You should have seen the awe-struck expressions when people found out we lived on this road.  The respect is gone from these same people’s eyes.  We can no longer hold our heads up.

We miss the opportunity to say to the police, “No, officer, we are not drunk!” as we swerve from one side to the other in order to circumvent this obstacle course of potholes while avoiding a collision with oncoming traffic.

Those days are gone.  The city finally decided to repave the entire length of the street, not just a patch job.  Even the grooved pavement left after the initial tarmac scrape-up was a 95% improvement on what had been there.

Oh, what a loss.  Our neighbors must feel it deeply as well.  Three of them just put up  “For Sale” signs.

Supposedly, these fanatics are Bible readers.  If that is so, doesn’t the Bible state that the end is unknown?  Therefore, if everyone knows the end and prepares, wouldn’t that mean that day is the least likely for it to occur?

Nonbelievers have pointed out: 1.) What is stated in the Bible is just one person’s interpretation of it.  The Bible stories have been retold and retranslated so many times, we cannot know what the original said or intended to say.  2.) What is meant by Judgment Day?  Is it an individual person’s judgment?  Is it the end of the world or the end of a civilization?  Is it the final reckoning?

One colleague says it’s the day when the dead come back to life to receive their judgment.  Interesting.  We’ll be having zombies walking about – if anyone sees me walking around staring off into space, I hope they’ll remember what day it is.

Another said that the believers will be taken up to heaven and the rest will be left behind.  Does that mean they’ll have another Judgment Day for the rest?

My question would be, is it 21st May for everyone everywhere in the world?  Right now, it’s already that date in Australia, so do we only have a few more hours?

If the end is here, I ought to play the lottery.  It would be the one day that I would win.

In the same great tradition of modern-day political journalists, I’d like to contribute my own analysis of the recent political debate between the three major candidates, using the photo above.

The issues at stake in this election: the budget, jobs, immigration.  Scratch that.  Style, poise, eye contact, sound bites, tone.

Nick Clegg sounded and looked good at the first debate, but Gordon Brown and David Cameron came back in the second.  To the third and final debate, it could have been neck and neck and neck.  Unfortunately, Brown put his foot in his mouth with the “bigot” comment.  That left room only for Clegg and Cameron.  Who would come out on top?

Looks like Cameron has his pope’s nose in the sky, while Clegg and Brown are watching to make sure they don’t trip.  Oooh, nooo!  Clegg and Brown only have one leg each to stand on.  Won’t be good for “running” an election.

This is most apparent when you have cases such as the Congolese man, a convicted rapist awaiting deportation, who is now allowed to remain in the UK in order to wed a fellow African.  His fiancee happens to be a German national.  According to EU law, EU citizens are allowed to move around at will.  Being married to her this rapist will have the right to remain.  Of course, nothing is yet set in stone, but on the surface, that is how it appears.  It seems that EU law could take precedence.

If I was liberal-minded, I might argue that he has served his time, therefore, he has won his freedom and should be given another chance.  That’s what would happen to a British citizen.  Of course, the fact that he was not a British citizen and had betrayed the trust of the natives meant that he lost any rights; therefore, he should be deported. 

I have to admit I am narrow-minded when it comes to these issues.  If the man was supposed to be deported, he should not be allowed to remain.  However, if he is allowed to stay solely for the purpose of a wedding, boot him after the wedding.  If his wife wants to stay, they will have to remain physically separated.  EU law should not force the UK to accept into its bosom a convicted felon.  Other people have been banned from entering the UK, so why can’t this criminal?

If the EU wants to function as a cohesive unit, perhaps they should consider that a convicted felon of one EU country should not be allowed to be in any of the other EU countries unless he/she is a national of that country.

I’ve read some of the arguments.  Pros: saves paper, saves money.  Cons: more vulnerable people lack access (the pros argue that they will set up centres to help with this), some people refuse to use the internet (no help there, except that they will be forced to use it), loss of jobs results in loss of income for the government (pros will argue that the savings will make up for it).

Of course, going online will take time and money to get started, so we shouldn’t get overexcited yet.

Yes, I do like the idea of making things easier when dealing with government offices.  I have already seen government inefficiencies and can see the advantages of going paperless in some instances.  However, I do share the concerns about everything going on the internet.

Fraud is the biggest concern, and I really don’t need to go into details about how that can be accomplished on the net. I was caught recently in a virus scam and I can easily see how going paperless will result in this happening even more.  Furthermore, fraudulent claims, especially for benefits will not be picked up so easily.  There will still need to be some human contact.  There still needs to be some face-to-face interviews and identity checks.  They should try to make those as painless as possible.  I’ve been to some that have been completely convoluted.

Perhaps one of my biggest concerns is the lack of human contact.  Already, I hate the automated messages and FAQs that don’t answer your specific questions.  Not that human contact is the answer to that particular problem, knowing as I do that the most intelligent person is usually not the one left answering the phones.  But it helps to put a complicated question to a person rather than to a robot.  If they go paperless, they’ll probably start to go telephone-less as well, since they won’t need people to sit in offices.  (That’s a loss of revenues to BT, but they’ll make up for it on the broadband side.)

Every decision the government makes has benefits and downsides.  Depending on which side you want to argue for, you tend to only see that one side.  It is the bane of every government to be the root of the public’s discontent.  I don’t foresee any changes.

The changes in maternity and paternity leave that the government has imposed or will impose have significant impact in the workplace.  I’ve argued that before, but I can really see it now.

Yes, it’s really wonderful to give parents a chance to be with their new child and of course, a new child brings changes in the pattern at home and work that can greatly affect an individual’s emotional and physical well-being.  No one can argue against that.  It’s very humanistic to grant parents the option of being at home for their child in their first year of life without worrying about losing their job.  After all, these days it’s more and more difficult to find a job once you’ve lost a good one.

The downside is: who pays?

Several ladies at work are currently pregnant and planning to take maternity leave.  Unfortunately, they will all be leaving within 2 months of each other. New staff will need to be found to replace them temporarily.  Meanwhile, they will be getting maternity leave pay.  I don’t know all the ins and outs of the maternity pay, but I do understand that it is full pay for a significant length of time.

Already, I have seen staff cutbacks due to lack of funds.  I know about forthcoming staff cutbacks, which will considerably impact the workload.  Though it would be easy to say that if they have to cut back they should not replace the mums-to-be with temporary staff, but just keep the regulars, that is not possible.  You see, the staff cutbacks are in various departments, not just the one where the maternity leave is coming from.

Although the payroll reduction is not a result of excessive maternity leave, I’m sure maternity leave does not help.  How can we, the public, expect that the funds remain unlimited, such that we can afford to pay two people for the same job – one doing the work, and one on maternity leave?  Someone, somewhere will have to lose their job in order to provide for this extra pay.

I can see why some businesses would be opposed to having maternity and paternity leave extended.  Either they will have to deal with staff shortages or pay out for extra help.  Where will the money come from?  Big businesses will have less to worry about, but the government and public sector have a limited supply of funds.

When we first opened a current account with our bank, we were given a cash account – that meant you could only access money at the ATM machines.  When we started having regular deposits into the account, the cash account was converted into the most basic current account.  Our debit cards were supposedly changed so that we could use our PINs everywhere.  However, initially, we had some problems and had to sign for everything.  Eventually, everything was sorted out and we were able to use our PINs.

Now that we are able to use our PINs, I don’t feel comfortable with using it everywhere.  Not that I wish we didn’t resolve the problems with the PINs – it was difficult to explain to everyone that we had to sign for every transaction.  Some vendors even refused to accept it.

But, considering how easily PINs can be stolen these days and how well thieves can duplicate cards, I don’t know why everyone still relies on PINs.  When we were unable to use our PINs, we were required to provide IDs to prove that we are the rightful owners of the cards.  To me, that seems a much safer option.  If someone were to steal my card and knew my PIN, they could get away with a lot.  However, if they had to sign my name (and they can forge it) and show ID, it would be a little more difficult.  Thieves can steal another person’s ID, but it would be very difficult for them to steal multiple IDs, especially with photos.  Imagine making different photo IDs for different identities.

I remember a colleague always wrote on the back of his card, “Check ID”.  He never signed it.  He never left space for anyone else to sign it.  It made sense to me.  Of course, it may not be very welcome by clerks.  Recently, I used my credit card and tried to get the vendor to swipe it, rather than use the PIN-chip machine.  He asked, why?  Why not?  At this time, many US credit cards do not have the chip technology, so it has to be swiped anyway, so why do these vendors give us such a hard time with it?  I had to lie and say that I didn’t have a PIN for it.  He then acted like I had stolen the card.  I had to patiently ask that he swipe it and I would sign and he could check my ID.  He was very reluctant and when the swiping didn’t work, was ready to refuse.  I had to get him to punch in the numbers (as they sometimes have to do when the swipe machine doesn’t work) and it went through without problems.

With this new chip technology, people have become so lax and lazy.  They trust the PIN system to be foolproof, but it isn’t.  Vendors assume that if you know the PIN, the card is yours; and if you don’t have a PIN, you must be a thief.  No one wants to take the trouble to check for ID.  Given that the Brits are so ID card-shy as well, if the PIN system fails, it would be a major catastrophe.

First, they said that housing prices were going up.  This was a marker that the recession was improving.  I really have not seen much improvement in the recession when the cost of living is so high compared to earnings.  The report had said that house prices were going up as fewer properties were available and more people were in the market to buy.

OK, if earnings have not gone up and cost of living is rising, how do people suddenly manage to have enough saved up to buy?  What am I missing?  Where did these people come from?  Are they the rich trying to buy up cheaper properties so that they can go on to rent it out at unreasonable rates?

Recently, a different report states that homes are now more affordable in more locations throughout the UK.  OK, if house prices are going up, how are they now more affordable? And where are they more affordable?  In locations that most people don’t want to live due to job opportunities, etc.  Therefore, people already living in those areas probably can’t even afford those homes.  It’s only people with money and a good job living outside those areas that can afford to buy into it.  And why would they buy into it?  The only reason would be to retire or as an investment opportunity.

Even those with a good job are unable to get onto the housing ladder.  I’ve only been working for 3 months, so I can’t lump myself in with those people, but my starting salary would be considered “extremely good”.  Unfortunately, I have no savings, and the current cost of living means that despite my high salary, we really are living “hand to mouth”.  How would someone like myself ever be able to get a mortgage?  Banks and the government are no longer in the business of helping people in the middle ground.  And the frustrating part is that if we were able to get a mortgage, our monthly mortgage may be lower than our rent, and we’d be gaining some equity (hopefully).

It’s interesting to note the latest comments – diametrically opposed viewpoints that serve to highlight the opinions of the two people mentioned in the post.  Yet, the post itself did not express any particular prejudices against one group or the other.  However, the commenters chose to interpret them in their own way and therefore, have responded in kind.

It’s a very sad state of things when the three primary religions in the world – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – are constantly at each other’s throats.  Especially when these three have a common bond.  They share the same God, though their beliefs on what happens from Christ onwards varies.  The Jews do not accept Christ as a prophet nor a saviour.  Christians believe Christ is their Saviour.  Muslims believe Christ was a prophet and Mohammed was the greatest prophet of all.

I can’t help but think of an analogy between the three religions and a family of four – a father and three sons who move into a four bedroom house.  The father is proud of his eldest son, Abraham, and showers him with blessings.  Abraham considers himself the Chosen One.  Unfortunately, Christ grows up and becomes a strong man and soon outshines his brother Abraham.  They both declare their love for their father, but in different ways.  Now, little Mohammed has watched his older brothers and their sibling rivalry since birth.  He is growing up and longs to be a part of that rivalry.  Christ no longer considers Abraham a worthy opponent, so he turns to Mohammed.  The father tries to appease the discontent, but to no avail.  Each claims he loves his father the best, but all show an equal lack of understanding.

All three sons have their own rooms, yet they cannot seem to respect anyone’s privacy, so they are constantly spreading themselves about in their siblings’ rooms.  This leads to even more in-fighting.

Meanwhile, their neighbours, Buddha, Brahma, Zeus, Odin, Wicca and others just shake their heads at such a dysfunctional family.

Depending on whose statistics you listen to, the rate of teenage pregnancy is still unacceptably high.  So, the government has decided that the best way to approach this is by introducing sex education in school.  Of course, there has been some sex education in school for years, though this has always been in the later years. Progressive thinkers have felt this to be inadequate, as children become sexually active at younger ages.  As a result, sex education has been introduced to younger and younger children.  The latest news is that the government would like children as young as 5 to have some form of sexual education.  This has met with much criticism.

I may be completely out of touch with the world, but when I hear about this, I have to give a big sigh.  It just seems that there is no hard and fast solution to the world’s problems.

I do not like to see my children become adults too soon.  Unfortunately, with the changes in society, I can no longer control that, unless I take them deep into the wilds and teach them at home.  I do not have the resources to do that.  But, I want my children to be children, to explore the world with a child’s innocence and gradually mature as they should, without worrying about issues such as the above.

In my own time and in my own way, I would like to be able to have an honest and open discussion about relationships and sex with my children.  I know that schools and teachers do their best to bring the subject up in a non-judgmental way, etc., but not all teachers have the same comfort level, and it also takes time away from more important educational instruction.  And the fact that parents have no opt-out in this decision takes control away from them.  Must all parents conform to the government’s idea of sex education?

The government’s response to criticism is that sex education prevents teenage pregnancy.  They point to the decrease in the pregnancy rates in other countries and conclude it is due to sex education.  Call me a skeptic, but show me the evidence.  In recent days, I have become more and more skeptical of “scientific research”, at least as it relates to human behaviour.  You can design research and ask questions and get data, but the interpretation of the data can vary from one person to another.

We have no data from the past regarding teenage pregnancy because of the stigma attached and the secrecy.  I can only surmise that in those days, sex education was not part of the school curriculum.  However, since statistics have become available, we have seen that teenage pregnancy rates have remained relatively stable with small fluctuations from year to year.  This, despite the increase in sex education, does not point to sex education as having a major impact.

You can try and teach kids about safe sex, etc., but at the end of the day, many of them will do as they choose.  Perhaps, the problem with behaviour is more deep-rooted.  The home environment will have a huge impact on this.  So, perhaps the government should focus more on home and family environments, giving support to those unstable home settings. Peer pressure is another important factor.  No amount of education can eliminate the impact of peer pressure.  Then, there are poor role models.  Even with the best parents, some children will look to others as role models for their behaviour (it is “uncool” to be just like your parents).  Unfortunately, pop icons and celebrities do not provide good examples.

While I do not oppose sex education in general (I do believe it is important and should be provided at the appropriate age), I don’t feel that 5 year-olds should be forced to start learning about relationships in school.  Many of them already have questions about where babies come from, and most parents have simple explanations for this, without going into details.  This should be adequate at their age.

There are many people out there who oppose children starting school at 5, saying this is too early and that they are more apt to learn at 6-7.  If that is the case, wouldn’t sex education at 5 be even more premature?