Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Second in a series of articles debating which scientific discipline is responsible for the most significant scientific discovery. Today, Justin Wilkinson argues for Biology.
There are many biological experiments of considerable importance, from Alexander Fleming’s accidental discovery of penicillin through to Pasteur’s swan necked flasks, and the disproof of spontaneous generation. However, the experiment that has saved the most lives of any other experiment ever, and the topic of this article is the development of vaccination by Edward Jenner in 1796.
Over the course of 12000 years it is estimated that smallpox has claimed the lives of almost a billion people, terrorising families across the planet and through the ages. Consider that 400,000 people (twice the current population of Portsmouth) died in Europe every year due to small pox in the latter part of the18th century and that even in 1967; fifteen million people contracted the disease, of whom, 2 million died. The development of ideas around vaccination is thought to have begun in 16th Century China. The inoculation process as it was then, involved the exposure of the patient to an attenuated (weakened) form of the disease. In the case of small pox, instead of injecting the patient with the live form of the virus (which was 30% fatal) a less lethal strain was injected, which was only 1-2% fatal.
Edward Jenner performed a scientific experiment that today would have been morally unjustifiable, but proved his theory, and has gone on to be the principle of disease prevention today.
The experiment itself is surprisingly simple. It was a calculated risk on Jenner’s part – a man trying to save humanity from disease; he heard tell that milk maids did not contract small pox, if they had had cow pox before. On this evidence, he extracted pus from a pustule on a cow maid. On the 14th of May 1796 he took this pus and injected it into; in Jenner’s words “a healthy boy, about eight years old for the purpose of inoculation for the Cow Pox” called James Phipps, inoculating him with cowpox. He allowed the cowpox to set in and for Phipps to recover. Then on the 1st of July 1796 Jenner extracted a sample from a smallpox pustule and injected it into the same boy. James Phipps survived the first inoculation with smallpox and the 20 or so that followed the first.
This experiment led to the first “safe” method of disease prevention – the vaccination. In fact the word vaccination comes from the Latin “vacca” meaning cow named after the cowpox which Jenner used to create a preventative for small pox.
In modern society, the testing of a new medicine on a boy would never be contemplated, let alone executed, yet in those times, it was performed without a second thought. In later life, Jenner gave Phipps a free lease on a house – a reasonable price for being a human guinea pig. In the 1920s Banting and Best were condemned by some for experimenting with insulin on dogs, yet Jenner is hailed as a hero – which to be fair, he does fulfil the criteria, saving the lives of many, experimenting for the greater good and the like.
Today however, medicines undergo rigorous testing to ensure that they are safe for human use, often spending decades in trials. In a time where antibiotic resistance is increasing across the globe, threatening to make even the most minor surgical procedures a dangerous risk once more, one can see the appeal of simply taking action as Jenner did.
Despite smallpox was finally being eradicated, (the last cases were in 1978) some samples have been retained in laboratories for experimental and scientific purposes; now, in the 21st century, vaccinations are once more in the news, with the measles outbreak in Swansea. The outbreak was due to the loss of herd immunity which is basically if a significant proportion of the population are immunised from a disease the likelihood of someone carrying the disease encountering someone who is not immune and transmitting the disease is lowered. The loss of this herd immunity is blamed upon the unfounded scandal caused in the late 1990s with the triple MMR vaccine being criticised for the development of autism. This led to a reduction in parents willing to have their child immunised. This has led to consequences some 30 years later.
In short: Edward Jenner’s straightforward experimentation techniques began the end of the most deadly affliction to affect humanity. In numbers: Smallpox is thought to have killed more people than those who died in both world wars several times over. His discovery laid the foundations of immunisation that have been applied for over 200 years.
First in a series of articles in which writers debate which scientific discipline was responsible for the most important scientific discovery. Daniel Rollins argues for Chemistry.
Antoine Lavoisier (1743 –1794) was a French aristocrat who has been called the “father of modern chemistry”. As well as helping develop the metric system naming both hydrogen and oxygen and first identifying sulphur as an element, he is responsible for many of Chemistry’s basic theories. He proved, for example, that oxygen combined with other elements upon combustion disproving earlier theories about burning. His most significant contribution, however, was his careful quantitative method of experimentation, the weighing out and measuring of chemicals with accurate balances using sealed glass containers to prevent gases escaping. It was through this method that he discovered one of chemistry’s most fundamental laws: the Law of Conservation of Mass.
In his book, Elements of Chemistry (1785), Lavoisier wrote:
"Nothing is created, either in the operations of art or in those of nature, and it may be considered as a general principle that in every operation there exists an equal quantity of matter before and after the operation; that the quality and quantity of the constituents is the same, and that what happens is only changes, modifications. It is on this principle that is founded all the art of performing chemical experiments; in all such must be assumed a true equality or equation between constituents of the substances examined, and those resulting from their analysis."
He proved this by burning several compounds and elements in sealed containers and discovering that the total weight of the container did not change from before the substance was burned to after it had been burnt. In one of his experiments, he burnt sulphur in a sealed container and found that, while the total content of the container kept the same mass, the piece of sulphur he had burnt had increased in mass, showing that that sulphur was reacting with a gas in the air later identified as oxygen. He repeated this experiment with phosphorous and other elements such as tin and lead and found the same result. He also decomposed lead calx (lead oxide) and mercury clax (mercury oxide) and, while the compounds seemed to lose mass as they were burnt, the total mass of the container still remained constant, suggesting that the compounds decomposed and gave off a gas: oxygen.
In yet another experiment Lavoisier proved this was not only true in inorganic reactions but in natural biological processes as well. He placed fruit into one of his sealed glass containers and left it in a warm place for several days to decompose into a putrid pile of rotten matter. After this, he observed that, while the colour, shape and texture of the fruit had changed and water had condensed onto the sides of the glass, the total mass of the container remained unchanged, yet again proving that in any chemical reaction, while the state and combination of elements change, the mass of the matter does not.
Lavoisier, unfortunately, came to an untimely and gruesome end; during the French Revolution, because of his membership of the Ferme Générale, an unpopular group of tax collectors and because of his protection of foreign scientists, he was branded a traitor and executed. He was later exonerated by the French government; the Italian scientist, Lagrange, said of Lavoisier’s death, “It took them only an instant to cut off his head, but France may not produce another such head in a century.” His contribution to Chemistry, although cut short, has remained significant to this day, as he made many of the discoveries that we take for granted now, including the existence of oxygen and hydrogen, the fact that the diamond is a form of carbon and that burning and rusting are reactions with oxygen. His Law of the Conservation of Mass and his methodology, however, are probably his most significant contributions to Chemistry. The entire field of Stoichiometry, in which the relative quantities of reactants and products are predicted and measured, is based almost entirely upon these principles.
The use of closed containers also revolutionised chemistry, moving it from its vague alchemistic past into the modern age. While it may seem obvious now that lost gases affect the results of experiments, it was Lavoisier who insisted on keeping his experiments in “closed systems”, a concept that has now been applied to many areas of Chemistry and even Physics, ensuring that any changes in a reaction are able to be measured accurately and to be reliably understood.
Friday, July 26, 2013
Thursday, July 25, 2013
by Charlie Albuery
Wow, what a list we’ve got here, we’ve spanned brain-bending Inception through to bar-battling Bond, and covered two polar opposites of the begrudging boyfriend genre, but we’ve stayed decidedly earthbound. I’m about to launch this list interstellar. There’s only one film I could pick: STAR WARS!
This has been my favourite film for as long as I can remember, and it’s unique in that it has unparalleled universality; children love the Ewoks and the Jawas, adults can be hugely nostalgic and, of course, it’s simply a brilliant film for those in-between. For those of you who claim to not know Star Wars, you’re just wrong, you cannot possibly go through life without picking up a basic working knowledge of the entire Star Wars universe. Seriously, familiar with Yoda you are, I’m willing to bet.
Now for all those of you who’ve just gone ‘Sci-Fi, ick, that sounds lame’, I get that reaction, honestly I do, but Star Wars, bizarrely, plays more like a fantasy film set in space. There are no dystopian futures and all powerful hive-minds, it’s all awesome laser-swords and magic energy crossbows (that nobody really understands), and that is why I love Star Wars; it keeps what most Science Fiction lacks, a sense of adventure, a sense of childish wonderment, a sense of FUN.
Just to clarify, I’m talking about the first film in the original Star Wars trilogy: A New Hope. The short plot summary is incredibly formulaic; good and bad are in a constant battle where neither side can gain the upper hand. Then ‘A New Hope’ is born (‘he’s Luke Skywalker, and he is here to rescue you’), along with a small group of rag-tag rebels made up of Han Solo (‘he’s a scruffy looking nerf-herder, but he’s cute’), his loyal co-pilot Chewbacca (who is basically a bear) and Luke’s sister (though he doesn’t know it yet), Princess Leia, who take down the Empire and save the Universe.
What makes Star Wars special is that it isn’t the first telling of the story, but the best, which is why so much modern entertainment draws from it to this day, a prime example being JJ Abram’s new series Revolution, which is literally Star Wars with regular swords (it’s even referenced by the inclusion of a vintage The Empire Strikes Back lunchbox in the pilot. Even beyond Sci-Fi, the two leads in the ABC series Suits draw heavily from Han Solo and Luke Skywalker if, y’know, the Force was being a lawyer.
Beyond all of this, what makes Star Wars great is not what I’ve said, it’s what I haven’t said, I have spent hundreds of words discussing a 90-minute film and not mentioned Darth Vader, the most iconic movie villain of all time, or the bizarre range of eccentric alien species featured or even C3P0, the campest protocol droid ever to exist.
So, if you haven’t seen Star Wars, or even if you haven’t seen it in a long time, go and watch it and experience the magic. And, until you do, may the Force be with you.
But remember, if anyone tries to make you watch the original trilogy, IT’S A TRAP! (That was funny if you know Star Wars, I promise).
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
by Katherine Tobin
‘This is a story of boy meets girl, but you should know upfront… This is not a love story’
500 Days of Summer is an untraditional romantic comedy which follows a young greeting-card writer, Tom Hansen (Joseph Gordon Levitt) and the semi-titular Summer Finn (Zooey Deschannel) through the course of their relationship. Despite immediately sounding like your classic rom-com, this is a film which sets out to completely reinvent the audience’s perceptions of love and the generalised beliefs associated with it; it has become one of my all-time favourite films, one of very few which effectively balance comedy and drama and I enjoy watching it today as much as I did the first time.
It is important to note that that this film takes some adjusting to; there is no traditional chronological sequence to be seen here, rather we see scenes from earlier and later in their relationship side by side. Creating an air of mystery, this fresh directorial choice is one that really defines a style for the film and often juxtaposes hugely positive and negative moments against each other seamlessly.
I also enjoy the casting of this film, how well the actors fit into their roles. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Tom with apparent ease, particularly aiding the humorous aspect of the film. Zooey Deschannel as Summer was also perfectly cast, as only she could bring the streak of childishness that so defines her character, which is essential as we see her mature throughout the film. As these actors were relatively unknown at the time, the casting also added to the ‘kookiness’ of the film, making it truly a piece of indie cinema.
I cannot talk about this film without bringing up the soundtrack, not only does it hugely enhance the film, but plays a significant part in the overall experience. Shortly after seeing this film around the fourth time, I bought the soundtrack and can honestly say it’s grown on me to the point where it’s one of my favourite albums. The eclectic mix of anything from Garfunkel to The Smiths suits the creative and original nature of the film perfectly. Personally I believe this film is really, genuinely great, as it has the perfect balance of excellent acting, great music and a truly ground-breaking storyline and film structure.This article was originally published in Portsmouth Point's 'Fight Club' issue, in July 2013.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
by Alex Quarrie-Jones
There are movies that make you laugh, there are movies that make you cry, there are movies that make you jump and movies that just plain confuse you; Inception does all of this. Admittedly it may not be humour that you belt out laughter to, like Dodgeball, or the heart-wrenching moments in Up, but the combination of cinematic aspects added to an intriguing and original premise along with fantastic, compelling and stellar acting from a world cast and currently the best producer and director around ( in my opinion), Christopher Nolan, makes Inception my favourite movie of all time.
The basic premise, if you can call it ‘basic’, follows Dom Cobb (played superbly by Leonardo DiCaprio) who is a master at “extraction”, a form of corporate espionage which requires everyone involved to be in a state of dreaming, or “under” as it’s referred to in the movie. Once the mark is under, Cobb can then extract the necessary information from his or her subconscious and use it in whichever way. However Cobb is plagued by a projection, a subconscious figment of a person, of his ex-wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard). He is assisted by Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who functions primarily as a sidekick and the voice of reason for the majority of the movie. Cobb attempts to go in to hiding but is found by the mark of the failed extraction, Saito (Ken Watanabe), who offers Cobb an opportunity to go home if he performs “inception”, which is effectively the opposite of extraction; instead of taking ideas away, you plant them in the subconscious, via dreams. To undertake inception, Cobb recruits a team composed of Ariadne (Ellen Page), who serves as an architect for the dreams, Eames (Tom Hardy), who can metamorphose within the dreams and Yusuf (Dileep Rao), who creates sedatives and compounds to stabilise the subconscious states. Added this is Saito, who Eames refers to as “a tourist”, and the actual mark Fischer (Cillian Murphy), who is Saito’s main corporate competitor.
There are two key reasons why Inception is the best film I’ve ever seen; its subtle blend of different cinematic aspects, along with a totally credible and original idea and finally, its soundtrack, which was composed by the master of movie music, Hans Zimmer. Firstly Inception does what many other movies fail to do; it is technically indefinable when it comes to genre. This is not only because it includes aspects from different genres but because it delivers a cinematic experience that it is hard to compare to other movies, except of course to other Nolan movies. Rarely is there a movie that every human can relate to but Inception does this, for we all sleep and therefore we all dream. Every time dreaming is brought up the concepts that are talked about sound so plausible that you believe truly in these ideas. For example, the line “Dreams feel real when we’re in them, it’s only when we wake up that something actually seems strange” perfectly describes any dream we experience. In conclusion, Nolan is already very well known for his Dark Knight trilogy, but I would argue that he has another trilogy, of mind-bending but totally engaging films: Memento, The Prestige and, finally, the pinnacle, Inception. It serves as the greatest of the greats and demonstrates that the medium of cinema defiantly contains the potential for “genuine inspiration”.
by Sampad Sengupta
 |
| Michael Clarke and Darren Lehmann contemplate defeat |
After losing to England in a close encounter at Trent Bridge, one would have expected the Aussies to bounce back strongly in the second Test at Lord’s, but it was not to be. The visitors were humbled by England who won by 347 runs to take a commanding 2-0 lead in the 5-match Test series. The home side were well in control of the game barring a few hiccups, and have now left the Australian think-tank with a lot to ponder.
There was no surprise as England fielded an unchanged side from the first Test. Australia on the other hand made a couple of changes, bringing in Usman Khawaja in place of Ed Cowan and quick bowler Ryan Harris to replace Mitchell Stark, and the burly fast bowler ended up picking 5 wickets in England’s first innings. England were first to bat and had a shaky start losing early wickets. It was then down to the Warwickshire duo of Jonathan Trott and Ian Bell to consolidate and build a partnership, the latter went on to score his second century in consecutive Tests. The innings ended with a flurry of runs as Stuart Broad and Graeme Swann put together a handy 10th wicket partnership (last wicket partnerships being the trend in this series so far) to take the score to 361. Australia then came out to bat and failed miserably as a Swann inspired England side bundled out their opponents for a meagre 128 runs. England captain Alastair Cook decided against imposing the follow-on and chose to bat again, looking to build on an already healthy lead. Once again, England got off to a poor start losing three early wickets and ended the day with Joe Root and Tim Bresnan at the crease. The match was being played at a brisk pace, the first innings was over and we were three wickets into the second, and it was only the end of Day 2.
 |
| Man of the Match: Joe Root |
 |
| Swann takes five |
Monday, July 22, 2013
by Alice MacBain
Well I have to say it wasn’t easy to choose. But then I was listening to Gershwin, and heard something which left me in no doubt.
Jerry Mulligan is a struggling painter who spends a lot of his time in Montmartre, trying to sell his paintings. His "very good friends in Paris", Adam Cook (Oscar Levant), is a concert pianist and used to work for successful music-hall star entertainer Henri Baurel (Georges Guétary). Henri shows him the photograph of his 19 year old girlfriend/fiancée Lise Bouvier (Leslie Caron). One day, Milo Roberts (Nina Foch), a wealthy, attractive, American patroness, buys two of Jerry’s paintings. She wants to help him make his way, but he believes that she is only interested in him, not his paintings and tries to leave. She, however, manages to convince him that this is not the case.
At a nightclub later that night, he catches sight of Lise and is instantly captivated by her. He then spends the night and the next day attempting to get her to accept a date with him. Finally she accepts, and they walk along the bank of the Seine and dance until she finally confesses her feelings, as they sing ‘Our Love is Here to Stay’.
What Jerry does not know is that Lise is engaged to Henri, and, in one of the most wonderful songs in the film, the two men sing of their love for someone in ‘S’Wonderful’, unaware of the connection. Only Adam is aware when Jerry tells him of Lise.
At a ball one night, with a black and white theme to contrast with the final scene, Jerry, Milo, Henri and Lise are all together. Lise and Jerry manage to take a moment to say goodbye, as she is leaving to get married to Henri. As he stands on the balcony and has watched her leave, the scene develops into the most beautiful dream sequence that has ever been made. To the music ‘An American in Paris’ by George Gershwin, the ballet is in 6 sections, with the famous fountain featuring at the beginning and the end. The single connection in each section is a red rose that symbolises Lise. At the end of the 17 minute dream sequence, Jerry is left standing, again, on the balcony, with only the rose left.
Of course, there must be a happy ending, and so Jerry looks down to the street where he sees Lise giving Henri a grateful farewell kiss. Henri, who had discovered that Lise loves Jerry, releases Lise from her engagement to him and steps aside. Lise returns to Jerry, running up a long flight of stairs into his arms, blissfully reunited in a loving embrace.
This film is a flawless combination of dance, music and acting. I love the score, written by Gershwin, I love the ballet that is more expressive than words, and I love the range of acting styles and emotions throughout. Although the plotline is mildly predictable, the film is not about what happens in terms of the story; it is about the joi de vivre and determination of the characters.
And finally, possibly, the key feature that makes me love this film so much, is the fact that, despite the last scene being twenty minutes of no speech, there is nothing dull or unimaginative. The lack of need for dialogue is an achievement in itself; not many films have ever been able to replicate it.
This article was originally published in Portsmouth Point's 'Fight Club' issue, in July 2013.Sunday, July 21, 2013
by Tom Harper
Upon my recent exploration of the latest movie archives I was stopped dead in my tracks by Disney and Pixar’s recent announcement of the production of Finding Dory: the sequel to Finding Nemo that no-one asked for nor wanted, and this led me to reflect on how truly sublime all-time classics such as Shrek, Predator and however many Police Academy movies there are out there have been spoiled by the ticking time bomb that is the sequel. Granted, many series such as that of Harry Potter have thrived from their franchises but once in a while the film industry needs to know when it’s beaten, and this seemed to be the case upon the disastrous release of Quantum of Solace in 2008. Not only did the 22nd instalment to the Bond series face drastic budgetary difficulties but also received huge criticism from a variety of sources, including ex-Bond Roger Moore who stated that “There didn't seem to be any geography and you were wondering what the hell was going on!”. Hence one of the greatest film franchises of all time was seen to be heading for disaster, and I must admit that when I first heard of the production of its sequel my hopes weren’t high........
......... but then Sam Mendes came along, the movie was released across the globe to the rapturous applause of previously anti-Bond critics and Skyfall is now not only my favourite Bond film, but in my opinion is one of the best films of all time. This has to be the main reason for why I believe Skyfall deserves the credit it has received: unlike so many other movies it has not only become a sequel that matches if not betters its predecessors, but it has also been able to pull a supposedly doomed franchise out of the gutter on its merits alone (an action which I firmly believe Stephanie Meyer will be unable to repeat with the upcoming release of The Host).
The means by which Skyfall was met with such open arms by critics is the second reason that I adore it: the exceptional acting. Ever since Casino Royale Daniel Craig has sparked the intrigue of film buffs like myself with his darker and more serious adaptation of Bond, and Skyfall was no exception. Throughout the film Craig is able to keep the momentum going as the agent starting to question his authority, with some light-hearted moments and typical Bond one-liners thrown in to keep things interesting. We also see Bond’s character being beautifully complimented by Judi Dench’s M, who at long last rises up to meet the prominent role we have all been waiting for. However, it is clear that the greatest credit must be given to Javier Bardem’s unforgettable portrayal of villain Raoul Silva, whose perversely eccentric personality constantly keeps the audience on its toes from start to finish. The witty banter (whereas really I should say flirtations) that passed between good and evil spelt for some real highlights, and when combined with the mind-blowing soundtrack from Adele as well as the breath-taking locations and stunts this film deserves its reputation as the epitome of what 007 should be.
However this is not all that Skyfall deserves recognition for, as it also brings Bond into the 21st Century. As well as introducing a younger Q sharply played by Ben Winshaw, Mendes manages to take the conventionally dull setting of the London Underground and turn into an action-packed chase scene that still has me reeling many months later. Furthermore the concept of cyber-terrorism being the plot’s focal point helps to modernise traditional Bond conflict and adapt it to more current global circumstances.
Having said this, along with these conventions a true 007 fan would also expect the traditions of gadgets, guns and girls: and yet one finds these barely play a role in the film at all. As Bond rather disdainfully puts it after receiving his armoury “It’s not exactly Christmas, is it”, and although some may argue that this detracts from the franchise I would take the complete opposite side of the debate, because Skyfall does not miss out these conventions but in fact subverts them.
Bond does indeed receive the quirky gadget of a gun attuned solely to his fingerprints which most Bond-viewers would immediately expect to be the key item in defeating the film’s main villain; and yet he loses it relatively early on to a mere henchman to signify how he must defeat Silva with his own skills.
The only love interests of the film take their form as Moneypenny and Severine, who again would cause traditional fans to roll their eyes at the predictable image of more women desperately falling head over heels in love with MI6’s best agent. However, whilst one disappears for the majority of the film the other is killed within minutes of having met her, and so audiences are shown that something more than traditional Bond is transpiring before them. Interestingly, upon the basis of a Bond-girl being 007’s female companion we find that the true Bond-girl of Skyfall is in fact M, hence completely undermining our expectations of the franchise. The film really gets to grips with the turbulent relationship between 007 and his cynical boss, and rather than the majority of the movie being spent with Bond and his companion ready to display their passionate love for one other they are instead ready to tear each other’s eyes out!
Therefore it is not only the tragic death of M at the end of the film that signifies that the Bond franchise will never quite be the same again, as one finds that with Sam Mendes’ expert direction the entire movie drops hints towards a new species of 007 evolving: one that contains inspiring new stunts, actors and concepts whilst still keeping to the basics. This is why Skyfall is my favourite film of all time: as it takes the great and subverts it to the even greater.
An abridged version of this article first appeared in the 'Fight Club' issue of Portsmouth Point magazine, in July 2013.
An abridged version of this article first appeared in the 'Fight Club' issue of Portsmouth Point magazine, in July 2013.
Britain's Chris Froome won the Tour de France today, only the second British cyclist to do so. From the Portmouth Point archives: Fergus Houghton-Connell and Callum Strong discuss the prospects for Froome, Mark Cavendish, Team Sky and British cycling in 2013 and beyond.
Fergus Houghton Connell on Chris Froome:
"La Vuelta is a very different race to Le Tour de France. In the latter, the mountains are, on average, longer than those of the former, so they have a shallower gradient, normally 18% at the most, to compensate for these long distances . . . (Froome) prefers the long climb of the Alps to the conditions in Spain. Overall, the British cyclist will have to wait a while longer for his first grand tour win, but, although he has suffered a minor glitch, his career as a cyclist is far from over. Whether he stays with Team Sky or not, he will most certainly be leading a team in next year's Tour de France. Many people believe that there is still much to come from Chris Froome." Read the rest of the article here.
Callum Cross on Team Sky:
"This term, "the Sky is the limit", in cycling has now been coined in reference to anything that Team Sky want they get. They “want” the Tour de France, so they go out and get the best riders and give them lots of money to ride very hard on the front." Read the rest of the article here.
Callum Cross on British cycling in 2013:
.JPG/200px-Chris_Froome_Tour_de_Romandie_2013_(cropped).JPG)
"La Vuelta is a very different race to Le Tour de France. In the latter, the mountains are, on average, longer than those of the former, so they have a shallower gradient, normally 18% at the most, to compensate for these long distances . . . (Froome) prefers the long climb of the Alps to the conditions in Spain. Overall, the British cyclist will have to wait a while longer for his first grand tour win, but, although he has suffered a minor glitch, his career as a cyclist is far from over. Whether he stays with Team Sky or not, he will most certainly be leading a team in next year's Tour de France. Many people believe that there is still much to come from Chris Froome." Read the rest of the article here.
Callum Cross on Team Sky:
"This term, "the Sky is the limit", in cycling has now been coined in reference to anything that Team Sky want they get. They “want” the Tour de France, so they go out and get the best riders and give them lots of money to ride very hard on the front." Read the rest of the article here.
Callum Cross on British cycling in 2013:
"With a total of 17 British road wins from January to the end of February (5 more than last year), it is shaping up to be a great season. But with this in mind how far can we go this year? Well there should be a Giro d’Italia win for Sir Bradley Wiggins, and a few classics wins shared amongst the rest. With Cav on a new team designed to deliver him to stage wins there should be plenty for him this year as he rapidly approaches his hundredth professional win. Chris Froome is shaping up to potentially win the Tour and with 3 more top tier pro teams this year I think things can only get better."" Read the rest of the article here.
Katie Green's poem, 'Deep Depths', won the Year 8 Leonardo 2013 prize.
Dark waves crashed mercilessly
Against the jagged rocks below.
The almost inky black colour the only
Clue as to the fathomless depth below.
I had to jump.
I had to jump.
I would jump.
I WAS going to jump.
I had to jump.
She asked me if I could hear the music.
I could hear it,
Slow like a lullaby
Over and over in my head.
I should jump?
I shook my head,
Snapping myself out of the trance.
They mustn’t have it.
They would never have it.
I had to jump.
The woman held out her hands to me,
Inviting me.
But I could see the cruelty,
The evil in her eyes.
I had to jump.
I looked down at the precious little bundle in my arms.
So small, so unsuspecting,
Giving no clue as to the power it held as it
Snuggled closer into my arms against the biting wind.
I had to jump.
My babe.
My poor, poor babe.
Unashamed, tears streaked down my cheeks,
For the life it would never know.
I had to jump.
Drawing all my courage around me like a cloak,
I glared at the woman, who had haunted my dreams for years,
And knew that here, it would all end.
And then I was gone, flying through the air down to the freezing depths below.
I had jumped.
Flying,
Falling,
Tumbling.
Down, down until I broke the surface of the water,
And it drew me into a loving embrace as my vision blacked out.
I had jumped, and that set me free.
My eyes snapped open, alert.
I was on my feet in an instant,
Ready to defend the fragile life in my arms.
Around me was grey sky and black beach,
But I just saw hope.
I had jumped to set myself and my child free,
And now the nightmare was over,
And a new dawn arrived.
I had now jumped and now, at last, I was released.Thursday, July 18, 2013
Yesterday (July 18th), Texas became the twelfth US state to pass newly restrictive abortion laws; Grace Gawn makes the case for abortion rights.
Abortion, the termination of a pregnancy, is an issue that continues to spark emotive debate as to its morality, even 46 years after it was made legal in England following the Abortion Act of 1967. Unless the mother’s life is at risk or there is danger of permanent injury to the mother or child, an abortion can only be carried out up to 24 weeks of pregnancy under current UK law. There are a number of reasons why people decide they are against abortions, for example religious belief, and those who advocate full legal protection of embryos and foetuses describe themselves as ‘pro-life’. However, despite the many arguments against it, I strongly believe that women should have the right to decide for themselves whether an abortion is right for them. There are many reasons that a woman could decide to have an abortion; alongside their physical and mental wellbeing there are many other social, economic and emotional factors to take in to account.
It is an unfortunate truth that not every woman who falls pregnant feels as though they are in the right circumstances to raise a child, be it on an emotional or financial level. The reality is that having a child will affect every aspect of a parent’s life; the dedication and time required from a parent is essential to raising a happy and healthy baby, and, if they do not have that dedication to give at a certain time in their life, then it would be unfair on both the child and the parents to disallow the option of abortion. According to a 2013 study, it costs, on average, £222,458 to raise a child, not taking in to account the commitment and sacrifices that also need to be made by any thoughtful parent. In light of these responsibilities, a mother should not be made to feel guilty about wanting to wait until she can provide a good quality of life for her child, and she should certainly not have the choice to wait taken away from her by legislation against abortion. In the words of Sister Joan Chittister, Benedictine nun and co-chair of the Global Peace Initiative of Women: “I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born, but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth.”
Aside from social factors, there are many health issues that could cause a woman to seek an abortion in the best interests of all concerned. For example, the physical and mental burden of raising a child could cause a relapse in a woman with a mental disorder. Also, cancer therapies such as radiation and chemotherapy may adversely affect the growing foetus. Alcoholism can cause Foetal Alcohol Syndrome, potentially leading to deafness, speech defects (including being mute), and vision impairment. Another circumstantial case in which many women feel the option of abortion should remain available to them is after rape; if a woman falls pregnant after sexual assault it is extremely likely that she will want to terminate the pregnancy. Aside from not knowing the father’s history, mental or otherwise, the psychological damage that comes with being raped can often leave victims in a state where they would feel unable to care for a child.
History has shown that, if abortions are made illegal, then this would not necessarily stop them from being carried out. Those that truly believe it is in their best interests to terminate a pregnancy might resort to ‘backstreet’ clinics, forcing them to break the law and in some cases undergo a potentially unsafe abortion. Legalised abortions eliminate the risk this poses and ensures that all pregnancies are terminated in a safe and clinical environment.
Many pro-life believers offer the alternative of adoption instead of abortion. However, very often part of the reason why an abortion is felt necessary is because of the unwanted physical and mental stresses that pregnancy puts on a woman’s body. Although putting a child up for adoption is a solution for those who have decided not to raise the baby when it is born, it does not change the fact that for nine months a woman will have to share her body with a foetus. Pregnancy is stressful on any woman’s body, causing morning sickness and back pains for example, and there are significant risks in carrying a child, such as hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, which are common and associated with increased risk of both adverse maternal and foetal outcomes. Pregnancy is a hard enough experience even when the mother is rewarded with a son or daughter at the end of it, let alone for them to then give away the baby. This is further complicated by psychological issues that can be caused by having to give away a child after carrying it for the full term. Adoption can, in many cases, be as difficult a decision to make as deciding to terminate a pregnancy, and especially if the reason a woman is looking to abort is because she is not mentally ready to care for a child then she equally may not be in an emotional position to give away a child either.
This article was originally published in Portsmouth Point Magazine, July 2013
Read Dan Rollins' article, "Why Abortion Should Not Remain Legal"
Yesterday (Wednesday, 17th July), gay marriage was legalised in England and Wales after receiving Royal Assent. Here, Jo Kirby makes the case for gay marriage.
Wednesday, 17th July was a landmark victory for progress and equality. Despite fierce opposition from many and claims that allowing equal marriage equates to supporting incest, bestiality, paedophilia and polygamy, MPs and peers voted by convincing margins to legalise same-sex marriage.
So what had all the fuss been about? Responses from those who opposed the bill varied from outright disgust to claiming that such unions are ‘unnatural’ or ‘sinful’. As Britain's former most senior Catholic Cardinal Keith O’Brien* put it, equal marriage is “A grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”. However, the very nature of a human right is that it is available to all humans. Marriage is a right which should be available to everyone regardless of their gender or sexuality. The bigotry of those who oppose same-sex marriage must be challenged and exposed as hypocritical and unjust. Equal marriage is already available in 8 out of the 10 European countries surrounding Britain. This bill should not be seen as controversial but as a rational next step in implementing legislation which protects the human rights and equality of every member of our society.
Many Tory MPs and religious opponents of the bill base their case on the claim that marriage is a sacred institution. As David Simpson MP so eloquently put it “This is an ordained constitution of God. In the Garden of Eden it was… Adam and Eve. It wasn’t Adam and Steve”. Regardless of the fact that Simpson seems unaware that science has superseded mythological narratives, especially in the 150 years since Darwin, the argument that marriage is sacred seems somewhat outdated. Marriage is not owned by religion. Over 60% of marriages in the UK today are conducted in secular ceremonies. It seems that for the majority of British people the religious aspect of marriage is losing its significance. Sir Roger Gale MP opposed equal marriage for failing to protect the sanctity of marriage. He’s on his third wife.
Other MPs object to equal marriage on the grounds that it breaks tradition. However, the nature of marriage has always adapted to the times. If this was not the case, interracial marriages would be prohibited, wedlock of children would be permissible and parents could arrange the marriages of their children from birth to suit their financial needs. The exclusively heterosexual nature of marriage has not always been the tradition. More than one Roman Emperor married a man until same-sex marriages were outlawed in 342CE. Marriage has changed in the past. It is time for it to change again.
Many MPs raised particular concern over the potential for adultery in same-sex marriages. Nadine Dorries MP for example, refused to support the bill because, according to her, same-sex marriage does not require faithfulness. Mrs Dorries makes this claim despite having conducted an affair with a married man herself. Some straight people are unfaithful but we don't respond to this by banning them all from marrying. Why are LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered) people any different?
One of the most incoherent arguments against same-sex marriage is that it is immoral because it does not allow for the possibility of children. Should we, therefore, ban heterosexual couples from marrying because they don't want children? Or, perhaps we should conduct fertility tests on couples after their engagement, banning anyone infertile from the opportunity to marry. Clearly this would be ridiculous. It also fails to recognise the many LGBT couples who do have children and who provide them with loving and safe homes. Same sex couples are biologically incapable of procreating with each other but so are many straight couples - this is not a good enough reason to exclude them from the right to marry.
Thankfully it now appears that such bigotry is becoming increasingly unacceptable. Bigots fail to see why partial equality is inadequate. LGBT people can already enter civil partnerships in the UK. Why do they have to fight for full marriage rights as well?
The fact is, a civil partnership is not a marriage. As Lord Tebbit declared in 2010, "We should be utterly, completely and absolutely clear that a civil partnership is not a marriage, cannot be a marriage, never will be a marriage and should be treated entirely separately from marriage." This separation clearly shows the lack of equality and perpetuates the discrimination of same-sex couples. Civil partnerships were a great step towards equality but it is time for this ideal to be fully realised.
The progress made in Parliament towards introducing equal marriage must be celebrated, not condemned. Let's not forget that marriage is about love. It creates a strong union based on commitment, stability and trust which benefits the couple, families and society. These benefits are just the same for same-sex marriages. The people who will be practically affected by this bill are couples who want to celebrate their love by having their union recognised formally. Shouldn't we welcome such commitments as beautiful and hopeful?
No one is asking religious institutions to conduct these ceremonies against their will. No one is trying to reinterpret marriage for straight people. All that is being asked is that same-sex couples who love each other and who want to spend the rest of their lives together are able to have an equal opportunity to marry. Same-sex marriage must be welcomed as progress that will strengthen the bond between same-sex couples. It will enhance, not compromise, the institution of marriage. Yes, this may seem a romanticised ideal but isn't that what marriage is all about?
* Unfortunately, there is not space here to explore the irony of Keith O’Brien’s subsequent exposure as a homosexual man unable to deal healthily with his sexuality. This resulted in his forced resignation from. Poignantly, his situation could have been so different had the equality which this bill offers been in existence when he was a young man.
This is an updated version of an article originally published in Portsmouth Point magazine, in July 2013 and published on the blog (here) on 10th February, 2013 .
Read Simon Lemieux's article making the case against gay marriage here.
Yesterday (Wednesday, 17th July), gay marriage was legalised in England and Wales after receiving Royal Assent. Here, Simon Lemieux makes the case against gay marriage.
If you are anticipating (or dreading) a piece full of vitriol and quotes from various sacred texts condemning homosexuality, then you will be disappointed with what follows. The case I want to make against gay marriage here is not based upon any particular faith perspective nor, I hope, on unfounded prejudice. A strong and I believe persuasive argument can, I think, be made on the basis of reason, equity and democratic principles alone.
At first glance, the argument in favour of gay marriage looks persuasive and engaging. Roughly put, the case runs along the lines of the traditional argument over anti-discrimination and injustice. Like the rights of women, racial minorities and the disabled before, gay marriage is about promoting equality and opposing discrimination. But here we hit the first flaw in the argument. There is a fundamental difference between the rights of the groups just listed and the gay community. For all those in the first group, their status is imposed not chosen; the situation with sexuality is altogether more complex. There is not space here to go into a proper discussion of gay genes, and whether or not someone is ‘born gay’. Suffice to say, there are no finite conclusions and the accepted position is to view sexuality as a sliding scale rather than a black or white distinction, and that there are a number of factors that determine one’s position on that scale. A significant proportion of it is down to environment and even choice, rather than purely accident of birth. In short, people are born male, mixed race or with disabilities in a way that they are not born straight or gay. Why does this matter? Simply because it means the debate from the start is slightly different to the ones about full equality for other groups who have been discriminated against so wrongly.
Yet by itself that is hardly a clinching argument against gay marriage. Surely discrimination even against a lifestyle choice is to be opposed? Here we enter interesting territory, and the ‘separate but equal ‘argument. The key point is that we already have ample laws that protect the rights and interests of homosexuals. There is legislative equality in areas of employment, property rights, inheritance law and, more controversially, child adoption. A civil partnership, for example, confers equal legal rights to both partners, as marriage does to a husband and wife. Will homosexual couples be better protected legally by gay marriage? Equally, since heterosexual couples cannot enter civil partnerships, arguably it is discrimination against them to allow homosexuals alone a choice between marriage or civil partnership. In a modern liberal democracy, why not maintain different but equal categories for partnerships of intimacy? And, unlike the pre-civil rights USA, separate but equal in this case would actually be truth rather than fiction.
Yet what is it about the ancient institution of marriage that makes it so special, and best reserved for the two genders? After all, surely it has evolved and altered its nature radically over time. No longer can husbands beat their wives with impunity or even vice versa. Women no longer have to hand over all their financial resources to their husband upon marriage. Yet, crucially, although marriage, even its permanence, has evolved considerably in the last hundred years, gay marriage will do something crucial: it will fundamentally re-define it. For centuries, civilisations have recognised the importance and value to society of having an enduring and exclusive union between one man and one woman. Its uniqueness is that it embodies and reflects the distinctiveness of men and women; therefore, removing that complementarity from the definition of marriage is to remove any widely recognised social institution where gender difference is acknowledged. The distinctiveness of marriage will be lost forever. If gay, and thus ungendered, marriage becomes legal, make no mistake, we cannot treat it as a social experiment to ’see how it works out’. The change will be permanent, the consequences everlasting. We need to be absolutely certain that this is a move for the benefit of society as a whole, and the clear will of a significant majority of the population. This leads on neatly to another point: the absence of a democratic mandate.
Marriage is an institution ‘owned’ (if that is the right word) by us all, not by politicians. Yet a pledge to introduce gay marriage was not in the manifestoes of any of the main political parties in 2010. The public consultation was largely a sham, beginning with a ‘how’ rather than ‘whether’ question, which was only changed half way through the consultation. The online response was anonymous and open to people anywhere in the world as often as they liked. The final ‘result’ of 53%-46% in favour was only achieved by ignoring half a million names who very clearly said ‘no’. By contrast, a YouGov poll in March 2012 found 47% opposing and 43% supporting gay marriage. Even allowing for the fact that opinion polls and online consultations are not precise barometers of public opinion, I think everyone can agree there is currently no overwhelming support for this re-definition of marriage. It is arguably more about the current PM’s desperate attempt to modernise his own party’s image, and prove that it is not led by public school educated toffs out of touch with ordinary voters. The surge by UKIP (who incidentally oppose gay marriage while supporting civil partnerships) at the local elections recently, while undoubtedly part of a wider protest vote, is suggestive that Cameron’s tactic has backfired. Yet, in the end, does it really matter, can the consequences of re-defining marriage really be all that problematic? What is wrong with the ‘live and let live approach’?
Here we encounter the matter of unintended consequences. Firstly, how will those who continue to believe in traditional marriage be protected? Presumably, state funded schools will be required to teach both marriage options as part of the National Curriculum. What about teachers for whom that conflicts with their moral or religious beliefs? Will they be able to refuse to teach it or will they be forced out of a job? What about parental choice in the matter? Currently, and quite rightly, parents have the ability to have their children withdrawn from sex education and RE lessons. Will this extend to teaching about marriage and the family? Will the freedom to advocate traditional marriage be construed as a homophobic hate crime? What about council registrars who have a conscientious objections to same-sex marriage – will their rights be protected? Probably not, given that in a recent case the European Court confirmed that a public authority can force employees to act against their beliefs and sack those who resist. The case involved an Islington registrar who wished not to perform same-sex civil partnerships. The pro-gay lobby often speaks the language of liberalism, freedom and respect. The reality is that scant tolerance is shown to those who agree to disagree with them. The dangers of an intolerant liberalism loom large. There is also the danger of sleepwalking into even more radical re-definitions of marriage. If same-sex, why not multiple unions? Sounds absurd and Daily Mail alarmist? In the Netherlands, three-way partnerships have already been given legal recognition through a ‘co-habitation’ agreement. In Mexico City, two-year fixed-term marriages have been introduced. No need for divorce, just don’t renew the marriage, a bit like a magazine or club membership description really. Yes, once the Rubicon has been crossed, don’t expect same-sex to be the final destination in the overhaul of marriage. It might well become an institution devoid of any expectations of permanence or exclusivity. Finally on this point, same-sex marriage advocates argue it will strengthen not weaken the institution. Experience in other countries suggests otherwise. In Spain, overall marriage rates fell by 20% in the six years following the introduction of same-sex marriage, and a significant fall was also reported in Holland.
There is not space in this short piece to discuss the undoubted benefits to society of our existing definition of marriage, scarred and fragile as it is, or to mention the second order issues of the proposed legislation, such as what it says about adultery and non-consummation which will enshrine inequality between opposite and same-sex marriage. In summary, though, same-sex marriage is unnecessary, unwanted by the majority and will doubtless lead to unintended consequences. Be careful of what you wish for. As they frequently say in Dragons Den, ‘I’m out!’
This article was originally published in Portsmouth Point magazine, in July 2013
Read Jo Kirby's article supporting gay marriage here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
