A note to my neighbours, thoughts on America and child trafficking. (Not related.)
Dear lovely upstairs neighbours,I was in the bathroom the other day when I heard a strange rhymthic beeping sound. It turned out not to be a new feature on my toothbrush but in fact your microwave, signalling that whatever tasty treats you were cooking were now ready. Huzzah!
Along with this realisation came one centring on the possibility of this being a two way conduit. If I can hear your tiny beeping noise then there's a chance that you can hear my substantially louder voice ringing out. Here's a diagram to illustrate:
[Diagram of their microwave and me singing in the shower]This note has only one purpose - to say sorry if you have heard me singing. Getting a backrub from a syphilitic baboon is an experience only slightly less unpleasant than listening to meĀ croon, and I apologise unreservedly if you've heard me.
Yours etc,The guy downstairs.PS - I know this is a little weird, but I felt bad.
-----
I went to a free talk on Thursday at the House of Lords centring on child trafficking and slavery. A good range of speakers were present, and their material was for the most part very interesting, as was the discussion afterwards. The one fact that I found compelling enough to note down is as follows: The United Nations has put together a manifesto on the human rights of children, explicitly defining them as human beings in their own right and not as younger versions of adults. Every single country in the UN has ratified this document except for two: Somalia, and the United States (with the latter persistently voting against any measure that includes all member countries ratifying the document). Somalia is a war torn wasteland, but the US? Further documentation released earlier that week shows how the US defines their "poverty line" - of the 13% beneath it, 80% have full time air-conditioning, 22% a dishwasher, and 50% have two or more cars. This can hardly be a country concerned that any clarification of child rights will somehow harm their statistical interpretation. From the above it would seem that their children in poverty are still for the most part doing better than one might expect in any other country. The document's ratification didn't include mandatory action commands, or indeed hint at any external influence being placed on the localised government. So why does the US object? The gentleman speaker from UNICEF who was relating this issue stressed the document's role in really solidifying the rights of children as entities in themselves rather than legal addendums. It seemed in stark contrast to the US' habit of referring formally to under 18s as "minors" as opposed to teenagers, pre-teens, or any other more descriptive phrase that steps away from such an austere and bland label. That's pure conjecture I admit, but it's the only related thought I can dredge up to shed any kind of light on the issue (even if in this case it's a badly flickering one). The organiser of the talk seemed quite keen on explaining it away as "well the US just think 'we can do what we want we don't need you'", but that's a statement rooted more in bias than careful consideration of the issue. Anyone have any ideas? Why would the US ally themselves with Somalia, of all places, in being one of the few countries on the planet unwilling to agree to the explicitly written down human rights of a child? Pure stubbornness? Or something much more macarbe? I have some grade-A conspiracy theories banging around in here, but would prefer a sensible discussion if possible :)
-----
I went to a free talk on Thursday at the House of Lords centring on child trafficking and slavery. A good range of speakers were present, and their material was for the most part very interesting, as was the discussion afterwards. The one fact that I found compelling enough to note down is as follows: The United Nations has put together a manifesto on the human rights of children, explicitly defining them as human beings in their own right and not as younger versions of adults. Every single country in the UN has ratified this document except for two: Somalia, and the United States (with the latter persistently voting against any measure that includes all member countries ratifying the document). Somalia is a war torn wasteland, but the US? Further documentation released earlier that week shows how the US defines their "poverty line" - of the 13% beneath it, 80% have full time air-conditioning, 22% a dishwasher, and 50% have two or more cars. This can hardly be a country concerned that any clarification of child rights will somehow harm their statistical interpretation. From the above it would seem that their children in poverty are still for the most part doing better than one might expect in any other country. The document's ratification didn't include mandatory action commands, or indeed hint at any external influence being placed on the localised government. So why does the US object? The gentleman speaker from UNICEF who was relating this issue stressed the document's role in really solidifying the rights of children as entities in themselves rather than legal addendums. It seemed in stark contrast to the US' habit of referring formally to under 18s as "minors" as opposed to teenagers, pre-teens, or any other more descriptive phrase that steps away from such an austere and bland label. That's pure conjecture I admit, but it's the only related thought I can dredge up to shed any kind of light on the issue (even if in this case it's a badly flickering one). The organiser of the talk seemed quite keen on explaining it away as "well the US just think 'we can do what we want we don't need you'", but that's a statement rooted more in bias than careful consideration of the issue. Anyone have any ideas? Why would the US ally themselves with Somalia, of all places, in being one of the few countries on the planet unwilling to agree to the explicitly written down human rights of a child? Pure stubbornness? Or something much more macarbe? I have some grade-A conspiracy theories banging around in here, but would prefer a sensible discussion if possible :)