there is a difference, manufacturers clearly absorb it because it's small, or more hassle than it's worth given the range of sizes they have to sell. Now before anyone thinks "double standard", if anything that actually reinforces the point for me - the fact that they're charging more for bigger bras but not for bigger regular clothes seems like clear evidence that the costs involved are more significant. Or else the bra market so massively outweighs that for regular clothes that M&S feel they can make enormous profits just by milking large boobs. As it were.

Ahem. Ultimately having to pay more for something that costs more isn't discrimination, it's market forces. The fact that clothes companies absorb cost differences for regular clothes (or more likely just base prices on the cost of the most expensive size to manufacture, which brings me back to the idea of just charging more for smaller bras) doesn't mean they have to do that for everything if it doesn't make financial sense. Here's a radical idea - buy your bras somewhere else. If enough people do it then M&S will pay attention, and if no-one does then it's clearly not a problem enough people care about, so shut up and try addressing one of the world's many real problems.

I've resisted bringing weight into this post, despite desperately wanting to. I've got a degree of ranting built up on the subject, but will save it for another time. Thanks for reading...

Remarkably, I seem to be in the 99.99% of the global population without swine flu, although as far as the media seems to be concerned, if you're still alive to read/watch their updates you should count yourself lucky. Perhaps the most wrongly amusing story related to this so far is the fact that Egypt's culling 300,000 pigs, despite the fact that there's absolutely no scientific reason to, especially since at last count they didn't even have anyone infected! Even the UN's said they don't have to, and yet Egypt seems to be playing the part of a small child with their fingers in their ears chanting "la la la".

It may be a general aversion to pork, or an overreaction because when it came to bird flu, which they actually were affected by, they were slow to react and they had a few deaths. Still, it's enjoyably typical of everything surrounding this story, including recent reports of hospitals being overwhelmed by the "walking well", who have a bit of a sniffle and are suddenly convinced it's swine flu. That's even before you take into account the fact that apart from the initial wave of infections in Mexico, which was initially blamed for about 150 deaths, subsequently revised down to...7, everyone infected feel a bit crap for a few days then gets better.

Sigh. I swear that the world's filled with people who believe the first thing they read and never think to question it or seek out more information before blindly reacting. Yes, swine flu was/is a bigger threat than bird flu or any number of other half-arsed doom-laden scenarios the media frequently brings up, being an actual virus, actually transmitting from person to person. However, that doesn't mean you should immediately panic and run around like a headless chicken. Or perhaps more accurately, headless pig. That's a simile which for some reason seems more unpleasant - ultimately they're both decapitated animals, so the fun factor's limited. Unless you're into that sort of thing. Freak.

Update: I'd be remiss if I didn't modify this. Turns out the 1918 flu pandemic started with very mild symptoms, then 4 months later kicked into gear and killed 50 million people. So yeah, overreactions at the moment are ridiculous, but you never know, it may yet kill us all.