On the Special Relationship

In my humble opinion the USA should have no special relationship with England and England should have no special relationship with the USA.
Other than as two fellow countries of the English-speaking world that have cultural and historical links.

Politically the USA is an independent secular republic that fought to free itself from the English Empire. It is now fully independent and should have the confidence to stand on its own feet and have an equal relationship with all countries, showing favour to none. The same applies to England. It should have the confidence to stand on its own feet and be truly independent, yet co-operating where necessary.

Some countries today still have not yet freed themselves from the English Empire as the USA did in 1783.

Historically the alliance between the US and England has saved the world. It has also harmed the world in my opinion. Maybe there always will be some kind of special relationship because of the good that this alliance has done. That does not mean we should not be wary of it and that each one should not slavishly follow what the other says.

To show favour to an England that is now part of Europe is to compromise the integrity of a Europe that should show unity where co-operation is necessary.

-----

Why doesn't the USA play the field and have a "special relationship" with another country like France or Spain?

Sunday 29th July 2007 - Bleuler

Further to discussions of psychology.

Maybe one of the essential errors made by psychiatry in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century and before is that a perceived mental or behavioural malfunction had to have a biological or chemical cause. This is self-evidently false.
It is more complicated than this. The error seems to be social as much as scientific, and I recommend the works of Szasz for enlightenment on the history of this area.

No behaviour or misbehaviour can in and of itself be an illness or disease.

"Eugen Bleuler (1857-1939) revised the whole concept of dementia praecox. He introduced the term "schizophrenia" to denote a group of psychotic reactions, rather than a straightforward type of disease, and distinguished between a number of different kinds of schizophrenic disorder. His monograph, La schizophre'nie, published in 1911, is still a classic in psychiatric literature. ...."

p.203, "The Pelican History of Psychology", Robert Thompson, 1968.

If the instigator of the entity "schizophrenia" did not think of it as a "straightforward type of disease" then how has it come to be seen by some as a distinct disease?

It is now 2007. I hope we have the confidence to say that this monograph is no longer "a classic".
Unless it is as a classic in fantasy.

"In using the term schizophrenia, I am not referring to any condition that I suppose to be mental rather than physical, or to an illness, like pneumonia, but to a label that some people pin on other people under certain social circumstances."

R.D. Laing in "The Politics of Experience", 1967.

----

Catatonia, paranoia.... all of these are descriptions rather than illnesses.

.....

I don't swan around the planet

I don't swan around the planet as if it's a village that I own. But I like travel.

If flying is destroying the planet, then we are literally destroying the planet for no reason other than frivolous inanity.

So much travelling is unnecessary.

Excellent Huxley quotes

"Towards the kind of religion whose fruits are moral evil and a darkening of the mind the rational idealist can only show an uncompromising hostility."

Aldous Huxley in "Ends and Means", 1938.

"The history of ideas is to a great extent the history of the misinterpretation of ideas."

Aldous Huxley, ibidem.

The truth be told.

The truth be told though the heavens fall.

Because if the heavens can't handle the truth they were never going to stay up anyway.

"The whole truth can never be immoral"
Tolstoy.

Result 2007

Wanted to do a pitch invasion last night when SOAS beat Magdalene Oxford.
Best team won I thought.
I always want the non-Oxbridge team to win.
I have a fanatical devotion to the underdog.

But absolutely ecstatic to see Oscar Wilde's old college beaten.
University Challenge is like football to me.
I can answer quite a few of the questions too.

Oxbridge just ain't right.
7% of people go to Private schools.
40% of Oxbridge students went to private school.

The final word on Oxford is maybe the fact that they let Boris Johnson in.

The Immorality of Religion

Religious belief can be deeply immoral because it can be deeply dishonest.

Kenan Malik quotes on Multiculturalism

"Clearly no human can live outside of culture. But to say this is not to say that they have to live inside a particular one."

Kenan Malik.

"Can multiculturalism work? As an increasingly authoritarian form of social regulation, yes.
But as part of a process through which to create a freer, more equal, more just society, in which we can critically engage with diversity as lived experience? No."

Kenan Malik.

How should one define religion?

To continue with the ramblings on religion....

To precis the entry on religion in Anthony Giddens' text book, "Sociology",

Religion is
NOT (just)
1) Monotheism
2) Moral prescriptions
3) Explaining how the world came to be as it is
4) Belief in the supernatural

because there are religions that do not include any of these things.

Religion IS

- Symbols
- Reverence and Awe
- Rituals
- Community of Believers

Don't know how much I agree with any of this but it makes more sense than other sources.

By this definition, supporting a football team perhaps qualifies as a religion.

But being a fan of a particular team is not a "way of life" or a matter of "ultimate concern" - two other definitions of religion. Or is it?

I would add that maybe religion can include

- Dogma
- Hierarchy
- Leader figures or founder figures - sometimes charismatic and idolised/worshiped.....

Maybe also

- Exclusivity
- Persecution of dissenters from dogma
- .....

I am not convinced that humans are "religious animals" by nature - as some contend - however one defines religion.

Green v. Grey

Green or Grey?

Some people see the distinction as not being between socialism and capitalism but betweem "grey" and "green".

Both socialism and capitalism are about conventional ecomics and economic growth.
They are both "grey".

Green thinking aims for other things.

....

12th July 2007 - G.I.M.

I mentioned to my new third housemate who likes a drink or two that I regarded myself as a G.I.M. - a Green Intellectual Monk. A "GIM".

(I don't live in the Big Brother House - it's far more fun than that).

He replied, "No. You're a Green Intellectual Monk Pervert - a GIMP!" and there was much laughter.

Seen on the wall in a pub in Islington

A SCHOLAR'S INK LASTS LONGER THAN A MARTYR'S BLOOD.

Chomsky on Education

Chomsky on Education.

"The heart of any serious educational programme is fostering the ability to "inquire and create", as discussed by one of the founders of classical liberalism and of the modern university system, Wilhelm von Humboldt."

p.227, "Failed States", Noam Chomsky.

Giddens "Third Way"

Anthony Giddens.
The Third Way. I think it is just the US Democrat Party of England.

There is no third way between traditional social democracy and unbridled neoliberalism.

There is a Green Way that goes beyond these two approaches.

"Securing social justice depends on a strong economy, not the other way around."
Anthony Giddens in The Independent, Thursday 28th June 2007.

Is that really true?

"..,unemployment benefits have been an unconditional right. But this situation discourages personal responsibility and has the effect of locking workers out of jobs. Those who lose their jobs should have a responsibility actively to look for work,.."
Anthony Giddens in The Independent, Thursday 28th June 2007.

a) What if there are no jobs available?

b) What about the human rights that say that everyone is owed their basic needs as a right?

Is there really any substance to Giddens' "Third Way"?