The evolving nature of family relational ceremony, protocol and ritual, as exponentially accelerated by the internet

I sometimes day-dream about coming up with a woolly thesis title like this, and having some lunatic of an institution pay me a couple of years salary, to eventually go sit on a beach and write some tripe about it. This one would be about how  the accepted social protocols change over time in the light of fewer people formerly marrying before having children, and more people having children with different partners.

One thing I’ve noticed my friends (on Facebook) doing is giving their children the mother’s surname as a middle name. Mostly in the case of the mother having retained her surname after marriage, or having not married at all, but in one case this has happened when the mother is married and HAS changed her surname.

My wondering is if this kind of meme is accelerated by on-line social networks. But the answer is probably that every meme and idea is accelerated in this way.

I’d then go into the changing expectations assigned to gender roles in the family unit as more women go back to work early after having children. The lessor emphasis and expectation on men to provide money for the family, and lessor expectations on women to have control and final say over family and household affairs.

Funding application: Rejected.

Cameron/Brown: Management Material?

I continue not to buy the narrative that the Cameron Tories are putting a caring-sharing-centerist sheen on a right-wing hog. The accusation seems to come from the same place that the 1997 election attacks on Tony Blair for being a closet left-wing extremist.

The attacks on Blair were doomed to fail because it looked paranoid and deluded. The fact that in reality it turned not only to look that way, but to BE paranoid and deluded means its less likely to work on Cameron.

I shy from the easiness of ‘politicians are all the same’ but neither party is offering a huge shift in ideology. When people go to the ballot box i think a lot of them will be voting for which ever leader they think will be the best manager, the strongest CEO, charismatic communicator and has the ability to implement the polices which all parties seem to agree. Inspiring stuff !

It’s a sorry state of affairs for a democracy when people have to vote tactically as opposed to voting for a party which represents their views. I’ve come to realise that electorial reform is a crucial issue for me this time round. My hope is that the three parties end up neck and neck in terms of the popular vote then it will become obviously unfair that the Lib Dems get such a low percentage of seats (because their support is well spread throughout the country).

The Tories want First-Past-The-Post to remain, because it suits them, Labour want to bring in a nonsense half-hearted system which would only serve to give Lib Dem voters the chance to decide whether the Tories or Labour should win in a close battle. We need to get away from fetishising the constituency MP, we don’t need it, its crazy that we feel we have a right to ask our local MP to do us personal favours or help us out with housing problems! we send them to westminster to vote and debate on maters of state, just bloody stay there, stop feeling you have to help Mrs Smith with her broken drains, leave that to councillors.

Single-Transferable-Vote would mean that some fringe parties (BNP) get in to parlement, but frankly its right that they should. If they have 2% of the vote, they should have 2% of the MPs. If the Respect party get 5% of the popular vote they should have about 20 MPs. At least that way people who support these parties don’t feel disenfranchised, which is ultimately what leads to a lack of social cohesion.

[rant o'clock]

Rolling Stones, overrated

In terms of ‘body of work’   The Rolling Stones are really over praised I think.

There are definitely 4 or 5 tracks that when I hear them on the radio make sit up and take notice, but I could equally say that about AC/DC ! Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Their contribution was maybe more to do with the narrative and legend of Rock n Roll.

I know that The Beatles were more of a studio band, but they left behind at least 20+ tracks which are truly great pieces of music and art. 4 or 5 is maybe even being generous to Mick, Keef and the boys.

Scrap TV Licence, not the BBC

TV Licence is an unfair flat tax, which is too easily avoided and costs too much to administer. When it was introduced TV was a luxury item so it was unfair for those that don’t use it to pay for it, but now it’s so ubiquitous that it should be paid for by income tax revenue. Therefore making it a progressive taxation and fairer on those who can least afford it.

Just do it! there’s no good argument against, is there?

The fun subject of Alzheimer’s

There are times in life when mortality is to the fore and you finds yourself having discussions along the lines of ‘so do you want to be buried or cremated?’. Weirdly i find myself thinking that i need to leave a list of passwords and on-line account information somewhere my Mrs could get them, gap in the market? I’ve had one of these mortality chats recently, initiated by Life Insurance applications and family members’ health scares.

So, organ donation? yeah fine  whatta i care if i’m dead and gone, and by showing willing while alive it encourages others, which may help me or my family. Buried or cremated? don’t care. Maybe if i die young-ish it might be helpful for my kids to have a plot to visit to realise my one-time existence.

I don’t fear death, because i won’t be here/there to feel/care.  I do though want to live a long time because I enjoy life and i would rather be than not be. I care about my loved ones, and how my death would affect them, hence the life insurance.

What i don’t want is to have Alzhimer’s or be physically incapable of looking after myself. My grandmother had it for 5-10 years and lived in a home for most of that time, not recognising anyone, she was no longer the person I knew, she was perhaps, no longer a person, she held no real memories or moral thoughts or future aspirations. That’s something i don’t want for myself or my family. Why can’t i hold a card in my wallet which expresses my wish to be euthanised if I develop Alzheimer’s? ‘I’ am not my body, ‘I’ am my ability to act as a human, relate to those around me and have memory.

Monday Morning Reality Check

The great majority of people will never again go back to paying for music. It has become an anathema to the young, and kids who are tweens today will find it arcane that people used to have to pay for each song and album. In fact, ‘album, what was that daddy?’ is what they’ll say.

People WILL pay for a good media delivery service. Being a musician may no longer be the career option it once was, but maybe then we’ll get better/less art.

The Superdry Blue Check Shirt

Something i have noticed recently is the number of guys who own a SuperDry Blue Lumberjack Check Shirt. It’s the ’Little back dress’ for men.

I was at a dedication service for my cousin’s new baby on Sunday, and two people were wearing it, then at the lunch afterwards one other person was wearing, and today in work someone is wearing it. I have one, and the last time i wore it someone said to me ‘my husband has that shirt’.

The weird thing is that in the SuperDry shop there is a choice of 5 or 6 shirts in the same style, all slightly different colours and shades but everyone (including me) seems to go for the navy blueish one. A trivial phenomena.

Taxation and fairness

No taxation without representation. That was the cry of the pre-revolutionary Americans and the British refusal to give full and fair democratic representation in return for their payment of tax was the spark of the revolution. Tax is a hot potato! (yep, with that phrase you’ve realized that I know absolutely nothing about economics!)

Progressive taxes are something I’ve known about and never really questioned until someone recently tried to explain the rationale behind it to me. I like to pepper things with questions to see how they can stand up and to my honest surprise i was a little less  convinced than i thought i would.

Ok, in general terms a new teacher earning £25k will pay about 20% tax – £5,000, a head teacher with many years work and experience who earns £80k will pay £16,000. The head teacher will of course miss this money less, because he’s pretty well off. Sounds fair doesn’t it?

Well, kinda. The head teacher doesn’t get any more say in how the country is run for his extra money, and he’s worked hard and been ambitious enough to get himself up to that level of pay, its his money why should he have to give £11k more to the government if he’s only going to receive the same level of services (heath/education) as the new teacher? Would it not be fairer to set a fixed sum? or maybe just use spending related VAT as a replacement for income tax? (whadda i know!)

But of course the figures above aren’t actually correct. We actually tax the head teacher at a higher rate, the head teacher will actually pay about £26k in income tax! Not only do we expect people who have earned more money to pay more, we actually expect them to pay a higher percentage of their income. He’ll get no more representation in parliament, he’ll get no better health service or roads or education.

Fair enough? maybe, maybe not.  In a true democracy we can never have rich people having more of a voice in parliament, but in a true meritocracy can it ever be fair to have financial penalties for success?

Social, Moral, Relational & Libertarian failure

If there was ever an image that offended the French ideals of Liberté, Égalité & Fraternité it’s this.

I’ll maybe leave it at that, as opposed to descending down the whirlpool of trying to define the nature of true freedom.

The completely innocent Kitty Ussher

Treasury minister Kitty Ussher has quit the government after further questions were raised about her expenses. Almost a daily ritual now isn’t it, barely makes the news.

Ms Ussher took the step amid reports she “flipped” the designation of her Burnley home shortly before selling it in 2007, avoiding capital gains tax. She of course said that she’d don’t nothing wrong, pft, she would say that wouldn’t she.

But hang on, she didn’t do anything wrong, in fact she did the right thing as far as I can see. So now we have Ministers resigning because The Telegraph wants to keep its readership bump going. Ministers are now so submissive to it that they just resign at the first sign of their name being mentioned, they have been tried in the court of media and public opinion and found wanting.

Her crime was this – taking the advice of her accountant on how to avoid tax. But hang on! That’s exactly what an accountant is for! I’ve had the fortune/misfortune to use an accountant over the past couple of years, his job is to help me pay all the taxes and need to pay and to structure things so I can avoid paying unnecessary tax. The idea that I, as a novice would listen to his advice and then start making moral judgements on it is nuts. Its even MORE nuts for a government treasury minister to do this, imagine her being interviewed on The Today Show…

‘So Ms Ussher your job is to take the advice of financial experts when it comes to affairs of state, but in this case you took th eadvice of an expert and then you decided it was  morally wrong to ‘flip’ your house to avoid tax, are you saying that he law is wrong on this? are you saying that the government of which you are a member has immoral tax law?”

Goodness she should have to resign. Any government minister who has made any personal judgement on how much tax they should pay should resign!  It sets a crazy precedent, we should all pay exactly the amount of tax we are required to within the law, no more and no less, if we wish to give anymore we should give to charity.

Lets not expect more from our MPs than we do from ourselves.