And now for some mundane real life blog.
After watching TV solidly for about 24 years, I decided to get on a train.
I decided to get off the train at Maryland Station in East London.
I then walked north.
I then saw that the gulf between tellyworld and advertworld and the real world is er..
a big one.
28 March 2007
28th March 2007
Is that really the date?
Above the entrance to my local Tesco Extra TM - or is it Tesco SmallCity TM? -
it says "Helping you spend less everyday".
?
*&*^&*%^###!
Orwellian or what.
It's the size of three Wembleys.
Anyway.
So China opens a coal-fired power station every week.
Ho hum.
Above the entrance to my local Tesco Extra TM - or is it Tesco SmallCity TM? -
it says "Helping you spend less everyday".
?
*&*^&*%^###!
Orwellian or what.
It's the size of three Wembleys.
Anyway.
So China opens a coal-fired power station every week.
Ho hum.
22 March 2007
Thursday 22nd March - The Green Belt
So they want to build all over the green belt? Lunacy!
Why don't they develop other areas of England?
Where will it end? That's what the question should be.
The "Policy Exchange" - a rival think tank:) - advises that they should go ahead and build all over the green belt because we want to be a big player - a major economy - etc.
But when do we stop? And why not develop Liverpool or somewhere else?
And make London sensible as it is. i.e. Make what we have built more sensibly used and affordable etc.
Incidentally, why are all "think tanks" right wing? Why don't they say this is blahdeeblah from the communist thinktank "Leftia":) or whatever?
Incidentally, what is a think tank and what do think tank employees do all day? Sit around thinking?
Incidentally, can I have a job on one please?
Rightwing and leftwing still have meaning and always will in my view by the way....
Why don't they develop other areas of England?
Where will it end? That's what the question should be.
The "Policy Exchange" - a rival think tank:) - advises that they should go ahead and build all over the green belt because we want to be a big player - a major economy - etc.
But when do we stop? And why not develop Liverpool or somewhere else?
And make London sensible as it is. i.e. Make what we have built more sensibly used and affordable etc.
Incidentally, why are all "think tanks" right wing? Why don't they say this is blahdeeblah from the communist thinktank "Leftia":) or whatever?
Incidentally, what is a think tank and what do think tank employees do all day? Sit around thinking?
Incidentally, can I have a job on one please?
Rightwing and leftwing still have meaning and always will in my view by the way....
21 March 2007
Wednesday 21st March - Fundamental Shift
This fundamental shift needs to be made:
The idea that there are some people who are in their very essence and irretrievably "insane", "mad" or "mentally ill" and other people who are not is a mistake, a lie, a falsehood.
It is a primitive, pre-scientific, pre-civilised way of seeing humans.
For example, a programme on television recently about mental health showed
photgraphs at an exhibtion called "Insanity in Focus" with "images of insanity" in history or something like that at the Institute of Psychiatry.
This is insane! In other words I disagree with it.
The only insane thing about this exhibition is its title.
There is no such thing as "insanity".
The idea that there are some people who are in their very essence and irretrievably "insane", "mad" or "mentally ill" and other people who are not is a mistake, a lie, a falsehood.
It is a primitive, pre-scientific, pre-civilised way of seeing humans.
For example, a programme on television recently about mental health showed
photgraphs at an exhibtion called "Insanity in Focus" with "images of insanity" in history or something like that at the Institute of Psychiatry.
This is insane! In other words I disagree with it.
The only insane thing about this exhibition is its title.
There is no such thing as "insanity".
16 March 2007
Are Lucozade and Coca-Cola muck?
I used to drink loads of Lucozade but I now secretly suspect that it is poisonous muck that I don't need.
It possibly has poisonous chemicals in (sodium benzoate - a carcinogen and a poison), and it should not be a regular part of anyone's diet anyway.
The way it is marketed implies that it is OK for it to be a regular part of a healthy diet.
In some countries, some energy drinks are illegal.....
In other countries Red Bull is the only thing that keeps people going as they slave away in sweat shops.
Coke is nearly pure sugar and really bad for teeth and general health.
----
For loads of reasons, I try not to drink
- Lucozade,
- any form of Coke/Coca-Cola,
- or Redbull or energy drinks...
They're all really bad for you, you don't need them and they're all made by capitalist bandits.
It possibly has poisonous chemicals in (sodium benzoate - a carcinogen and a poison), and it should not be a regular part of anyone's diet anyway.
The way it is marketed implies that it is OK for it to be a regular part of a healthy diet.
In some countries, some energy drinks are illegal.....
In other countries Red Bull is the only thing that keeps people going as they slave away in sweat shops.
Coke is nearly pure sugar and really bad for teeth and general health.
----
For loads of reasons, I try not to drink
- Lucozade,
- any form of Coke/Coca-Cola,
- or Redbull or energy drinks...
They're all really bad for you, you don't need them and they're all made by capitalist bandits.
Friday 16th March 2007. Adam Smith.
So they are going to put the Scot Adam Smith on an English 20 quid note.
Silly!
It's also silly for another reason. They think he was the father of capitalism and laissez faire and all that.
According to someone else he wasn't a laissez faire capitalist at all.
His argument was that he really argued against what is now called neoliberalism.
Silly!
It's also silly for another reason. They think he was the father of capitalism and laissez faire and all that.
According to someone else he wasn't a laissez faire capitalist at all.
His argument was that he really argued against what is now called neoliberalism.
15 March 2007
15th March 2007 - Johann Hari on "ADHD"
There's been a lot about "mental illness" and "mental health" in the media recently.
For example, they've repeated Stephen Fry's documentaries on his supposed "mental health problems."
There are no such things of course and mental illness does not exist.
Also a good article by Johann Hari in today's Independent about ADHD and other things.
("Change our Schools not our Children"
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-change-our-schools-not-our-children-440231.html )
Also there was documentary about Comic Relief's work with "mental health" services called "It's a Mad World" or something like that.
Whilst I welcome some attempt to reveal the reality of life as it is really lived, there are some things that give cause for concern which I will hopefully get round to writing about.
Johann comes tantalisingly close to concluding that there really is no such thing as ADHD.
Don't know why he doesn't go the whole hog.
He says many, many kids have been "misdiagnosed with ADHD". How is that possible???
There is no test for it and no meaningful definition. It doesn't exist. There is only behaviour involved. The emperor is wearing no clothes.
Johann, can't you see that it is entirely arbitrary that one person is diagnosed with it and another not diagnosed with it?
Child psychiatry is child abuse.
The article linked above is a classic example of ignoring the obvious conclusion of what you are yourself saying.
For example, they've repeated Stephen Fry's documentaries on his supposed "mental health problems."
There are no such things of course and mental illness does not exist.
Also a good article by Johann Hari in today's Independent about ADHD and other things.
("Change our Schools not our Children"
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-change-our-schools-not-our-children-440231.html )
Also there was documentary about Comic Relief's work with "mental health" services called "It's a Mad World" or something like that.
Whilst I welcome some attempt to reveal the reality of life as it is really lived, there are some things that give cause for concern which I will hopefully get round to writing about.
Johann comes tantalisingly close to concluding that there really is no such thing as ADHD.
Don't know why he doesn't go the whole hog.
He says many, many kids have been "misdiagnosed with ADHD". How is that possible???
There is no test for it and no meaningful definition. It doesn't exist. There is only behaviour involved. The emperor is wearing no clothes.
Johann, can't you see that it is entirely arbitrary that one person is diagnosed with it and another not diagnosed with it?
Child psychiatry is child abuse.
The article linked above is a classic example of ignoring the obvious conclusion of what you are yourself saying.
12 March 2007
Giving up the Internet
I am thinking of giving up the internet to devote more time to reality and life:)
A bit like Tony Benn giving up being an MP to devote more time to politics.
I have been internet dating for a few years now and I am thinking of giving it up.
A bit like Tony Benn giving up being an MP to devote more time to politics.
I have been internet dating for a few years now and I am thinking of giving it up.
11 March 2007
Monday 12th March 2007. Iraq
Nick Cohen said the in the Observer that Brian Haw was a "peace protester who was so indifferent to Baathism he was objecting to sanctions against Saddam Hussein's regime long before the 2003 war came."
The sanctions served no purpose. Other than to kill people. That's why millions protested.
If the problem was the regime why did they not invade rather than inflict sanctions on innocents?
The sanctions were "the destruction of a society."
The sanctions were ostensibly to contain a regime that had WMD and was a threat and was internally repressive. It had no WMDs was not a threat to us or anyone. It may have been internally repressive but this was not stopped by sanctions.
The sanctions quite obviously harmed people other than Saddam's regime.
Is Cohen indifferent to this?
The sanctions were anti-Semitic genocide.
When Cohen argues that the 2003 war was justified he has to take all the poison of lunacy and finds himself in the ridiculous position of also having to defend the pointless genocidal sanctions.
Cohen himself seems to be indifferent to the suffering in Iraq over the last 15 years that for whatever reason the USA and England have caused.
What cannot be denied by anyone is that the war was built on lies. To deny that the war was built on lies is doublethink. To deny that the war was legally dubious is doublethink. What does Nick Cohen have to say about this?
If the war was about Baathism, why was this never said? Why did they need pathetic lies to justify the invasion and destruction? I call it an invasion and not a liberation, as Cohen no doubt fantasizes that it was.
I can tell Nick Cohen right away and he knows it well anyway that those against the destruction of Iraq were not indifferent to Baathism. The USA government and the UK government were indifferent to Baathism for many years. If they had wanted Saddam Hussein gone they could have had him gone in an instant and also they could have got rid of him very easily in 1991.
The prospects now for a better Iraq after 16 years of Anglo-American onslaught rely upon the country becoming a genuine democracy.
Is the USA genuinely interested in allowing a true democracy with development, and full independence, including socio-economic independence?
The USA's track record on this is not always encouraging.
----------
Cohen also said something like this: that to not want to overthrow a genocidal tyrant is to support genocide, which is strictly speaking not really a logical contention.
(For example, it is obviously possible to disapprove of a genocidal tyrant completely and totally, but to be a principled pacifist who rejects violence as a means of deposing him, seeking to do so only by non-violent means).
I would like to say to Nick Cohen that to want to overthrow a genocidal tyrant by genocide is pure evil.
An example of the debasement of the intellect that originates in a society that deceives itself and has never really valued the intellect anyway.
"Whatever debases the intelligence degrades the entire human being."
Simone Weil.
The sanctions served no purpose. Other than to kill people. That's why millions protested.
If the problem was the regime why did they not invade rather than inflict sanctions on innocents?
The sanctions were "the destruction of a society."
The sanctions were ostensibly to contain a regime that had WMD and was a threat and was internally repressive. It had no WMDs was not a threat to us or anyone. It may have been internally repressive but this was not stopped by sanctions.
The sanctions quite obviously harmed people other than Saddam's regime.
Is Cohen indifferent to this?
The sanctions were anti-Semitic genocide.
When Cohen argues that the 2003 war was justified he has to take all the poison of lunacy and finds himself in the ridiculous position of also having to defend the pointless genocidal sanctions.
Cohen himself seems to be indifferent to the suffering in Iraq over the last 15 years that for whatever reason the USA and England have caused.
What cannot be denied by anyone is that the war was built on lies. To deny that the war was built on lies is doublethink. To deny that the war was legally dubious is doublethink. What does Nick Cohen have to say about this?
If the war was about Baathism, why was this never said? Why did they need pathetic lies to justify the invasion and destruction? I call it an invasion and not a liberation, as Cohen no doubt fantasizes that it was.
I can tell Nick Cohen right away and he knows it well anyway that those against the destruction of Iraq were not indifferent to Baathism. The USA government and the UK government were indifferent to Baathism for many years. If they had wanted Saddam Hussein gone they could have had him gone in an instant and also they could have got rid of him very easily in 1991.
The prospects now for a better Iraq after 16 years of Anglo-American onslaught rely upon the country becoming a genuine democracy.
Is the USA genuinely interested in allowing a true democracy with development, and full independence, including socio-economic independence?
The USA's track record on this is not always encouraging.
----------
Cohen also said something like this: that to not want to overthrow a genocidal tyrant is to support genocide, which is strictly speaking not really a logical contention.
(For example, it is obviously possible to disapprove of a genocidal tyrant completely and totally, but to be a principled pacifist who rejects violence as a means of deposing him, seeking to do so only by non-violent means).
I would like to say to Nick Cohen that to want to overthrow a genocidal tyrant by genocide is pure evil.
An example of the debasement of the intellect that originates in a society that deceives itself and has never really valued the intellect anyway.
"Whatever debases the intelligence degrades the entire human being."
Simone Weil.
9 March 2007
A Theory of "Conspiracy Theories"
I don't believe in any of the popular "conspiracy theories".
I don't believe in 9-11 "conspiracy theories".
But the point must be made that the US government has lied before about major events and this doesn't help their cause when they make pronouncements about anything. The US government has also faked incidents and possibly allowed attacks on the US to happen in order to justify its actions. This was also practised by the Nazis.
(A couple of examples are the blowing up of the Maine in 1898 and the Gulf of Tonkin incident of 1964).
In the case of the assassination of JFK, the most famous of the so-called "conspiracy theories"; the mother of all conspiracy theories; I don't really think that those who believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin or not the only assassin are "conspiracy theorists", they are basically people with their rational faculties intact.
The case for something other than Oswald being the sole assassin does not qualify for the term "conspiracy theory". It qualifies for the term "case proven beyond reasonable doubt."
I don't believe in 9-11 "conspiracy theories".
But the point must be made that the US government has lied before about major events and this doesn't help their cause when they make pronouncements about anything. The US government has also faked incidents and possibly allowed attacks on the US to happen in order to justify its actions. This was also practised by the Nazis.
(A couple of examples are the blowing up of the Maine in 1898 and the Gulf of Tonkin incident of 1964).
In the case of the assassination of JFK, the most famous of the so-called "conspiracy theories"; the mother of all conspiracy theories; I don't really think that those who believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin or not the only assassin are "conspiracy theorists", they are basically people with their rational faculties intact.
The case for something other than Oswald being the sole assassin does not qualify for the term "conspiracy theory". It qualifies for the term "case proven beyond reasonable doubt."
The first and principal reason for this is that Kennedy was obviously shot at by someone firing from the notorious "grassy knoll". There is abundant and clear evidence for this.
That's the reality that emerges after an examination of the basic facts.
It is a testament to the power of whitewash, propaganda, lies, media distortion and manipulation, doublethink, and defamation that people can think otherwise.
The Warren Commission is definitely a near farcical farrago of bullshit. As was admitted as early as 1967 by law officers.
In the case of the blatant framing of Oswald, it may have been a question to a point of "you will believe what you are told to believe, or else."
That's the reality that emerges after an examination of the basic facts.
It is a testament to the power of whitewash, propaganda, lies, media distortion and manipulation, doublethink, and defamation that people can think otherwise.
The Warren Commission is definitely a near farcical farrago of bullshit. As was admitted as early as 1967 by law officers.
In the case of the blatant framing of Oswald, it may have been a question to a point of "you will believe what you are told to believe, or else."
--------------------------
Generally speaking, making progress in such matters is a perhaps question of getting people to do at least two things:
1) Thinking independently, thinking for yourself, doing your own thinking and
2) Only believing things for which there is evidence.
=============
David Aaronovitch wrote a book about "Conspiracy Theories".
He makes great play of "Occam's razor".
But he mischaracterises "Occam's Razor", depriving us of a full appreciation of a philosophical theory named after an English genius.
"Occam's Razor" is not simply - or possibly not at all - the following:
"The simplest explanation is always the best."
If it were simply this, it would obviously be false.
The simplest explanation is not always the best.
The (most) correct explanation is always the best.
"Occam's Razor" - as characterized by Aaronovitch - is not really relevant to conspiracy theories.
......
"Occam's Razor" is, to a point, the view that "the simpler explanation is better (not the best)".
Still, even were it simply this, it is part of medieval scholastic philosophy which, in many ways, is outdated and superseded.
----
Today we can see how downright fraudulent some of scholastic philosophy is.
It was often a philosophy in service to a religion.
----
[
Einstein said something like "make things as simple as possible, but no simpler."
[
Einstein said something like "make things as simple as possible, but no simpler."
]
......
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
A theory is a theory, not always a "conspiracy theory".
In the case of some, it seems that a "conspiracy theory" is a theory that the speaker doesn't agree with.
--------------------------------------------------------------
At the end of the day everyone has a little light of reason in them, and a theory will be rejected
if it's not true.
......
7 March 2007
7th March 2007 - "The Myth of Mental Illness"
I am reading "The Myth of Mental Illness" by Thomas Szasz.
It is good and relatively readable.
There is something that is nagging at me as I read it and which I have not as yet felt to be resolved.
It is this.
It is clear that Szasz regards the concept of a mental illness to be a mistake and entirely unserviceable and useless since there can only be a biological illness.
Therefore mental illness does not exist. It is only a metaphor like a "sick" society, a "sick" economy, a "sick" joke.
My problem is that Szasz disallows and rules out (or seems to so far) this approach to mental illness. That he strictly rules out the idea that a mind can be metaphorically sick.
He does this on the grounds that the view that a mind is sick depends on the arbitrary view of the person defining it since there is no biological problem.
A healthy mind is a mind that someone defines as healthy according to their view of what healthy means.
"MENTAL ILLNESS" could be 1 or 2 or all of these 3:
1) A biological illness with a biological cause. A biological disease.
- Or perhaps a biological proclivity to mental illness that is triggered by a social cause and/or life events.
- Or a biological illness caused by social events/life events.
That this illness is organic in origin.
This is the view of Charcot, Freud and conventional psychiatry. I think! ? :)
Karl Wernicke: "mental diseases are brain diseases."
Szasz maintains, correctly in my view, that such "diseases" are invented rather than discovered.
2) Mental illness is a psychological condition, disorder or syndrome. It is only metaphorically an illness or "disease".
A mind is only metaphorically sick. It is non-biological and has a social cause and/or is caused by life events.
This is the view of some psychologists but not many psychiatrists.
Szasz would maybe say that this view amounts to nothing since it can only be called an illness in this case as a metaphor.
3) Mental illness is (socially) deviant behaviour as defined by the person who calls it an illness.
In other words when someone says: "I believe x to be mentally ill" all that we can say is that they really mean "I disapprove of the thoughts and behaviour of x".
Mental illness does not and cannot exist.
This seems to be Szasz's view.
The mind is only a concept. It has no physical existence. ..
----
Szasz seems to be trying to clarify, analyse and improve on woolly thinking.
He is correct in his analysis I think.
But what if there is such a thing as a psychologically and mentally healthy mind if only as a metaphor? What if a psychologist were to say to Szasz "I fully accept that to talk of a sick mind is totally OK, because I am using this as a metaphor. And it is a useful, accurate and appropriate metaphor"?
Has he based his whole system on what could be portrayed as some kind of linguistic misunderstanding?
I do not think that he has for a second, but it would be good to investigate the point.
Szasz might say that the only way anyone can call a mind sick is if they simply disapprove of it.
Nothing else can be said.
......is that correct? Is my interpretation of Szasz correct? And if I am correct is he correct in his view?
.....
22nd March 2007
I have now finished reading and to some extent studying this book and am broadly convinced by it.
He does seem to base his whole system on the fact that a mind can only be metaphorically sick. He seems to offer no further reason why mental illness cannot exist.
Whilst he analyses the "symptoms" in some cases, he seems to offer little analysis of some of the "symptoms" of "mental illness" since there is no such thing.
In the case of hysteria, he does not seem to confront what would be a conventional psychiatric analysis of hysteria head on.
He choses "hysteria" as the model of a "mental illness" in the first part.
In the second part he choses game playing as a more useful way of seeing human life than the medical model.
I will continue my studies of Szasz.
I am now thinking of reading some Foucault. He is another thinker who questions the idea of "mental illness".
I have also been pointed towards "Insanity - the Idea and its Consequences" as a key work by Szasz.
-----
May 08.
Simple solution to some of the agonising related above:
A metaphorical illness is a metaphor and not an illness.
It is good and relatively readable.
There is something that is nagging at me as I read it and which I have not as yet felt to be resolved.
It is this.
It is clear that Szasz regards the concept of a mental illness to be a mistake and entirely unserviceable and useless since there can only be a biological illness.
Therefore mental illness does not exist. It is only a metaphor like a "sick" society, a "sick" economy, a "sick" joke.
My problem is that Szasz disallows and rules out (or seems to so far) this approach to mental illness. That he strictly rules out the idea that a mind can be metaphorically sick.
He does this on the grounds that the view that a mind is sick depends on the arbitrary view of the person defining it since there is no biological problem.
A healthy mind is a mind that someone defines as healthy according to their view of what healthy means.
"MENTAL ILLNESS" could be 1 or 2 or all of these 3:
1) A biological illness with a biological cause. A biological disease.
- Or perhaps a biological proclivity to mental illness that is triggered by a social cause and/or life events.
- Or a biological illness caused by social events/life events.
That this illness is organic in origin.
This is the view of Charcot, Freud and conventional psychiatry. I think! ? :)
Karl Wernicke: "mental diseases are brain diseases."
Szasz maintains, correctly in my view, that such "diseases" are invented rather than discovered.
2) Mental illness is a psychological condition, disorder or syndrome. It is only metaphorically an illness or "disease".
A mind is only metaphorically sick. It is non-biological and has a social cause and/or is caused by life events.
This is the view of some psychologists but not many psychiatrists.
Szasz would maybe say that this view amounts to nothing since it can only be called an illness in this case as a metaphor.
3) Mental illness is (socially) deviant behaviour as defined by the person who calls it an illness.
In other words when someone says: "I believe x to be mentally ill" all that we can say is that they really mean "I disapprove of the thoughts and behaviour of x".
Mental illness does not and cannot exist.
This seems to be Szasz's view.
The mind is only a concept. It has no physical existence. ..
----
Szasz seems to be trying to clarify, analyse and improve on woolly thinking.
He is correct in his analysis I think.
But what if there is such a thing as a psychologically and mentally healthy mind if only as a metaphor? What if a psychologist were to say to Szasz "I fully accept that to talk of a sick mind is totally OK, because I am using this as a metaphor. And it is a useful, accurate and appropriate metaphor"?
Has he based his whole system on what could be portrayed as some kind of linguistic misunderstanding?
I do not think that he has for a second, but it would be good to investigate the point.
Szasz might say that the only way anyone can call a mind sick is if they simply disapprove of it.
Nothing else can be said.
......is that correct? Is my interpretation of Szasz correct? And if I am correct is he correct in his view?
.....
22nd March 2007
I have now finished reading and to some extent studying this book and am broadly convinced by it.
He does seem to base his whole system on the fact that a mind can only be metaphorically sick. He seems to offer no further reason why mental illness cannot exist.
Whilst he analyses the "symptoms" in some cases, he seems to offer little analysis of some of the "symptoms" of "mental illness" since there is no such thing.
In the case of hysteria, he does not seem to confront what would be a conventional psychiatric analysis of hysteria head on.
He choses "hysteria" as the model of a "mental illness" in the first part.
In the second part he choses game playing as a more useful way of seeing human life than the medical model.
I will continue my studies of Szasz.
I am now thinking of reading some Foucault. He is another thinker who questions the idea of "mental illness".
I have also been pointed towards "Insanity - the Idea and its Consequences" as a key work by Szasz.
-----
May 08.
Simple solution to some of the agonising related above:
A metaphorical illness is a metaphor and not an illness.
5 March 2007
Favourite writers/thinkers
These are some thinkers/writers that I like.
Thomas Szasz.
Karl Popper.
Eric Fromm.
George Orwell.
Bertrand Russell.
Noam Chomsky.
Richard Dawkins.
Thomas Szasz.
Important and simple insights. And a belief in human freedom too.
Karl Popper.
Eric Fromm.
George Orwell.
A belief in decency shines through.
Bertrand Russell.
Noam Chomsky.
Richard Dawkins.
Stubbornly reasonable. He gives a necessary perspective.
Mikhail Bakunin.
Aldous Huxley.
Umberto Eco.
Graham Greene.
Mikhail Bakunin.
Aldous Huxley.
A very wise man....if there is such a thing. I am not interested at all in LSD. I am very interested in his more philosophical essays and writings. He had a liking for Indian thought amongst other things. He was a humanist and he had a good sense of history....
Umberto Eco.
Intellectual and fun.
Graham Greene.
A "Catholic Atheist", an Englishman, and a wonderful writer......
Desmond Morris.
Desmond Morris's essential and simple perspective is that he was trained as a zoologist so why not examine humans as "just another species" under the gaze of a zoologist. I am against behaviourism, but I think this perspective is interesting and revealing, if not the be all and the end all..... I like very much the book "The Human Zoo".
I think his view of us as fundamentally "simple, tribal animals" is interesting. I no longer think that we are essentially or unavoidably "tribal" however.
Kenan Malik
Donald Cupitt
Tony Benn
Jonathan Porritt
Karen Armstrong
I think his view of us as fundamentally "simple, tribal animals" is interesting. I no longer think that we are essentially or unavoidably "tribal" however.
Kenan Malik
Donald Cupitt
Tony Benn
Jonathan Porritt
Karen Armstrong
Tax fraud.
I can't take the government seriously when they say they can't afford welfare until they eliminate institutional tax fraud by the rich.
Monday 5th March 2007
I must say something in response to the fascist onslaught:) from NewLabour/USDemocratRepublicanPartyofEngland.
There is a contention that the Welfare State is "not affordable" but Trident is.
Even disregarding Trident, it is a simple lie to say that any kind of welfare state cannot be afforded.
I repeat that the best solution is to give everyone a basic income and then people could be free to do the work that needed to be done.
The view that there should be a basic income for all was also the view of Eric Fromm, one of the foremost social philosophers of the past hundred years.
Regarding Trident: apart from it being morally wrong, far too expensive, totally unnecessary, and militarily useless: there is also no one at all out there who is a threat to us.
Nuclear weapons are not a deterrent anyway.
There is a contention that the Welfare State is "not affordable" but Trident is.
Even disregarding Trident, it is a simple lie to say that any kind of welfare state cannot be afforded.
I repeat that the best solution is to give everyone a basic income and then people could be free to do the work that needed to be done.
The view that there should be a basic income for all was also the view of Eric Fromm, one of the foremost social philosophers of the past hundred years.
Regarding Trident: apart from it being morally wrong, far too expensive, totally unnecessary, and militarily useless: there is also no one at all out there who is a threat to us.
Nuclear weapons are not a deterrent anyway.
4 March 2007
Sunday 4th March 2007 - Make that three identical parties.
Did I say England had "two identical political parties"?
Make that three.
Our party system for the last few decades has been an absurdity.
The Social Democratic Party was founded because the Labour party was too socialist.
This was quite a valid, necesssary and sensible development.
It then formed an alliance with the Liberal party because of the practicalities of the undemocratic electoral system that England still has.
The SDP still had a role to play and still would have.
But for some reason it eventually merged with the Liberal Party.
Later on Tony Blair destroyed the Labour Party because it was left-wing.
He changed the Labour Party into the USDemocratPartyofEngland, even though it is effectively not much different to the USRepublicanPartyofEngland as well.
This left England with no left-wing party so the Liberal Party is the most left-wing party.
I say "is". I'm not so sure anymore.
They are shamlessly ditching some of their left-wing policies in the attempt to attract more support at a time when support for all parties is not surprisingly dwindling.
And all of the above was done with no debate, public or otherwise, and no analysis.
Make that three.
Our party system for the last few decades has been an absurdity.
The Social Democratic Party was founded because the Labour party was too socialist.
This was quite a valid, necesssary and sensible development.
It then formed an alliance with the Liberal party because of the practicalities of the undemocratic electoral system that England still has.
The SDP still had a role to play and still would have.
But for some reason it eventually merged with the Liberal Party.
Later on Tony Blair destroyed the Labour Party because it was left-wing.
He changed the Labour Party into the USDemocratPartyofEngland, even though it is effectively not much different to the USRepublicanPartyofEngland as well.
This left England with no left-wing party so the Liberal Party is the most left-wing party.
I say "is". I'm not so sure anymore.
They are shamlessly ditching some of their left-wing policies in the attempt to attract more support at a time when support for all parties is not surprisingly dwindling.
And all of the above was done with no debate, public or otherwise, and no analysis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)