Slashdot Mirror
Nature's Building Blocks
From actinium to zirconium, Emsley covers each of the elements of the periodic table in alphabetical order and includes a short section on the periodic table arrangement itself. Though the result looks rather formidable at 500-plus pages, Nature's Building Blocks is less like a college chemistry text (or the staple of every chemist's bookshelf, the CRC Handbook), than like a collection of bedtime stories. For one thing, the book need not be read front to back; just pick an element, any element, and start wherever you like; it's not even necessary to read any chapter beginning to end. Each is broken down into cleverly named subtopics such as "Human Element," "Economic Element," and by far the most fun, "Element of Surprise." Besides information on the history, uses, origin, and chemistry of each element -- all of which are a pleasure to read -- Emsley uses the "Element of Surprise" section to present the reader with facts that range from the commonsensical "I never thought of that!" variety to the utterly unexpected and fascinating. The gee-whiz quality with which he writes is truly refreshing.
The book demands about a high-school knowledge of chemistry, though many sections can be read without even that much, and even lifelong chemists will find it full of surprises. The stories and facts gathered therein include the clever way Niels Bohr is said to have hidden his gold Nobel Prize medal from the Nazis when he fled Germany, how nonstick Teflon sticks to aluminum frying pans, how magnetic mines work, how the British government accidentally killed 31 of its own citizens with silver iodide, and, in the "Who Knew?" category, the fact that a piece of indium metal lets out a high-pitched shriek when bent. As you read, don't be surprised to find yourself saying the words "Too cool" aloud fairly frequently.
So why does this book get an eight instead of a nine or ten? Unfortunately, Emsley is a lot better at talking about the elements' history, usage, etc. than he is about their chemistry. He often seems to be unsure of whether the reader is a knowledgeable chemist or reading about the subject for the first time; in the chapter on silicon, for example, he explains why silicon dioxide is a neutral compound -- a no-brainer for anyone who's had high school chemistry -- but two paragraphs later says that silicon is part of n- and p-type semiconductors without explaining what the heck an n- or p-type semiconductor is. Elsewhere, the text contains serious errors that any half-decent copy editor should have caught. The periodic table section of the book contains the phrase, "Most hydrogen atoms consist of a single proton." In context, he means hydrogen as opposed to deuterium or tritium, whose nuclei contain neutrons in addition to protons, but a hydrogen atom consists of a single proton and an electron; a single proton is a hydrogen ion. This sort of careless error is common enough to be seriously annoying (and possibly deceiving to the chemistry beginner).
Though it must be read with the proverbial grain of sodium chloride, Nature's Building Blocks is a worthy read indeed -- the kind of book that can get people excited about a subject that usually inspires groans and protests of "I hate chemistry!" And for that, this former chemist is grateful indeed.
You can purchase Nature's Building Blocks from bn.com. Want to see your own review here? Just read the book review guidelines, then use Slashdot's handy submission form.
if you hate chemistry you`re not going to read it, and if you like chemistry, you`re going to be reading more in depth books. So, who is it really aimed at?
I recommend "The Chemistry of Powder and Explosives" for interesting chemical reading.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Everyone knows that the fundamental building blocks of life are Lego Mindstorm! ; - )
Don't read this!
it?s not even necessary to read any chapter beginning to end
Is this a cute way to sidestep the "it's vs. its" question, or are people really embracing Microsoft's braindead extensions to the ASCII character set?
Perhaps a book like this would work well in the classrooms. I think that a big problem with the system today is that there are not of 'interesting' subjects. I think I would have gotten grades better than C's in highschool if I actually cared about chemistry.
The flying hamster of DOOM rains coconuts on your pitiful city.
Titrations.
What a great word.
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
I've been wanting to read up on Turbonium!
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Books like these are why
I dropped High-school Chemistry
and ran headlong into Physics...
MUCH more enjoyable and didn't have
to memorize no damn periodic table!
"Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
But seriously, I got fed up with chemistry in high school (and that was over ten years ago) just because of those lame "experiments" in which you change a colour of the liquid or - even worse - something intangible like it's pH. Wohoo!
What the chemistry classes need are explosions and fireworks like thermite charges. This is what I would have liked to see back them.
The owls are not what they seem
I always wished there was a good "cool facts" chemistry book. Right now you have to google for it if you want some useful and interesting information, and even then you get a bunch of junk.
:).
Plus this is definately a must-buy at my old high school. Every kid had to do a project on an element--this book would basically do the work for you
I'm getting my copy next time I find myself in a bookstore.
It's aimed at people like me. People who are facinated with all things scientific, but do not have the in-depth knowledge. I am facinated by chemistry, and I know how it works on very general terms. But I don't have any formal education on the matter above what little I sat through in high school, 20 years ago.
The strata of human knowledge is more comlex that just "omniscient" and "complete dolt".
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
...is from the end of The Elements, Tom Lehrer's parody of Gilbert and Sullivan's "Modern Major General."
I used to have a recording of a Pharmacia chemist singing it with his barbershop quartet, but someone stole it and left 4 other CDs behind. Go figure.
I never found stoichiometry problems annoying, let alone difficult.
You should have read this one instead:
t ml ?1007256982530
http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/periodictable.h
That'll help you memorize it.
On a similar subject (digestable, lay science reads) try Six Easy Pieces by Richard P. Feynman and The Divine Proportion : A Study in Mathematical Beauty by H. E. Huntley.
pronoblem
Bah, nothing is more interesting than the CRC handbook of organic compounds. OK, LSD is strangely missing but it's more adventure to figure out the process thru related lysergic compound synthesis.
Josh Woodward
pronoblem
The full lyrics of the song are the opening of the book. Gotta love Tom Lehrer.
Ah yes; I remember getting A's in Chem 101 and 102, with the exception of the labs, where I got low C's, maybe even D's, after putting in too too many hours to count. In hindsight, I can't distinguish very well between titration and hazing rituals. That and physics labs taught me that the universe is well ordered -- but only for those with the most expensive, automated equipment.
It'll explode!
DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
I enjoyed reading two other books which blend heavy doses of chemistry with the story of a boy's journey through adolescence:
:-)
"The Chemical Elements", by Primo Levi, describes his experiences as a young Jew in Nazi Germany. I especially like his struggle when asked by the authorities to figure out how to improve the processing of some sort of metallic ore: he was fascinated by the intellectual puzzle, but, of course, determined not to help the enemy. The fact that he was essentially a prisoner of the German army at the time adds an extra element of suspense.
"Uncle Tungsten", by Oliver Sacks, follows an English boy through roughly the same period of time.
Both are chock full of the sort of fascinating chemical facts described in this review, but they feature compelling human stories as well. It doesn't hurt that Levi and Sacks are damn good writers
Michael Richmond "This is the heart that broke my finger."
mwrsps@rit.edu http://stupendous.rit.edu
n: negative
p: positive
"What exactly entitles you to live and work in the country in which you just happened to be born but not someone else? "
The opinion - understood and respected the world over, whether its right or wrong in your eyes - that `i was here first`. I have a priority for a job here, and they do there. Thats the way it goes.
The first question - the difference - is that a lot of people have black/asian/america/european friends, but dont want thousands of Muslims (for example, but not just Muslims) turning up and changing the system we have here (the uk). Many things that some other cultures believe in have no place in the UK (suppression of women, hatred towards homosexuals etc). The Muslim book burning thing (in the late 80`s, many of them burned The Satanic Verses - apparantly utterly ignorant that this reminded many people here of another group of people who were also disliked by the majority of the population) made a lot of people who were pretty laissaz faire towards Muslims think `do we want any more of this sort of thing here`, and the answer, in case you`ve not been keeping up with the news, is no.
And no, i`m not racist. I have Muslim friends. But its looking like Enoch Powells (who was a racist, in my opinion) `rivers of blood` speech may have had some truth after all.
What steps are being taken to ensure that foreigners (both physically and culturally) are aware of the rules and traditions here.
"Even though Le Pen is obviously not going to gain power this election, remember that to capture a vote a candidate needs to appeal to the electorate. So, future Presidents will take Le Pen's manifesto into account (i.e. by following some of its policies in one way or another) whenever they risk being voted out"
Le Pens vote was tiny - he only got where he was cos no-one bothered to vote. Theres no need for other parties to adopt his views, as theres little or no votes in it.
Why should Blunkett have apologized? He was right! So what if some people dont like the fact that Thatcher used the word `swamped` in a `bad way` 20 years ago. Dianne Abbot is just an idiot - extremely low intelligence. Its people saying things like she did which annoy most people, not stating facts. Go back and look at what Blunkett said, and point out any factual innaccuracies. Dont forget to look up `swamping` in a dictionary so you dont make the same mistake Abbot did.
Back in the day when I was 15 or so I obtained a copy of a book called 'The Anarchists Cookbook' .. The best Chemistry book I ever owned .. Now it didn't cover all of Natures building blocks .. although there is alot to be said from a 'hands on' learning approach .. I remember searching all summer for a strip of 'Magnesium' to ignite the Thermite powder I had created .. Lucky for me my first Chemistry class in highschool started that September .. Magnesium wasn't that hard to come by after all :)
When I was teaching high-school chemistry, I would have loved this book as a starting reference for my students. Yes, they had to do "report on an element", but we always had much more fun with "report on industrial process."
Finally, who could forget Illudium pu236, the shaving cream atom?
He wrote a guide to chemisry and the periodic table that taught me more than any high school chemistry class. In eigth grade, too.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
You go to a bookstore? It's also on Half.Com here.
It's not in the book but there's plenty of literature at your VW dealer. If they have been in business a while they may have a Quantum mechanic, as well.
The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
I've wanted a book like this for a while; I'm off to fatbr- er, Barnes and Noble.
But before I go, I'll suggest to one and all Mendeleyev's Dream by Paul Strathern. I somehow got the impression from the online blurb that it was similar to this book; a history - and breakdown - of the PTE. It's not; however, it's a fascinating read on the history of chemistry, even for those of us who know little of the subject.
"Democracy is indeed the tyranny of the majority"
Sure - and so reality is just consensual. But...so what? Its here - its now, so deal with it.
"Well, that's really the problem with traditions, isn't it. "We"'ve got ours and "they"'ve got theirs. The stage for an unnecessary conflict is set. "
Well, the stage is the UK for the purpose of this conversation. People should fit in, or fuck off. I dont go abroad expecting people to confirm to my standards - i expect the courtesy to be returned. And to the extent that its not returned, then people here will get upset and be less tolerant of certain groups. "Burn Satanic Verses". Why? Its a good book. Freedom of speech and all that, yeah? "But its against god!! Its Blasphemous". Er, yes. Welcome to the 20th century. Heathrow is that direction - have a nice flight.
"Fundamentally it comes down to Being Right; something I don't believe in"
I agree with you. But we need a consistant set of rules - it keeps the natives quiet. The current rules have worked for us - 4th most successful country in the world (how many Muslim countries have our level of culture, safety on the streets, justice, freedom of speech and - yes - even freedom to worship whoever and whatever you want. But, as they say, your freedom to swing your fist stops at my nose - and the UK is my nose, as i was born here).
"Go back a few decades in any western society and you've got traditions telling you to shun people who are born out of wedlock or even have sex with someone else than their husband/wife"
Sure. But you`d have to go back quite a few decades to end up with the sort of mess most predominantly Muslim countries are in. State sanctioned mutiliation in Saudi Arabia? Stoning adulturers in parts of Nigeria? Oh - was that stopped? Sorry. Why, though? Made them look bad around the world? Whats bad about killing - in a cruel and unusual fashion - a woman for sleeping with who she wants to, rather than who some man wants her to? Some things are pretty much objectively wrong, by any sensible standard. I dont care if a group of people do stupid things because they are in a political party (BNP, Nazi) or a club (trainspotters, e-heads), or a religioun (christianity, islam). A stupid, backwards thing to do is a stupid backwards thing to do whatever.
"I am always prodding for a debate -- not the least with myself"
Me too. Amongst my friends, i`m the liberal,with gay friends, muslim/black friends, vegetarian, left leaning sort of person.
But you cant fight reality. I`ve seen demonstrations in Denmark - little 3 year old palestinians/arabs wearing fake explosives in demonstations. I`ve heard about gay marches being attacked in Denmark by Muslims. Imagine that! Denmark - an easy going country, one of (if not the) first to legalize same sex marriage, having foreigners - muslims - turn up and tell them that its wrong, because it goes against Allah? Excuse me, but if complaining about this makes me a racist, and i`ll go outside right now and vote BNP!! That is just outrageous, and they need to be told that this is Europe and we do things differently here, and if they dont like it - well, tough, because i dont think anyone cares.
Of course, i wont, because the BNP are a pack of wankers.
I`m sure some of the things i`ve said here will be labelled racist, because in the UK the word racist is used to describe pretty much anyone who says anything derogatory about anyone not from the UK! I`m not racist. I just hate stupidity and ignorance. If you are stupid and ignorant, AND you happen to be in a group, and that group stands for the ignorance and stupidity, then speaking against it doesnt make you a racist in my mind. If you follow me!
"I am always prodding for a debate -- not the least with myself"
yeah, i`ve answered this once, but its true - if i get stuck on a programming problem, asking your cat for help often works - working through the problem aloud nearly always does the trick for me.
However, i cannot see any flaws with my dislike of what a lot of Islam (and its followers) stand for.
"It's always those with radical passions that are most likely to turn out to vote, so by appealing to radical viewpoints, you will get (or lose) more votes"
Not really. Some people always vote labour, some always vote tory, and the election is always won/lost at the hands of clueless floating voters. This is the reason any attempt to make it more easy to vote (email/sms etc) will be disastrous, as twitchy-fingered cretins vote for the best misuse of behavioural psychology.
"Stoning adulturers in parts of Nigeria? Oh - was that stopped? Sorry. Why, though? Made them look bad around the world"
Only that case was stopped - the practice continues.
Go to Amnesty international and see where more abuses of human rights take place - muslim or non-muslim countries.
Oh, dont tell me - human rights is an evil, secular western concept which has no place in allahs world?
I could concur with that if you had written: "i am living here".
The owls are not what they seem
I've always wondered why creation theory is always laughed at and not actually pondered more on sites like Slashdot. I mean, isn't part of an education and learning about the world around us being at least open to discussion of opposing viewpoints?
But nowadays, it's almost cliche to condescendingly deride a person or idea of faith.
Instead, how about reading a bit about Creationism or arguments against evolution.
I know this will be modded down since the idea of God is verboten among the /. intelligentsia, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
And tungsten, damn. That element rules. Highest melting point, IIRC. Also known as "wolframite".
I loved high school chemistry so much, I almost made the mistake of becoming a chemical engineer. I know, I know. Damn, good times.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Basically, we're sick of you creationists misapplying the Second Law ...
Eh, I'll bite on this one.
"Creationism" is laughed at by science-y types because it's not science. Science consists (nominally) of some ever-changing theories and a mountain of experiment to back it up. Creationism consists of a Great Big Book of Immutable Theory, which is never to be tested or modified.
"Creation theory" is laughed at because it is laughable to put it in the same category as an actual scientific theory, which, while it may be incomplete, is a damned sight better than "a superhero from outer space did it".
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
the building blocks of nature are for physicists
Well Europe is by its very nature extremely sensitive to race and culutre.
.... not so much. =)
America, on the other hand,
-- "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Jean Jacques Rousseau
You could say you're a segregationist, that is, you don't like the idea of mixing with people who are in certain ways different. That's not as bad as racism ;-) and I have mixed feelings about it. If my neighbour is a sexist homophobe, for example, I don't mind him living next to me, as long as he doesn't force anyone to think as he does. He is welcome to preach (and I am welcome to ignore) as much as he wants.
IMHO, Islam is terribly fucked in its fundamentalist form, but then so are all the Abraham's-God-based religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). They are based on:I have my own bedtime stories: Szabo and Ostlund's Modern Quantum Chemistry. Sure, it's not that modern anymore, but it's still a vital read. Plus, it's a Dover Classic, the godsend of all physics/chemistry students. Half my shelves seem to be Dover Classics.
Fortran programmer...oh yeah. Array math for life!
As for Piltdown man---it was eventually shown to be wrong. Science can be wrong---then theories are rewritten and reconsidered, and new hypotheses are proposed.
If the research you refer to has merit, good for him. (I'm not an earth-scientist; I'll trust the judgment of those journals.) Showing that the earth is young (though there are a lot of other thing that would seem to show an older earth, like radioactivity-dating or stars more than five thousand light-years away) doesn't show that the earth was created by a superhero from outer space.
The reason why creation science gives me the creepies is because it picks a full-blown story and looks for evidence to support it, so that "earth is young!" means "superhero from outer space!". Religion and science do not mix, and any attempt to make them do so destroys the credibility of both components.
I mean, I take a few issues with the young-earth theory, too, but I can't refute any of that, not being an expert.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Really?
I'll read about creationism when you are willing to set up a test for the existance of god and be willing to live by the results. Otherwise it's not science, it's faith. Faith is fine, but it's not "real" and can not be tested by objective means. QED
So uh, how old IS the earth, if not ~4.5billion years? And how do you explain dinosaurs? Surely that can't be dismissed as an elaborate hoax or explained away as being rotting shark bones.
Using the singular evidence of 'polonium halos' as a proof for the Earth's instaneous creation in 4004 B.C. (the Biblical date, I suppose) seems quite a bit of a stretch.
Reading the stuff on Halos.com, I notice the conclusion makes more than a few references to Him, who apparently takes Offence when His Name is Improperly Capitalized.. you don't see evolutionary theory openly discrediting the existence of a god(s). Honestly, I don't see why evolution, creationism and monotheism can't peacefully coexist.
Let's say God created the universe billions of years ago, life on earth evolved through the hand of God, and here we are arguing about it.
Remember, the only fact is that there are no facts.
Forget reading this boring chem book! If your looking for something really mind blowing try these two. They'll also give you pointers on the chemicals you'll need to do your own exploring.
:-)
"DMT: The Spirit Molecule" by Rick Strassman, M.D.
and
"The Encyclopedia of Psychedelics" forgot the author
Happy Travels.
"I'm a British person, but I'm anti-monarchy, to take a specific example. Does this mean I should get out?"
No - opposing the monarchy is a view which goes back a long time. I`m in that club. But i wouldnt agree with trying to kill them!
"attitudes change? Progress, if you like."
I`m in favour of progress. In fact, everything i`ve said has been against people trying to turn the clock (human/gay/womens rights) back to the current time in other muslim countries.
"Some polls in the past have shown up to 45% believing the monarchy should end once ER dies."
I wonder how many people would agree with a poll such as `should we allow more muslims into the country, or do we have enough already`. It would be interesting.
"Burning a book is exercising your right to freedom of speech. Like burning a flag. "
Sure - i understand what you are saying. I`m not anti immigrant. My parents came here during the war, to escape the Nazis in Germany. Thats why i dont like muslims acting like nazis and saying `you cant write this`. They should have been less naive, and more aware of what other group of people they look like.
"What is your view on circumcision for Jewish boys? "
Same as it is for Americans, given that so many of them are circumsized. It should be an option given to the people concerned when they are old enough to choose. Like i said, i dont respect any religion - i`m not singling out one. They`re all useless. Practice them if you like, but dont expect me to take part/pay towards them/assume that aspects of them override UK law (sikhs carrying swords etc).
"One still receives a lesser charge in certain American states for killing a woman who he catches in the act of adultery. "
And in France. And its wrong there too. I`ll say it again, i`m not picking on Islam for the sake of it - it represents a lot of backwards stuff, but so do other cultures/religions. But the other ones arent causing a schism in the UK, and making moronic parties like the BNP look attractive.
"The extremes of a particular group always get on TV"
No, i saw it with my own eyes.
"few hundred Palestinians cheer about "9/11"."
Muslims celebrated that throughout the world. That wasnt on tv though, was it?
"Most of Europe doesn't recognise same-sex marriage"
I was talking about Denmark, which most definitely does.
"So, in fact, the demonstrators you describe are reflecting (rather than opposing) Europe's general opinion. "
Well, keep watching the tv...you`ll see, over the coming years, that Europes general opinion is `no more Muslims, thanks`. At least - i wasnt suprised at the far-right gains in Denmark, Austria and France. Were you? Perhaps i`m more aware of Europes general opinion than you think?
We seemed to agree by the end of your post. There are many criticisms of Islam, which do not seem to be countered terribly effectively by Muslims. Perhaps they should start thinking about changing, or answering them? I`m not a segregationist - other than segregation from people who dont want to fit in. The main criticism of Muslims from racist groups like the BNP is that they take up a lot of tax payers money. They have large families, but often dont work, especially if they dont speak the national language of the country they are living in. Surely theres an argument for saying `sorry, no housing benefit for you, until you show some ability or desire to pay it back`. Otherwise it`ll just rub people up the wrong way, especially in the poor, fucked up areas which are already BNP strongholds.
Remember the attitude of some of the demonstrations -- "you have been oppressing me all these years, finally you get punishment in return." A celebration of death is always insensitive, but it wasn't (just) that. To suggest that would be missing the complete political background to Arabs vs Americans.
Good for Denmark. Europe is a very different set of cultures with very different customs, though. Britain has The House Of Lords, an unelected chamber of parliament which can pass/refuse bills of law. Among other things, it consistently turns down the motion to even equalise gay and straight age of consent (as well as a lot of other nasty things like banning hunting with dogs). I know pretty much nothing about Denmark, I was following Austria enough to see it coming, and the French vote is a bit of a red herring. Few voters in the first rounds of election, a hardcore set of neo-Fascists that get a hell of a lot of TV time, and a huge set of people disillusioned by the main French political parties who choose whatever Third Way they can (who happens to be Le Pen).Meanwhile, back in England, when I went to bed last night there was [ one ] BNP seat won. Blown out of all proportion by half an hour's worth of interviews and speculation, Asian representatives calling them "a bunch of neo-nazi fascist thugs" (which is asking for a fight), etc.
The answer to any views based in religion will be, "because Moses/Jesus/Mohammed said so, and I have faith in him, and if I don't I'll burn in Hell". Asking someone to provide a rational explanation is asking them to renounce their religion, which usually won't happenA couple of generations beyond immigration usually makes the family integrate much better. As long as immigrants are treated well, they won't feel the need to hide away and "protect their own". This is something many Nationalists fail to understand -- the more unwelcoming you are to existing immigrants, the less willing they'll be to fit in.
Well, my attitude is one of compassion, however, I acknowledge some would like to be more selective in who their government helps. I know personally groups of immigrants who 40+ years ago (before my birth!) had to live in shared accommodation as waiters in London for several years (terms said they couldn't change jobs), i.e. certainly no "leeching off the state", just solid hard work or shipped back home. You had to report to the police station at a precise day every few weeks, or shipped back home. You had to stay away from any trouble, or shipped back home. And these guys were escaping a dictator's country (though not the worst).Yes, things have changed. An ex-girlfriend used to live in Northolt, near Southall, a huge Asian area of London. Big families, adherence to tradition, etc. But also, fucking hard work. When you come from a country with no welfare state, you aren't brought up to rely on it. "Work hard or die" is the rule in the majority of the world.
Some British people, and some immigrants abuse the system. I have yet to read evidence that an immigrant is more likely to abuse the system.
Learning enough English to get a job takes a few weeks, and paying for lessons is a simple investment which many community groups could arrange. The problem is when parents prevent children from taking part in lessons (although this is more commonly done for more contentious lessons than language and for out-of-school events), which is of course illegal, and a reason to dive in and help the oppressed kid, not punish the whole family including the children. Isn't a condition of many benefits that you can prove you need them and (more so today) that you are trying to work to get off them? "No housing benefit for you" to those who genuinely can't (yet) find a job (but may later) is just asking to have whole families of immigrants on the streets, which is not only immoral but also will receive much greater objection from the general public.. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but I can see the BNP campaigning for it.An unpopular view is often a stupid view, but some of them are pretty damn sensible and grow into being new norms. Just let them all speak out, and people will use their common sense in judgement. A nation where unpopular views are silenced is a lot more dangerous.
It's like Communism in America. Hardline Communism might be unworkable, but by silencing Communists (a la McCarthy, the CIA in general), you make it less possible to give US citizens insight into the workings of a more socialist nation, so they're stuck believing that their struggle for survival is the One True Way.
Conservative (small c) groups tend to be pretty anti-gay, anti-equality for women. These are the same groups who tend to be anti-immigration. I'm against what you list too, but I won't force people to shut up or leave because they disagree -- I'll simply argue it out with them, or ignore them, and encourage others to do the same. Much more civilised. Who is more "Nazi", those who wish to write racist propaganda, or the British government who makes it illegal to write such propaganda? There are double standards. We consider it disgusting when one group calls for censorship, but not the other. My view is -- let 'em all say what they want (except telling people to cause physical harm, probablyAnything else is insulting the intelligence of a nation with a comparatively reasonable history of free speech.
Agreed. I raised this question as it is an example of popular Western involuntary legalised mutilation. (whether it's harmless or not is up to the individual having it done, and no-one else) To me, this comes under the same category as the gun ownership argument. Easy weapons ownership is practically harmful (see crime/accidents in USA, South Africa), and existing rules here are morally even handed anyway (in the UK, not just any policeman can carry a gun either). In conclusion, walk around in your house with a sword as much as you want, but not on a street you share with others. We're agreed, as long as you don't extend the argument to harmless things such as dress -- hell, I wouldn't even care if people walked around naked, it just makes no difference. I think the blame put on "Arabs" by America for WTC's attack is the reason why anyone anti-Islam is gaining support. I'm pretty sure it's not the result of people making an extensive study of Islamic theory and practice and deciding it to be more disagreeable than any other religion practiced hereAnyway, must.. get.. on.. with.. work...
"it's just one event you saw"
, 69 03,684068,00.html
I just saw 1, though on the tv that evening there was news of similar demos in Germany. But its an example of the insensitivity to the host culture - being deliberately provocative. I`m not saying `she deserved it your honour, look at the clothes she was wearing` but you have to be aware of the reaction your actions are going to cause.
Point taken about being celebrating the WTC attack, and i agree the western media will make the most of it to show that `they are all the same`.
"the French vote is a bit of a red herring"
Well, the right has apparantly between 10 and 25 percent of the public supporting it in France. Presumably they are more likely to vote than others. I`d have said its less surprising about France, and more suprising about Austria, and most recently, Holland:
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0
Cant fault what he says, and neither does a friend of mine who is a bisexual guy with muslim parents (not sure if he calls himself a muslim!)
"The answer to any views based in religion will be..."
Yes, but it comes back to the `when in rome` thing. I wouldnt move to saudi and then start demonstrating against alcohol laws, claim racism if i were arrested for drinking etc. I`d go along, and respect their culture.
This is, i think, the biggest complaint many non-racist people such as myself have. I have friends from all over the world, a black (african-english) ex-girlfriend, and indian gf when i was at Uni etc etc. Everyone seems to be able to fit in...except muslims, who want us to fit in with them (not ALL muslims, but enough to cause a problem with the locals...and not just racist BNP type locals). Why is this?
"I know personally groups of immigrants who 40+ years ago...just solid hard work or shipped back home.... And these guys were escaping a dictator's country"
Yep - same here - parents escaped Nazi germany, other members werent so lucky. I was born here. I`m glad to be in a tolerant country. I dont want it made intolerant by either fundamentalist idiots, or local idiots reacting against ALL people of colour becuase of a handful of fundamentalist idiots.
"however, I acknowledge some would like to be more selective in who their government helps"
So, perhaps you`d agree with the Danes new policy of `no benefits until you`ve been here 7 years`? Whats wrong with that? Wouldnt it make sense if all countries had that system? To put it the other way - people work bloody hard here to earn tax to pay for benefits - shouldnt you have to earn the right to get benefits?
"Isn't a condition of many benefits that you can prove you need them and (more so today) that you are trying to work to get off them?"
So a family of 5 or 6, most of whom cant speak english - a woman who cant possibly go out to work (no local skills, no english, looking after kids) - how are they going to pay anything back to the welfare system? I`m not saying `you have to live on nothing` as its unfair and will cause crime - but what do you tell some granny who just got a 25p a week pension rise that they are being treated fairly when one family can accrue thousands of pounds in benefit.
The recent budget has meant that i`ll be paying more NI, but a couple with children will pay less. Dont you think that will upset some english people too?
I`m no more against foreigners getting housing benefit (or whatever) than english people getting them, if they dont deserve it. But if you`re going to have a system where you get preferential treatment if you are homeless and have children, and if some groups have more children than others, then doesnt that mean, in effect, that those groups are getting preferential treatment? Whether or not that treatment is because they are from that group, or because they have children, will be a subtlety lost on the people complaining, because the effect is identical.
The reason for the up-turn in voting for the Far Right is that those who Didn't Like Immigration Much Anyway were told that the far Right parties (and they're not exactly little Hitlers) would offer them lots more "cool stuff", i.e. less crime, etc. Such parties will never reach criticial mass as long as racism is considered ugly by the general public.
Thanks for the link -- I've just read the article. Let me highlight a couple of arguments:Christianity and Judaism are tolerant
The guy knows as well as I do that such a remark is useful only in gaining more votes "in this post 9/11 world", as Katz would say.
Let's look at Catholicism. "Contraception is wrong". Hence a great number of ex-colonial countries in Africa shooting out babies by the bucketload. "Priests are infallible". Which explains just how long a huge ring of paedophiles can get along in the USA. And watch the Catholic-Protestant tensions in Northern Ireland.
Then there's the belief of some Jews that their race/religion has a right to a particular piece of land, despite the international chaos it will cause -- Zionism. The list goes on.
"In Holland, homosexuality is treated the same way as heterosexuality," he says. Yes, well, it certainly isn't in the USA, indeed, it's quite often illegal. The reason for Holland's freedom is that the state is not religious, not that it is Christian/Jewish. Of course, admitting that would offend a great deal of the voting/lobbying public :-).
The Intolerance of Islam justifies stopping immigration
What about immigrants with no ties to Islam? What about people from predominantly Muslim countries who don't care much for Islam? What about people whose strict upbringing and local laws make it impossible for them to not "act" Muslim, but who might "see the light" when they leave the country?
The man is making gross generalisations.
* * * * *
I wouldn't, but that's because I don't perceive the drinking of alcohol to be a right worth defending. But per my previous point, you'd probably have been anti-monarchy 40 years ago, right? Even though that view was unpopular. If you were in South Africa 15 years ago, and you saw a black man being beaten, and you perceived that you were strong enough to stop the beater, would you turn away, thinking, "when in Rome"? I have no problem not interfering with silly, harmless traditions, but I see no reason to respect oppressive, evil ones. My examples above show that fundamentalism of all sorts interferes with people's good living. And when's the last time a Muslim forced you to do something? Yes, they all preach that you must, but they don't actually make you. Meanwhile, where I used to work, there was a Jehovah's Witness.. who preached that even blood transfusions were Against The Word Of God. How silly is that? And if you want an example of non-religious but irrational "force" based on centuries old belief, just take a look at how we're forced to pay for the monarchy, on pain of imprisonment (i.e. for tax evasion). I'd say that's a lot more scary. What you're doing, I think, is arguing against the welfare state, and in favour of US-style social security "insurance" only, where you have to pay in before you get anything out. This begs the simple moral question -- should I help people who clearly have had worse fortune than me, because it is a good thing to do? If your answer is "no", then you will be against benefits for immigrants. The same moral question answers whether you're against public healthcare and state schooling (remember, children born in the UK haven't "worked bloody hard" to pay for their school or healthcare, indeed, I'm paying for it with my taxes, and I'm resigned never to have children). My answer, as you may have guessed, is that I like that my hard work helps others as well as myself. I dislike it when people intentionally take advantage of me, but it's more important to help 99 honest and 1 dishonest than no-one at all. You tell the government to stop putting so much money into the military, to slash thousands of middle management government jobs, to stop tax loopholes on the Channel Islands, etc. Then, in the extremely unlikely event that there's still not enough money, you give more to the granny and less to the new immigrant. It upsets me the way society favours reproduction. If we were all in danger of dying out, I'd understand it, but this is so far from true. I propose tax breaks for people who do not have children. Can you imagine how fewer kids would exist if people were paid to not have them? Of course, it would save money in the end, as the benefits given for someone to bring up a child would far exceed what they'd pay out to prevent conception. Yes, it's a pity that Catholics, Muslims, etc have "reproduce and increase the faith!" mantras. You have some choices, apart from the status quo:- Stop extra benefits for kids. Then some children get extremely disadvantaged upbringings, may become dead from lack of food / mental wrecks / turn to crime / whatever, through no fault of their own.
- Enforce a limit on number of children, on pain of fine/forced sterilisation/forced abortion/forced adoption, and get accused of being a Nazi.
- Provide strong incentive (as I suggested above) for not having children, and get accused of being a Nazi as follows: "These laws make it easier for the rich to have children! You're trying to produce a super-race of rich people! This is evil!"
Faced with these alternatives, I think the current way is best, no?I`m too busy to continue this conversation at present, but if you like we could continue via email? You seem to have broadly similar views to mine, and it may help convince me that i`m not turning into a reactionary Daily (hate) Mail reader after all!
Feel free to mail.
Christian fundamentalists (and I have yet to meet a creationist who isn't one) require creationism to be true because if it is not their entire religion collapses.
Christian fundamentalists believe that the world was created in 6 literal days (7 if you count the day God got tired) between 6000 and 10,000 years ago. They believe that the first two people on this planet were Adam and Eve. They believe that Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden of Eden for eating the forbidden fruit. They believe that God cursed Adam and Eve and all of their progeny (i.e. us) for this transgression with suffering and death. They believe that 2000 years ago God sent his son/himself down to earth to give those of us afflicted with the curse of original sin a way back into his good graces.
As hard as it is for most of us to understand, they really believe all of that. So here's the rub: If creationism isn't true then there was no Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve then no one ate the forbidden fruit. If no one ate the forbidden fruit then humanity wasn't cursed with original sin. If there was no original sin there was no reason for God to send Jesus down to earth to redeem us from it. No Jesus, no Christianity.
Therefore, in the mindset of a fundamentalist Christian, creationism is the linchpin of their entire faith. That, in a nutshell, is why they will defend it so rabidly in spite of all evidence to the contrary. In the long run it doesn't really matter; dogmatic religion always loses to reality eventually. There was a time not too long ago when Christians insisted that the sun revolved around the earth and they had copious biblical passages to "prove" it. Creationism is going through some noisy death spasms, eventually it will just be an unpleasant memory.