The short answer, we forget about the events in the past, they fade into the back of our memories, it's the way we humans are built, it's neccessary too, because our brain wouldn't be able to cope with having memories always remain in the forefront of our minds.

Why am I writing about this?
When something has happened in the past we most often don't learn enough from it, or at least don't stay committed to any change we vowed to make.

One example, Ricardo Campogiani, a 16 year old boy beaten to death by a group of guys in Stockholm, October 6th 2007. It led to a massive anti-violence demonstration where thousands of people turned up to show solidarity against the violence in society. It was a great accomplishment at the time, but what did it actually achieve? nothing. People unrelated to the victims and perpetrators by now have forgotten all about the demonstration and the urges for a cease to the mindless violence on our streets. From the day Ricardo died until today there will have been other victims just like him, nothing has changed. Laws and policies to ensure a safer society isn't going to come quick either because bureacracy is one of the slowest machinations in society.

Society most of all lacks complete commitment, no follow-through, to learn from history, demonstrations, rallies, celebrity pleas etc, they're in the spotlight at the time, vows are made, everyone nods their head in agreement, that they are changing things by the vows and spoken committments, but when it comes down to it, how much is done? not enough.

How many people like Ricardo need to die before we as a society say enough is enough, mean it, and stand by it. Zero tolerance of violence is quite realistically a utopian dream. Yet, we can do much more than we are doing, come up with new solutions to deal with conflicts, improve safety on the streets with more lamps, citizen patrols etc, educate people more than we are doing at the present about the consequences of violence.

There's a saying, 'time heals all wounds', but if time implies forgetting, it means we're not truly healing. We mustn't forget the past, because it's the only thing we can truly learn from.

A year or so ago, most newspapers were warning the public about global warming with lengthy articles, diagrams and predictions. They painted up a pretty scary picture, now you would have to pretty much search the online versions, archive section to find articles on it. What happened to global warming, did it go out for a spot of cool air or was it just like most news becomes, old, and obsolete. The theories concerning the gravity of it seemed to encompass the whole spectrum of 'people be warned, the end could be near, to, eh whatever. Which is fair enough, who knows what the world can take of our polluting it.

The worst thing though is this scare mongering by the papers and then nothing. This to me is particularly serious due to the following. One, what does it say about the threat of global warming? either it's a threat or not, it doesn't disappear over night. Secondly, at the time of the cover to cover articles about global warming, the newspapers advertised holiday flights on a daily basis, and still do. The travel agencies even have their own section. I mean logically, how could the newspapers be broadcasting global warming as a massive threat and at the same time advertise ways that are known to make it dramatically worse? One scary question is, do the newspapers receive a substantial proportion of their revenue by allowing travel agencies to advertise in their papers, and they can't afford not to have their adverts? If this rhetoric would be accurate, it is a pretty large warning concerning the newspapers claim of objectivity and truth, at least on this matter. Moreover, it would really be a tragic example of how much a newspaper which is meant to inform the people with unbiased information, may be steered by heavy industrial influences.

It makes you wonder which century we really are living in when you still have racist fanatics.
No, seriously, because racism in western societies was created in the 17th Century by the Greeks who associated the colour black with the devil and evil. We all know racist arguments are ridiculous and based on ignorance anyway, but why not clinch the deal just how laughable racism really is with some more arguments against it.

1. Racists today claim for example black people to be inferior etc, etc. The racists don't have a reason for this, it just is. Premise: all racists believe in the devil if they really are the racists they claim to be. Why? If they claim their beliefs to be something else than a coffee break around a kitchen table with a succession of nodding heads and mutters, they should believe in the devil - after all, the colour black was associated with him.

2. All racists should have Greece as their favourite place on earth since that's where western racism originated. Indeed if they are as strong in their beliefs as those following religions, shouldn't they be going on yearly pilgrimages to Greece to celebrate their ideological ancestors?

3. Racism originated in Greece, thus, you would assume the majority of racists should still be in Greece, but they're not.

4. All racist factions must surely have the following membership requirement to be able to join them. 'that the members are not blind from birth' If they do not ban people blind from birth from joining, they are then claiming blind people can see, more importantly, that the blind people can tell skin colour through hearing, touch or some sixth sense.

5. That they have a valid argument against the premise that racism is not limited to the physical boundaries of the cerebral cortex, but is anchored to reality even in the face of the following situation: A highly prominent racist faction leader is still racist if they suffer severe trauma to the brain rendering them firstly, unaware of who they are anymore, secondly, their acquired knowledge during their lifetime is erased, or lastly they are in a vegatative state unable to communicate.

Finally, the most simple argument against racism of all, how do they account for the rules of physiology in terms of skin pigment being the relative hues they are?

Mobile phones are the communication tool of today’s society, and thank goodness for that, they’re great. However, are they safe to use in regards to our health or is there a real danger we don’t know about?
I don’t know if you saw the report a while back showing three or more mobile phones facing each other with popcorn popping in the center. Well, that was a hoax, huge relief there, but that doesn’t mean we can be off guard. There is a massive amount of research highlighting concern about the radiation of mobile phones and other technology emitting electromagnetic radiation, not all conclusive evidence, but worth thinking about. Is this research something we citizens are bombarded with daily though? No, it is said once or twice and shoved under the carpet of newer news. Business goes on as usual.

The thing about technology these days and the full effect it has on the body is, frankly, we don’t know. Scientists do make technological breakthroughs daily, but the human brain in particular is the least understood organ in the body, and the most essential for life, and we can’t predict the outcome all these technological ‘wonders’ as they are in their own right, may have on our bodies. Critically, the mobile phone is the most common technological equipment we place closest to our brain.

this is a link referring to research findings about electromagnetic radiation and is quite extensive. http://www.globalchange.com/radiationnews.htm

Personally, I use handsfree to my mobile phone nowadays after seeing a documentary about the proposed risks of electromagnetic radiation, it scared the life out of me. Mobile phone companies don’t care if you use handsfree or have the phone to your ear, as long as you are buying their products.

Vanity unfortunately is one of the main reasons I think why so many people use mobile phones next to their ear. Mobile phones look cool, some more than others, and handsfree takes away the point of aesthetic design and coolness a bit because you only have a lead and a headphone in your ear and the phone is shielded from view. There is also the question of convenience and swiftness, to just put a mobile phone next to your ear is quick and convenient instead of having to first find the handsfree and then frequently untangle the lead of it (that’s a pain) and finally many seconds later say, hello.
Vanity and convenience aside then, is it worth the extra few seconds gained and visual coolness which you don’t see yourself when using the phone, when there could be a potentially serious risk to your health?

Be critical of the technology you surround yourself with, because it’s worth the reflection, and your brain and body will thank you for it.

/Mercury

In my opinion yes, if we talk about the welfare of chickens.
Having lived in the UK for a few years I bought a lot of eggs, a few hundred per year I'm guessing, it was not until I saw a documentary on TV I realised there is actually a huge difference between eggs and eggs, more specifically, well cared for chickens vs mass production 'animate utilities.'

Supermarkets have several different types of eggs available to customers, the quickest type to disappear from the shelves are the 'economy' cartons, up to fifteen eggs in each, and cheap. These cartons, welfare of the chickens, none. The chickens with the 'economy' eggs, are caged, often in very confined spaces, and with no real humane regard to their treatment, they are there simply to provide the human population with eggs. Most of us love eggs and to save money, so we buy loads of them, and therefore this mass production type trade can go on, because we keep providing them with business.

An argument I've heard from people when discussing this topic, it's only chickens!, well, we humans according to Christianity and other religions are meant to be the pinnacle of beings on this planet, and therefore one would think we should treat even chickens with respect. The most common reason we don't treat them or other animals with respect is because they can't talk back due to a more simplified brain; if they could you'd be damn sure chickens in this case, would say, oi, leave those eggs where they were and back away slowly.

I believe in the old Native Indians philosophy of treating animals with respect, if they killed a deer, they would thank that animal for letting them eat it, and the same sentiment went for their entire culture, at least, the peaceful tribes.

Am guessing some will think now, well we eat animals, how is that respecting life? will talk about that another time, that is a very heated topic, and I think one that will probably never reach an amicable consensus, but it is worth discussing anyway.

I enjoy a good debate from time to time, so if you've got differing opinions to my views, then please fire away.

/Mercury

I was going to go into town today to do some errands but found myself running a bit late for the bus, and next bus was an hour or two later, (live in the countryside) so, I decided to bike the distance, approx 8 miles, not too long, would be nice to get out into the fresh air.
Fresh air was great, for 2 miles, small country lane, even mud tracks on a field, then whallop, the only road into town, a heavily trafficated two lane road, lovely.
There was I, helmet, even mirror on the bike, and still felt like this might be my last day alive.
Lorries were passing by, breakneck speed, even cars, some driving so close to me, I could feel the wind sucking me in.
The thought that struck my mind then was, 'is it really worth it, there is quite a large possibility I could in a few seconds be no more, wiped out, all my future plans, a lifeless heap on the road, and there would be no reboot of life.

Now I get to the title, when horse and carts drove, blow me away if you had a fatal accident then, ok, it happened, but would you ever really think, god I hope I don't get run over by a horse today, the fear wasn't there as it is today with cars. Of course nowadays it would be impossible to have horse and carts, as society is based on speed and performance, often a desired combo, and horse and carts would be far too slow in society's opinion to sustain a working business climate.

Yet, why can't society slow down just a little, prioritise the building of cycle paths, even if it's just a bit of mud on the roadside, to name one example, instead of building new cinema colosses, or laying new tarmac on a road with ridiculously small potholes. It could honestly survive having a few dents in it, worst thing that can happen is your car get's splashed by minute puddles.

This fantastic way of thinking in Society (^o) is so disappointingly due to the loved and hated concept of 'money' and it doesn't seem like it is going to change, at least not for the better.

/Mercury