So I randomly typed in 'guitar' into YouTube, and this was the top result -
8-year-old guitar prodigy.
Just wanted to share, 'tis all.
Monday, 20 July 2009
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
10 questions to which I have no answers
In no particular order...
1. What the fuck is the point of 'Nightwatch with Steve Scott'?! The only times I have ever watched this are when I have been too stoned to switch off the TV.
2. On a similar note, how is ITV still alive and kicking?!
3. Why do the Masterchef judges insist on shouting at the contestants and each other throughout the show?
4. Which idiot, or group of, decided that 'He's Just Not That Into You' was a film worth making? There are many bad films out there, but this will take a while to top.
5. Why is Gambit (and, to a lesser extent, Jubilee) not featured in the X-Men films (Wolverine Origins notwithstanding)?
6. Is swine flu really something to be concerned about, have the media just hyped it up too much, or is it some more elaborate form of propaganda designed to line the pockets of pharmaceutical CEOs? I honestly can't figure it out.
7. How will the necessary changes in social policy be made in order to realistically and effectively be able to help those in society who need it most? Too much pen-pushing goes on behind too many closed doors and too little gets done.
8. How battered do my converse have to be in order for me to accept that I have to invest in a new pair? This is an ongoing dilemma.
9. As is the question of will I ever be able to wear high heels comfortably? I used to think this came with age, but clearly not. The problem appears to lie in the fact that I think it insane to spend an evening drowning my feet in pain, and yet practising this inane act is the only way to overcome the issue.
10. What about the children? Will someone please think of the children?!
Hmm, I do appear to be quite angry tonight. Everything seems better after a night's sleep though. Fact!
1. What the fuck is the point of 'Nightwatch with Steve Scott'?! The only times I have ever watched this are when I have been too stoned to switch off the TV.
2. On a similar note, how is ITV still alive and kicking?!
3. Why do the Masterchef judges insist on shouting at the contestants and each other throughout the show?
4. Which idiot, or group of, decided that 'He's Just Not That Into You' was a film worth making? There are many bad films out there, but this will take a while to top.
5. Why is Gambit (and, to a lesser extent, Jubilee) not featured in the X-Men films (Wolverine Origins notwithstanding)?
6. Is swine flu really something to be concerned about, have the media just hyped it up too much, or is it some more elaborate form of propaganda designed to line the pockets of pharmaceutical CEOs? I honestly can't figure it out.
7. How will the necessary changes in social policy be made in order to realistically and effectively be able to help those in society who need it most? Too much pen-pushing goes on behind too many closed doors and too little gets done.
8. How battered do my converse have to be in order for me to accept that I have to invest in a new pair? This is an ongoing dilemma.
9. As is the question of will I ever be able to wear high heels comfortably? I used to think this came with age, but clearly not. The problem appears to lie in the fact that I think it insane to spend an evening drowning my feet in pain, and yet practising this inane act is the only way to overcome the issue.
10. What about the children? Will someone please think of the children?!
Hmm, I do appear to be quite angry tonight. Everything seems better after a night's sleep though. Fact!
Wednesday, 8 July 2009
Glastonbury Review 2009
Phew, what a mad few weeks! It has been in the forefront of my mind to update this blog, but I haven't had the time. Plus my head has been all over the place, and actually it has been increasingly difficult to commit anything to paper, blog or otherwise, and I am not enjoying being in this weird headspace.
On the other hand, my few days at Glastonbury were bloody brilliant! Working the Oxfam stewarding shifts was less work than I imagined, though it tended to get quite boring quite quickly; often there were too many people doing too few jobs, which just caused more frustration than necessary. Overall, however, I would highly recommend Oxfam stewarding as a means of getting into festivals. A few free meals, decent showers, safe campsite, what's not to love?
As for the Festival itself - well it just blew my mind! Hundreds of thousands of people and about a million things to do and see and notice, it leaves all the senses reeling. Glasto is about so much more than just the music, though the line ups were spectacular. I have to admit to feeling a certain fondness and, dare I say it, respect for Lily Allen who, for so long now, I was very much indifferent to. The girl really does know how to entertain her crowd, and she even had a subtle tribute to Michael Jackson in the form of a single white glove on her hand. I read in the Glastonbury Review that some of her set was mimed... that really did surprise and somewhat upset me, and I wouldn't know the truth of it really.
Other notable acts - Regina Spektor for starters, whose name I have heard bandied about in recent times, but never took a great deal of interest in. She came across as such a lovely creature of music and poetry, her lyrics really tugging at something beyond the mundane, material reality which has been enveloping me far too often lately.
Ray Davies - what a legend! Working his way through The Kinks' back catalogue in the intimcay of the acoustic tent, there was no other way to spend Friday night! (Apart from to go see Neil Young...) It was so packed that in the two hours I did not once manage to catch a glimpse of him! The crowd got restless at times, when he played his 'new' or 'solo' stuff, but we were won over only too quickly with the likes of Waterloo Sunset and Autumn Almanac.
I have never seen so many people in one space as the crowd that gathered for the demigod that is Bruce Springsteen. He played a set that lasted for over two and a half hours! Apparently Michael Evis had to pay a £3000 fine 'cos The Boss went ten minutes over the curfew. I must admit to only knowing about a dozen or so of his songs, but nevertheless his sheer energy and showmanship were enough to keep me entertained. I so would!
Another of my favourite middle-aged men put in an appearance - Mr Tom Jones! He sang all the classics, and we sang them with him! I think even people that 'don't really like' Tom Jones still like him somewhere in their hearts, you can't help but sway along to the likes of It's Not Unusual (let's face it, we all learnt those Carlton [Fresh Prince of Bel-Air] dance moves) and Delilah.
I can't really fail to make a mention of Sunday's headliners, Blur, who despite their prolonged absence from the music scene had a very tight set. I was never much into the whole Brit Pop scene (though I do have a soft spot for Oasis), but I surprised myself with how many Blur songs I already knew. The last decade has made an impression on the boys - Damon no longer embodies the youthful cheekiness I imagine to have propelled him to pin-up status - but they resurrected their sound with vigour and success. I did leave half-way through their performance though, and went to watch the personal (and perhaps slightly embarassing?) highlight of my weekend -
The Black Eyed Peas! I can not describe how amazing they were and how much energy they reflected back to their audience. They spent a good quarter of an hour or more performing a Michael Jackson tribute, full of mixes and remixes of MJ's tracks. (I can't really remember properly now, it has been a couple of weeks...) I don't know why people insist Fergie 'can't sing live', I thought she was great! I don't know if it was just the atmosphere or what, but I genuinely think their songs were made to be performed live. I implore you to go and watch them for yourselves, it will be worth it!
The best thing about Glastonbury is that while you're there, the rest of the outside world feels very remote. It's not that you stop caring, but there just isn't that need to worry about anything. You do what you feel like, there's no set agenda, and everybody else is just as easy-going as you feel. I would highly recommend the Glasto Festival experience to all who don't oppose the idea of camping. With the only potential issues being smelly toilets (though there are those few and far between that are remarkably clean) and mud (BRING WELLIES! I CAN NOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH!), there is no reason why this exeperience should pass anyone by.
On the other hand, my few days at Glastonbury were bloody brilliant! Working the Oxfam stewarding shifts was less work than I imagined, though it tended to get quite boring quite quickly; often there were too many people doing too few jobs, which just caused more frustration than necessary. Overall, however, I would highly recommend Oxfam stewarding as a means of getting into festivals. A few free meals, decent showers, safe campsite, what's not to love?
As for the Festival itself - well it just blew my mind! Hundreds of thousands of people and about a million things to do and see and notice, it leaves all the senses reeling. Glasto is about so much more than just the music, though the line ups were spectacular. I have to admit to feeling a certain fondness and, dare I say it, respect for Lily Allen who, for so long now, I was very much indifferent to. The girl really does know how to entertain her crowd, and she even had a subtle tribute to Michael Jackson in the form of a single white glove on her hand. I read in the Glastonbury Review that some of her set was mimed... that really did surprise and somewhat upset me, and I wouldn't know the truth of it really.
Other notable acts - Regina Spektor for starters, whose name I have heard bandied about in recent times, but never took a great deal of interest in. She came across as such a lovely creature of music and poetry, her lyrics really tugging at something beyond the mundane, material reality which has been enveloping me far too often lately.
Ray Davies - what a legend! Working his way through The Kinks' back catalogue in the intimcay of the acoustic tent, there was no other way to spend Friday night! (Apart from to go see Neil Young...) It was so packed that in the two hours I did not once manage to catch a glimpse of him! The crowd got restless at times, when he played his 'new' or 'solo' stuff, but we were won over only too quickly with the likes of Waterloo Sunset and Autumn Almanac.
I have never seen so many people in one space as the crowd that gathered for the demigod that is Bruce Springsteen. He played a set that lasted for over two and a half hours! Apparently Michael Evis had to pay a £3000 fine 'cos The Boss went ten minutes over the curfew. I must admit to only knowing about a dozen or so of his songs, but nevertheless his sheer energy and showmanship were enough to keep me entertained. I so would!
Another of my favourite middle-aged men put in an appearance - Mr Tom Jones! He sang all the classics, and we sang them with him! I think even people that 'don't really like' Tom Jones still like him somewhere in their hearts, you can't help but sway along to the likes of It's Not Unusual (let's face it, we all learnt those Carlton [Fresh Prince of Bel-Air] dance moves) and Delilah.
I can't really fail to make a mention of Sunday's headliners, Blur, who despite their prolonged absence from the music scene had a very tight set. I was never much into the whole Brit Pop scene (though I do have a soft spot for Oasis), but I surprised myself with how many Blur songs I already knew. The last decade has made an impression on the boys - Damon no longer embodies the youthful cheekiness I imagine to have propelled him to pin-up status - but they resurrected their sound with vigour and success. I did leave half-way through their performance though, and went to watch the personal (and perhaps slightly embarassing?) highlight of my weekend -
The Black Eyed Peas! I can not describe how amazing they were and how much energy they reflected back to their audience. They spent a good quarter of an hour or more performing a Michael Jackson tribute, full of mixes and remixes of MJ's tracks. (I can't really remember properly now, it has been a couple of weeks...) I don't know why people insist Fergie 'can't sing live', I thought she was great! I don't know if it was just the atmosphere or what, but I genuinely think their songs were made to be performed live. I implore you to go and watch them for yourselves, it will be worth it!
The best thing about Glastonbury is that while you're there, the rest of the outside world feels very remote. It's not that you stop caring, but there just isn't that need to worry about anything. You do what you feel like, there's no set agenda, and everybody else is just as easy-going as you feel. I would highly recommend the Glasto Festival experience to all who don't oppose the idea of camping. With the only potential issues being smelly toilets (though there are those few and far between that are remarkably clean) and mud (BRING WELLIES! I CAN NOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH!), there is no reason why this exeperience should pass anyone by.
Thursday, 11 June 2009
Breakfast at Tiffany's
I downloaded the aforementioned film a few days ago, and finally sat down tonight armed with a pepperoni pizza and a thrist-quenching drink to watch 'that daring, darling Holly Golightly'. I even had my huge headphones on, so I could hear exactly what was going on (loudly) without disturbing my revision-bound housemates. I was pleasantly surprised by the opening dialogue, and I thought to myself - 'oh, I didn't know she spoke Spanish in the film, I don't think it was mentioned in the book.'
After a minute, I started thinking, 'hmmm, not being funny, but I haven't understood a word so far...'
And finally, one long, confused and embarrassing moment later, it dawned on me... it was all gonna be in Spanish!! The whole frickin' movie was dubbed!!
So no only was I disappointed, I was also forced to confront my own naive stupidity.
My goodness, there is most certainly a lot of that.
Bringing me nicely onto my next point -
Deep Blue Something sang a song, also named by the aforementioned title. Before I had discovered the wonders of www.letssingit.com I was under the impression that the chorus lyrics ran:
And I said what about Breakfast at Tiffany's
She said I think I remember the film and
There's tarragon, parsley, and all kinds of spices,
And I said well that's one thing we've got.
The mind boggles.
After a minute, I started thinking, 'hmmm, not being funny, but I haven't understood a word so far...'
And finally, one long, confused and embarrassing moment later, it dawned on me... it was all gonna be in Spanish!! The whole frickin' movie was dubbed!!
So no only was I disappointed, I was also forced to confront my own naive stupidity.
My goodness, there is most certainly a lot of that.
Bringing me nicely onto my next point -
Deep Blue Something sang a song, also named by the aforementioned title. Before I had discovered the wonders of www.letssingit.com I was under the impression that the chorus lyrics ran:
And I said what about Breakfast at Tiffany's
She said I think I remember the film and
There's tarragon, parsley, and all kinds of spices,
And I said well that's one thing we've got.
The mind boggles.
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
10 Useless Things
A mixture of facts I have come across, and conclusions I have come to, over the last month:
1. The Tayto crisp was the first crisp in the world to be seasoned (with something other than salt).
2. Peanut Butter does not actually contain butter.
3. Audrey Hepbrun died in 1993.
4. I will never be able to fully fathom why I was so obsessed with 5ive. I guess being 12 had something to do with it.
5. The Apprentice was originally aired in the US in 2004, with Donald Trump, and not in the UK with Alan Sugar (as I mistakenly assumed and incorrectly informed other people of).
6. Hare Krishnas, broadly speaking, have their origins in Hinduism.
7. Floyd Rose tremolos are more hassle than they're worth!!
8. The lethal dose of caffeine equates to drinking around 80-100 cups of coffee (depending on body mass) in a short space of time.
9. I will always suck at Mario Kart.
10. One will always have far too many staples than one could use in a lifetime.
1. The Tayto crisp was the first crisp in the world to be seasoned (with something other than salt).
2. Peanut Butter does not actually contain butter.
3. Audrey Hepbrun died in 1993.
4. I will never be able to fully fathom why I was so obsessed with 5ive. I guess being 12 had something to do with it.
5. The Apprentice was originally aired in the US in 2004, with Donald Trump, and not in the UK with Alan Sugar (as I mistakenly assumed and incorrectly informed other people of).
6. Hare Krishnas, broadly speaking, have their origins in Hinduism.
7. Floyd Rose tremolos are more hassle than they're worth!!
8. The lethal dose of caffeine equates to drinking around 80-100 cups of coffee (depending on body mass) in a short space of time.
9. I will always suck at Mario Kart.
10. One will always have far too many staples than one could use in a lifetime.
Thursday, 4 June 2009
MP Expenses
I'm quite disappointed with myself for going over two weeks without a blog update, I hope it does not happen again in the not-too-distant future. In my defence, I have (supposedly) been revising for finals and working on my essays, although it is true to say I have not done enough work on any of those counts to warrant this prolonged absence.
Anyway, just a brief rant for now, to remind myself I have this blog and to express my disdain at MPs' expenses - what a fucking joke! The government send out TV ads warning 'benefit thieves' that they're going to be caught - and hung, drawn and quartered presumably - for 'cash in hand' jobs, etc etc, when half the government is claiming for mortgages already paid back, carpet cleaning, and duck houses. And the ones under pressure are now 'stepping down due to family commitments'.
I'm fully aware that quite a few MPs have made quite justifiable claims, but then there are those who have tried to defend themselves by maintaining they were 'acting wholly within the rules'. It's just a case of one rule for them and a different one for everyone else. Don't get me wrong, I know every job (arguably) has its perks and I would quite happily walk away with a free guitar from work if I could. But I can't, and I don't, and even if I did, I certainly wouldn't walk away with £27k worth of musical equipment.
Anyway, I don't want to go on too much about it because I'm sure everyone has expressed an opinion on the topic, or at least knows someone who has.
I do hope everyone votes wisely today...(By which I do not mean 'punish the pigs by voting BNP' lol.) And if you don't want to vote - feel free to cast one on my behalf. For the Lib Dems perhaps. Viva Nick Clegg! (& Vince Cable!)
Anyway, just a brief rant for now, to remind myself I have this blog and to express my disdain at MPs' expenses - what a fucking joke! The government send out TV ads warning 'benefit thieves' that they're going to be caught - and hung, drawn and quartered presumably - for 'cash in hand' jobs, etc etc, when half the government is claiming for mortgages already paid back, carpet cleaning, and duck houses. And the ones under pressure are now 'stepping down due to family commitments'.
I'm fully aware that quite a few MPs have made quite justifiable claims, but then there are those who have tried to defend themselves by maintaining they were 'acting wholly within the rules'. It's just a case of one rule for them and a different one for everyone else. Don't get me wrong, I know every job (arguably) has its perks and I would quite happily walk away with a free guitar from work if I could. But I can't, and I don't, and even if I did, I certainly wouldn't walk away with £27k worth of musical equipment.
Anyway, I don't want to go on too much about it because I'm sure everyone has expressed an opinion on the topic, or at least knows someone who has.
I do hope everyone votes wisely today...(By which I do not mean 'punish the pigs by voting BNP' lol.) And if you don't want to vote - feel free to cast one on my behalf. For the Lib Dems perhaps. Viva Nick Clegg! (& Vince Cable!)
Saturday, 16 May 2009
Eurovision
This is one of my least favourite times of the year. It is the longest I will have to go without watching the kitsch celebration of all things European in the form of song and interpretive dance. I was a little bit disappointed with this year's outings though, none of the songs really stuck out for me. Alexander Rybak was a worthy winner though for Norway, because his 'Fairytale' song was actually quite sweet...and he is a good piece of eye candy ;o) .
I have to admit, I do take the Eurovision contest *somewhat* semi-seriously. Perhaps it is due to the small, still-surviving European part in me. I can't remember missing any of the contests in my living memory, I even remember watching one while I was still in Croatia, and it has got to the stage now where I can quite accurately predict how a country will distribute its top 3 points. That does look set to become slightly more challenging now, what with having a jury deciding 50% of the voting. Nevertheless, the good old Balkan countries still mainly stuck together. "We may have fought a bloody and useless war, but here's 12 points! Zivjeli!"
Denmark's entry, performed by Brinck, sounded like the poor-man's Danish version of Ronan Keating (though I guess that is hardly surprising given that Ronan wrote the song). That cracked me up good and proper! It was nice to see Britain finish at the top for a change though. I was looking through past performances, and it is only really since 1999 that the UK has been consistenly bad, with the exception of Jessica Garlick in 2002 - she got to 3rd place. But before that they have pretty much always been in the top 10 since 1957, bar the performances of1978 and 1987. So it can't be the case that the UK has always been 'hated by Europe'. Either they have been coming out with crap songs for a decade, or Tony Blair was good at losing allies. Incidentally, it was in 2003 that Britain got 'null points', the year that the war was declared on Iraq. Though that was the year that the female twin from Jemini sang the whole first verse out of tune... I'm sure that had more to do with it!
Anyway, I am going to cry myself to sleep now that I have 364 days to wait 'til Croatia, or any one of my other adoptive countries, have another shot at the Eurovision crown.
I have to admit, I do take the Eurovision contest *somewhat* semi-seriously. Perhaps it is due to the small, still-surviving European part in me. I can't remember missing any of the contests in my living memory, I even remember watching one while I was still in Croatia, and it has got to the stage now where I can quite accurately predict how a country will distribute its top 3 points. That does look set to become slightly more challenging now, what with having a jury deciding 50% of the voting. Nevertheless, the good old Balkan countries still mainly stuck together. "We may have fought a bloody and useless war, but here's 12 points! Zivjeli!"
Denmark's entry, performed by Brinck, sounded like the poor-man's Danish version of Ronan Keating (though I guess that is hardly surprising given that Ronan wrote the song). That cracked me up good and proper! It was nice to see Britain finish at the top for a change though. I was looking through past performances, and it is only really since 1999 that the UK has been consistenly bad, with the exception of Jessica Garlick in 2002 - she got to 3rd place. But before that they have pretty much always been in the top 10 since 1957, bar the performances of1978 and 1987. So it can't be the case that the UK has always been 'hated by Europe'. Either they have been coming out with crap songs for a decade, or Tony Blair was good at losing allies. Incidentally, it was in 2003 that Britain got 'null points', the year that the war was declared on Iraq. Though that was the year that the female twin from Jemini sang the whole first verse out of tune... I'm sure that had more to do with it!
Anyway, I am going to cry myself to sleep now that I have 364 days to wait 'til Croatia, or any one of my other adoptive countries, have another shot at the Eurovision crown.
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
Cocaine
This morning I read an interesting BBC news article about the cocaine market -
World cocaine market 'in retreat'
In some ways I guess it is quite reassuring to know that even the drugs market is suffering during this recession. Although that is not what the article explicitly says, I'm sure it could well be a contributing factor. Anyway, the best bit about this is that the agency which has come up with all these figures and facts is called the 'Serious Organised Crime Agency'... seriously?! It makes them sound like a bunch of mumbling men in suits, saying things like "We seriously must find a way to tackle that organised crime, what. Too much cocaine on our streets, what. It's just not serious. What."
Well, that is just the image conjured in my head. I'm sure the more 'serious' among you will think this a silly observation ;o)
One things that did shock me though, was the finding that 30% of seized cocaine was only 9% pure. "My goodness, what am I stuffing up my nose?!" says George Osborne. Of course, I'm sure someone with his status and connections would get nothing but the purest type of coke around, and then add it to his expenses list no doubt, perhaps under "stimulant for long working hours".
On a serious note, this highlights just how little cocaine users know about what their cocaine is mixed with. There is no real solution to this I suppose, and in a lot of ways it is a redundant consideration - if an individual is set on taking coke, they will do so without a great deal of thought regarding what else s/he is inadvertedly taking with it. But I guess such is the price one pays for freedom of choice.
World cocaine market 'in retreat'
In some ways I guess it is quite reassuring to know that even the drugs market is suffering during this recession. Although that is not what the article explicitly says, I'm sure it could well be a contributing factor. Anyway, the best bit about this is that the agency which has come up with all these figures and facts is called the 'Serious Organised Crime Agency'... seriously?! It makes them sound like a bunch of mumbling men in suits, saying things like "We seriously must find a way to tackle that organised crime, what. Too much cocaine on our streets, what. It's just not serious. What."
Well, that is just the image conjured in my head. I'm sure the more 'serious' among you will think this a silly observation ;o)
One things that did shock me though, was the finding that 30% of seized cocaine was only 9% pure. "My goodness, what am I stuffing up my nose?!" says George Osborne. Of course, I'm sure someone with his status and connections would get nothing but the purest type of coke around, and then add it to his expenses list no doubt, perhaps under "stimulant for long working hours".
On a serious note, this highlights just how little cocaine users know about what their cocaine is mixed with. There is no real solution to this I suppose, and in a lot of ways it is a redundant consideration - if an individual is set on taking coke, they will do so without a great deal of thought regarding what else s/he is inadvertedly taking with it. But I guess such is the price one pays for freedom of choice.
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Brunch in Bristol
I am spending the best part of a week in Bristol. My friend, who I call posh despite her claims to the contrary, took me for brunch this morning. I ordered Eggs Florentine. For those who, like myself this morning, don't exactly know what that entails, the eggs came poached on a bed of spinach and a very generous helping of hollandaise sauce, all enclosed in a muffin. Or two, as I had opted for the large version (I was very hungry!). It was simply delicious! If this is how the other half live, then I definitely see the attraction.
In other news, I am turning mine eyes to short sci-fi stories by Philip K Dick. I have read two ("Nanny" and "The Commuter") out of nine so far. Both have been thought-provoking, although the second one seemed to require more explanation of the events than was given in the narrative. I will leave a review of it (the whole book, entitled "The Turning Wheel and other stories") once I have got through them all. Given that a 4-hour train journey awaits me on Saturday when I return to York, I would deem the probability of such an endeavour as more than merely unlikely.
Bristol is very pretty, although I am unimpressed by the GIANT hill in the middle of the city...I think becoming used to the flat plains of York has completely destroyed whatever appreciation I might once have had of geographical contours. I also find it somewhat amusing that the Law Dept, which also houses a library and is the graduation building, is called the "Wills Memorial Building". Most of the people entering seem to be wearing Jack Wills clothing. The power of suggestion? Probably not. ;o)
Thursday, 30 April 2009
Random Distribution of Goods
In my Moral Philosophy exam today I answered a question relating to the distribution of goods by random procedure, and whether there was any grounds on which such a method was justifiable. I think it's somewhat already a common-place practice. In Wales they apparently allocate some cancer treatment drugs based on a postcode lottery. It was my weakest exam answer because I genuinelly don't seem to have formed a strong opinion on either side of the argument.
The main argument that justifies such a practice rests on the proposition that, by randomly distributing a good, everyone has an equal chance of obtaining it. It's a "fair method" of ensuring everyone can lay some claim to the good; you don't have to fulfil specific criteria in order to be considered for the process (apart from, obviously, there being an existing reason for you to want/need the good in question). Let's consider an example, that might elucidate this further.
Suppose the good in question is something indivisible, like a human organ - let's say, a liver. Since only one person can have the liver, there needs to be some method of selecting who will have the organ. Now, because there may be many people in need of a liver transplant, a proponent of the random selection process might say, in order to not discriminate against anyone and in order to give everyone a fair shot at this life-saving procedure, we should employ a lottery whereby a patient is randomly selected from all those that need a liver, and hence they are the ones that receive the good.
I find it really difficult to write about this method because there seem to me to be too many things to take into consideration, and also I think I expose myself to the risk of sounding elitist or 'like a right cow', for want of a better term.
But here are my problems with the method:
1) Does everyone really have an equal claim to the good? Suppose a third of the people on the liver transplant list are alcoholics. Do they really have an equal claim to the liver as does, say, a promising tennis star who happened to just get an infection?
Proponents of the theory suggest everyone ought to have an equal, or at least roughly equal, claim to the good in order for them to be considered by the lottery, but what does this mean? How do we judge what constitues an 'equal claim'? On what basis? Surely the whole point is just to give everyone an equal chance...
2) In employing the random selection procedure, are we just ridding ourselves of the moral responsibility of making ethical choices? We can't decide for ourselves how best to distribute the good, so we'll just leave it to chance...
On the other hand, perhaps random selection isn't all bad. Evolution operates on a random mutation 'policy', for want of a better word, so maybe we are just following in nature's footsteps.
Anyway, I am running out of interesting things to say on this topic. But basically, I can't make up my mind whether or not it is good or bad. I think in some cases it is necessary - until we have enough resources to go around I guess someone will always miss out on 'the good', and it is better that a few get it than that none get it. I wish I could just form a strong opinion on it though.
The main argument that justifies such a practice rests on the proposition that, by randomly distributing a good, everyone has an equal chance of obtaining it. It's a "fair method" of ensuring everyone can lay some claim to the good; you don't have to fulfil specific criteria in order to be considered for the process (apart from, obviously, there being an existing reason for you to want/need the good in question). Let's consider an example, that might elucidate this further.
Suppose the good in question is something indivisible, like a human organ - let's say, a liver. Since only one person can have the liver, there needs to be some method of selecting who will have the organ. Now, because there may be many people in need of a liver transplant, a proponent of the random selection process might say, in order to not discriminate against anyone and in order to give everyone a fair shot at this life-saving procedure, we should employ a lottery whereby a patient is randomly selected from all those that need a liver, and hence they are the ones that receive the good.
I find it really difficult to write about this method because there seem to me to be too many things to take into consideration, and also I think I expose myself to the risk of sounding elitist or 'like a right cow', for want of a better term.
But here are my problems with the method:
1) Does everyone really have an equal claim to the good? Suppose a third of the people on the liver transplant list are alcoholics. Do they really have an equal claim to the liver as does, say, a promising tennis star who happened to just get an infection?
Proponents of the theory suggest everyone ought to have an equal, or at least roughly equal, claim to the good in order for them to be considered by the lottery, but what does this mean? How do we judge what constitues an 'equal claim'? On what basis? Surely the whole point is just to give everyone an equal chance...
2) In employing the random selection procedure, are we just ridding ourselves of the moral responsibility of making ethical choices? We can't decide for ourselves how best to distribute the good, so we'll just leave it to chance...
On the other hand, perhaps random selection isn't all bad. Evolution operates on a random mutation 'policy', for want of a better word, so maybe we are just following in nature's footsteps.
Anyway, I am running out of interesting things to say on this topic. But basically, I can't make up my mind whether or not it is good or bad. I think in some cases it is necessary - until we have enough resources to go around I guess someone will always miss out on 'the good', and it is better that a few get it than that none get it. I wish I could just form a strong opinion on it though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)