Transparent Castration

The hazy vagueness of the illusory incompetent UK government shows that it is still healthy. And becomes more and more transparent by the day. When looked at with the focus on votes and popularity, it gets even clearer. Human rights are used as a 'flag of convenience'. When something IS NOT favoured by government, then the human rights card is shown. When something IS desirable, even though voices should be heard screaming about abuse of such 'rights', there is a predictable silence. Even the news media seems to be warned off. The 'human rights' issue is totally ignored. There are these Downing Street press briefings, after all. The need to know can mean what is not to be publicly disclosed. To be spun or distorted (perhaps). Don't overlook Cherie Blair. When human rights are considered it is nearly always either the rights of the one OR the other, but usually the wrong one. The perpetrator OR the victim? But there is little money to be made protecting common sense. It is as though it is the victim's fault... for being the victim. They shouldn't have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. They should have been... somewhere else. It is your human right to be somewhere else, so you should exercise it. What human rights does a murder victim have? Come on Cherie, let's have a smart answer to that one, though I suspect it will be along the lines of the data protection act: dead people have no rights.

• Incidentally, the Data Protection Act (the theory) can be used very cynically: should you want to find out about possible executor fraud, the data protection act fails to protect dead people by assisting the living (suspect embezzler) and allowing free reign to embezzle the estate of the dead person. [Hello, Ray: are you dead yet?] 

A cyclical argument and ring fencing the guilty. Protecting their 'human right' to defraud and a perverse method of redistribution. Another (New Labour) government ploy to keep secret knowledge a secret. The Freedom of Information joke is used as convenient: when such information is not desirable to be in the public domain, then it is kept out of the public domain. Free access to any information can still be denied. Hence the term 'joke'.

So, the chemical castration of paedophiles. Presumably, anything chemical is theoretically reversible. Castration isn't reversible. But how about including serial rapists too? Or any sexual abuser? Or any other nasty 'undesirable'? The typical cop-out is that individuals have no mental power over their 'uncontrollable urges' and so are not responsible for their actions. This attempts to excuse those actions. So called 'will power' is absent. Or it's actually present and defended thereby defining 'uncontrollable' desire. This is only the balance between desires being tipped one way or the other. It's easy to 'give in' to an undesirable desire, but too difficult to even THINK about changing it. Like giving up smoking or drinking.

More realistically, these 'uncontrollable urges' are simply enjoyable and there is absolutely no intention to stop having them. It could mean mental anguish to even make an attempt and that would infringe 'human rights'. Why has nobody (yet) claimed it a 'human right' to smoke and so pollute the atmosphere. Tobacco is a naturally occurring substance. And so is air, but not air polluted with the products of tobacco's destruction (this book concerns the excess of 8,400 chemical components). It is not even a 'human right' to commit suicide: take YOUR OWN LIFE. To be the cause of your own death. The state owns that too. But only because you may be trying to excuse yourself from paying taxes by so doing. It seems it is your 'human right' to be stupid, incompetent or error prone (a serial 'mistake-maker'). Logicality suggests that if you accidentally lose a leg or arm, even as the result of a self-directed accident with a chain saw, it is your 'human right' (presumably) to have two legs and two arms. You should be compensated for your loss.

Logically speaking, it must be your 'human right' to be born perfect. Physically and mentally. So, it would be up to a psychiatrist to determine whether your 'human rights' have been abused by virtue of a potential birth defect. And if you have influence, position, money... you could probably make the state responsible for your additional influence, position, money... Most would instantly think that's ridiculous. Absolutely, but total confusion is logical to the inept.

Remember this: birth status has absolutely no bearing on any ability for anything. But those influential to your circle do. The David Cameron route to Oxford via prep school and then Eton virtually guarantees passing through successfully. Whether this is truly earned or bought would form a fascinating debate. Then there's George W. Bush: a very different route, but possibly with the heavy (unknown) influence of others. The mess can get messier if common sense is allowed to be considered. Remove common sense and everything seems clearer. Not more sensible, just clearer. More transparent. So there's the answer

Transparency means the absence of common sense

Transparent government means complete inconsistency. A total lack of logic. Conclusions based on flawed reasoning. Favoured ideas of the day grab popularity. So very transparent, but the thinking (logic) is typically clear as mud. A mess.

The paradox here is surely that an
inconsistency in logic is
itself consistent logic