I don't actually like slagging things off and criticizing things.
There is a lot of "slagging things off" in this blog (as we say round here).
A lot of criticism and verbal attacks.
Now I don't actually like slagging things off; for various reasons.
Hmmmm....
30 December 2008
"Psychiatry: The Science of Lies"
30th December '08.
Read an excellent book, "Psychiatry: The Science of Lies" by Thomas Szasz.
Short and sweet.
Very interesting points made about social or human sciences - if there can be such things - as opposed to natural or physical sciences.
It is a philosophical question whether or not there can even be a social science. One reason is that in such a case we are the things that we are studying.
"Psychology is not a science, but the hope of a science." William James - U.S.American, one of the "founding fathers" of modern psychology.
Such humility is still needed today - and will always be needed. One reason is that in the case of psychology it is we ourselves that we are studying.
Szasz seems to be as critical of psychology as he is of psychiatry.
Very good exposure of Freud.
There is also an interesting discussion of Lord Acton, the originator of the well-used statement that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
It is not well known that Acton was a Catholic and that these words were regarding his views on the questionable and at the time (the late 19th century) very new doctrine of Papal infalibility.
Read an excellent book, "Psychiatry: The Science of Lies" by Thomas Szasz.
Short and sweet.
Very interesting points made about social or human sciences - if there can be such things - as opposed to natural or physical sciences.
It is a philosophical question whether or not there can even be a social science. One reason is that in such a case we are the things that we are studying.
"Psychology is not a science, but the hope of a science." William James - U.S.American, one of the "founding fathers" of modern psychology.
Such humility is still needed today - and will always be needed. One reason is that in the case of psychology it is we ourselves that we are studying.
Szasz seems to be as critical of psychology as he is of psychiatry.
Very good exposure of Freud.
There is also an interesting discussion of Lord Acton, the originator of the well-used statement that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
It is not well known that Acton was a Catholic and that these words were regarding his views on the questionable and at the time (the late 19th century) very new doctrine of Papal infalibility.
-----
I have now read four books by Szasz.
"The Myth of Mental Illness".
"Insanity - the Idea and its Consequences."
"Insanity - the Idea and its Consequences."
"Coercion as Cure: A Critical History of Psychiatry"
"Psychiatry: The Science of Lies."
25 December 2008
Re: Iran
The USA and England destroyed democracy in Iran in 1953.
And now the USA has threatened to invade and bomb Iran.
And now the USA has threatened to invade and bomb Iran.
10 December 2008
Everyone wants to work etc.
Criminalising joblessness... etc.
At the end of the day there are shed loads of people on Jobseekers who do loads of voluntary work already!
There are shed loads of people on Jobseekers - which is incidentally a disgraceful pittance especially compared to other European countries - who simply cannot get work for a variety of reasons.
How are we supposed to go from a situation with at least a million on Jobseekers Allowance who can't get work to a situation where even those on sickness benefits somehow get paid work?
....
At the end of the day there are shed loads of people on Jobseekers who do loads of voluntary work already!
There are shed loads of people on Jobseekers - which is incidentally a disgraceful pittance especially compared to other European countries - who simply cannot get work for a variety of reasons.
How are we supposed to go from a situation with at least a million on Jobseekers Allowance who can't get work to a situation where even those on sickness benefits somehow get paid work?
....
I Plan to Conform and Get a Job and Generally Behave at the Nearest Possible Moment
Announcement:
I Plan to Conform and Get a Job and Generally Behave at the Nearest Possible Moment.
--------
After much thought I have realised that there are many reasons why I have never had a proper job.
One of them is that I literally do not know how to get one.
I Plan to Conform and Get a Job and Generally Behave at the Nearest Possible Moment.
--------
After much thought I have realised that there are many reasons why I have never had a proper job.
One of them is that I literally do not know how to get one.
4 December 2008
Pure thick
Calling Karen Mathews "pure evil" as the Police did today is a bit over the top if you ask me.
Pure thick is a bit more like it, considering that she thought she could get away with it.
And putting on a Panorama about it tonight instead of the normal programmes is also a bit de trop.
It shouldn't be forgotten that the media played a role in this crime in the sense that Mathews was trying to gain the financial rewards that are provided by newspapers in such cases.
Pure thick is a bit more like it, considering that she thought she could get away with it.
And putting on a Panorama about it tonight instead of the normal programmes is also a bit de trop.
It shouldn't be forgotten that the media played a role in this crime in the sense that Mathews was trying to gain the financial rewards that are provided by newspapers in such cases.
2 December 2008
Que Feriez-Vous Sans Nous?
Was travelling into Brussels today from the south into the north and saw a large graffiti saying
"Que Feriez-Vous Sans Nous?".
Hmm....
Actually, there was some great graffiti to be seen all over the region.
"Que Feriez-Vous Sans Nous?".
Hmm....
Actually, there was some great graffiti to be seen all over the region.
Secularism
Secular does not mean "no religion" or "anti-religion" it means "any, all or no religion."
It means religious liberty.
.....
It means religious liberty.
.....
1 December 2008
I reserve the right
If we don't have the right to tell the truth we have no rights.
I have the right to tell my version of the truth because if I don't the coercers and oppressors have won. The people who wanted to destroy us and silence us have won if we remain silent.
To remain silent is to conspire in our own oppression.
There should never be a secret that cannot be told.
I have the right to tell my version of the truth because if I don't the coercers and oppressors have won. The people who wanted to destroy us and silence us have won if we remain silent.
To remain silent is to conspire in our own oppression.
There should never be a secret that cannot be told.
20 November 2008
Is this science?
"The exact mechanism of action is not well understood, however...."
In Wikipedia article on trycyclic antidepressants.
In Wikipedia article on trycyclic antidepressants.
Buy Nothing Day and Buy Nothing Christmas!
"As we run out of money, resources and wilderness, and the planet keeps heating up, maybe it’s time to confront the root cause of our global crisis: overconsumption by the most affluent one billion people of the world."
Buy Nothing Day
28th November
www.adbusters.org/
----
Why not have a very merry Buy Nothing Christmas too?
Buy Nothing Day
28th November
www.adbusters.org/
----
Why not have a very merry Buy Nothing Christmas too?
Emancipate Yourself
"The most powerful weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed."
Steve Biko (1946-1977).
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds."
Bob Marley (1945-1981)
Steve Biko (1946-1977).
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds."
Bob Marley (1945-1981)
Imprisonment
My contention is not only that all "psychiatric wards" a crime.
I further contend that they are totally unnecessary and always have been.
My two involuntary stays in psychiatric "hospitals" were unjustified and unnecessary imprisonments.
These two imprisonments were crimes.
------
The first hospitalisation was voluntary. I had been having a hard time and so decided to see if going "on the ward" as others called it, might possibly help me. I knew that it was something to be done in extremis. I judged my situation to be bleak. I genuinely thought that the hospital might help me and might be a place of healing as the name suggested.
As soon as I arrived I realised that it was a prison, that it did not really exist to help people, that its staff were jailors and that being "on the ward" was an unnecessary dehumanising torment that no one wanted to undergo. Admittedly, there were aspects of the experience that were designed to, and to an extent did, help people.
But mainly the psychiatrist had to keep you in there for a certain amount of time in order not to openly recognise the fact that it is a prison and not a hospital. If he let you out when you wanted to go then that would be to admit that it was a prison and not a hospital. They had to go through the pretence of it being a therapeutic environment of some kind, and that the amount of time you spent there bore some correlation with your "mental health". If it did it was probably more time inside meant more unhealthy.
Admittedly, it was a literal asylum of some kind for some people, people could get rest and escape from stress. But still it was also capable of being very unpleasant.
What do you need when you are distressed? One answer is certainly peace and quiet. The hospital was not often able to offer peace and quiet.
The only solution is to outlaw involuntary detention.
I asked to leave and was told that I could but that if I did I would be taken back the next day by police section.
The second tour/imprisonment began with me being taken to the hospital by police section. I hadn't done anything. I had just been distressed. I was fully in the role of a "mentally ill" person and was seen as such not just by the authorities but also by my friends and family. I regard what my friends and family did in this situation as a betrayal. But how are they to realise that psychiatry is a crime?
The situation I was in this time was compounded by the length of the first hospitalisation and all that that had entailed.
I further contend that they are totally unnecessary and always have been.
My two involuntary stays in psychiatric "hospitals" were unjustified and unnecessary imprisonments.
These two imprisonments were crimes.
------
The first hospitalisation was voluntary. I had been having a hard time and so decided to see if going "on the ward" as others called it, might possibly help me. I knew that it was something to be done in extremis. I judged my situation to be bleak. I genuinely thought that the hospital might help me and might be a place of healing as the name suggested.
As soon as I arrived I realised that it was a prison, that it did not really exist to help people, that its staff were jailors and that being "on the ward" was an unnecessary dehumanising torment that no one wanted to undergo. Admittedly, there were aspects of the experience that were designed to, and to an extent did, help people.
But mainly the psychiatrist had to keep you in there for a certain amount of time in order not to openly recognise the fact that it is a prison and not a hospital. If he let you out when you wanted to go then that would be to admit that it was a prison and not a hospital. They had to go through the pretence of it being a therapeutic environment of some kind, and that the amount of time you spent there bore some correlation with your "mental health". If it did it was probably more time inside meant more unhealthy.
Admittedly, it was a literal asylum of some kind for some people, people could get rest and escape from stress. But still it was also capable of being very unpleasant.
What do you need when you are distressed? One answer is certainly peace and quiet. The hospital was not often able to offer peace and quiet.
The only solution is to outlaw involuntary detention.
I asked to leave and was told that I could but that if I did I would be taken back the next day by police section.
The second tour/imprisonment began with me being taken to the hospital by police section. I hadn't done anything. I had just been distressed. I was fully in the role of a "mentally ill" person and was seen as such not just by the authorities but also by my friends and family. I regard what my friends and family did in this situation as a betrayal. But how are they to realise that psychiatry is a crime?
The situation I was in this time was compounded by the length of the first hospitalisation and all that that had entailed.
But basically I had behaved in a way that others disapproved of. That's all.
======
One interesting observation about my time "on the ward" is the following.
When I got there I noticed people continuously walking up and down looking zombie-like.
I thought to myself - "how fucked up do you have to be to walk up and down compulsively like that?". I was shocked at how they constantly walked up and down and at how "zombified" they looked. I assumed they were "mad".
Two weeks later I was walking up and down compulsively myself. Two weeks later I was exactly the same as them!
Nothing had happened to me in the interim.
I was walking up and down because I was very bored and desperate and I wanted to be let out of the animal pen! And I was being pumped full of medication that dulled all my brain functioning.
The reason I was taken forcibly by police section the second time was not because of my behaviour but because I had refused and resisted incarceration.
I had been being driven to the hospital/prison, by my family I should add, and the car had stopped at a garage at which point I had justifiably and understandably got out of the car and ran away back home.
Not long after arriving back at the house I was deceived into going to talk to some police who quickly handcuffed me and placed me in a confined cage in the back of a van.
There was no reason for the force or handcuffs. There was no attempt to communicate with me.
I regard all force, incarceration and compulsion in psychiatry to be a crime.
18 November 2008
L' única lluita que es perd ... és la que s'abandona !
A battle is only lost... when one gives up!
16 November 2008
The Pound Had A Quiet Day
The pound had a quiet day yesterday.
It got up, fed the cat and went back to bed.
It got up, fed the cat and went back to bed.
Why Is England?
I remember once seeing the title of a book.
It was "When Was Wales?"
My immediate response was "Why Is England?". :)
My answer is:
England is the greatest country in the world that saved the world at least once.
That's why England is.
It was "When Was Wales?"
My immediate response was "Why Is England?". :)
My answer is:
England is the greatest country in the world that saved the world at least once.
That's why England is.
Prositution proposals - Looneytunes!
The U.K. government's proposal is to make it illegal to pay for sex with a woman/man who is "controlled for another person's gain."
But not to outlaw paying for sex altogether. Yet it will not be enough for a woman/man who is accused of this offence to say that s/he didn't know the woman/man was being "controlled for another's gain."
Yet how is the woman/man supposed to know?
This is close to the effective banning of paying for sex (without banning it) and that is the expressed intention. Abusurdity!
If you are not outlawing paying for sex then legalise and regulate it so that the woman/man can be sure that the woman/man is not being coerced.
As the proposal stands women/men could end up taking the risk of doing something that might possibly be illegal, but which might not be illegal. It's not going to work this way! It's Loonytunes!
....
------
Legalizing Prostitution: A Step Towards Freedom.
http://www.szasz.com/undergraduate/Smith.html
----
Last week during a debate on paying for sex, Germaine Greer announced that selling it was better than "selling a child, a kidney or your soul for long hours for wretched pay stacking shelves at Tesco".
----
Prostitutes provide a service.
Not necessarily an indispensable one but a service none the less.
In some cases it is providing a service for people who have no other access to sexual activity.
......
----
'Is this something about which people have a choice with respect to their demands? Yes, they do. Basically, if it means fewer people are able to go out and pay for sex I think that would be a good thing.'
Jacqui Smith.
Of course, matron.
What right does Jacqui Smith have to say this?
She is basically saying "I want people to have less sex!".
Effectively for some people she is saying "I want you to have no sex at all!"
Wasn't there something in a little book called "1984" about the Anti-Sex League....?
...
Obviously I am against exploitation, trafficking and slavery of any kind.
Surely a good strategy to combat this would be legalization.
This would be as good as any strategy.
But not to outlaw paying for sex altogether. Yet it will not be enough for a woman/man who is accused of this offence to say that s/he didn't know the woman/man was being "controlled for another's gain."
Yet how is the woman/man supposed to know?
This is close to the effective banning of paying for sex (without banning it) and that is the expressed intention. Abusurdity!
If you are not outlawing paying for sex then legalise and regulate it so that the woman/man can be sure that the woman/man is not being coerced.
As the proposal stands women/men could end up taking the risk of doing something that might possibly be illegal, but which might not be illegal. It's not going to work this way! It's Loonytunes!
....
------
Legalizing Prostitution: A Step Towards Freedom.
http://www.szasz.com/undergraduate/Smith.html
----
Last week during a debate on paying for sex, Germaine Greer announced that selling it was better than "selling a child, a kidney or your soul for long hours for wretched pay stacking shelves at Tesco".
----
Prostitutes provide a service.
Not necessarily an indispensable one but a service none the less.
In some cases it is providing a service for people who have no other access to sexual activity.
......
----
'Is this something about which people have a choice with respect to their demands? Yes, they do. Basically, if it means fewer people are able to go out and pay for sex I think that would be a good thing.'
Jacqui Smith.
Of course, matron.
What right does Jacqui Smith have to say this?
She is basically saying "I want people to have less sex!".
Effectively for some people she is saying "I want you to have no sex at all!"
Wasn't there something in a little book called "1984" about the Anti-Sex League....?
...
Obviously I am against exploitation, trafficking and slavery of any kind.
Surely a good strategy to combat this would be legalization.
This would be as good as any strategy.
13 November 2008
The English invented the Concentration Camp
To continue the general "anglosceptic" thrust of this blog, which I believe to be a justified and needed perspective, I feel the need to point out that the English invented the Concentration Camp.
At the same time my perspective is pro-English with regard to the positive aspects of the English.
Like most things, there are good aspects to things and bad aspects to things.
I love the English I just don't like some of what they have done and to an extent still do.
And they don't always seem aware of it.
At the same time my perspective is pro-English with regard to the positive aspects of the English.
Like most things, there are good aspects to things and bad aspects to things.
I love the English I just don't like some of what they have done and to an extent still do.
And they don't always seem aware of it.
Would this work?
What about creating a world economic system based on needs rather than profit?
Would that work?
What would happen if production was geared around need rather than profit?
Would that work?
What would happen if production was geared around need rather than profit?
11 November 2008
How Mad Is This Programme?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/headroom/newsandevents/programmes/horizon_hmay.shtml
How mad are you?
Madness, mental illness, OCD, schizophrenia, depression, manic depression, social anxiety disorder [That's a new one - used to be called shyness!] eating disorders, ADHD....
None of these things exist.
This is obvious.
It's obvious that none of these exist as specific diseases or real diagnonsenses or conditions.
There is only behaviour.
You may say isn't someone who is depressed suffering from the condition of being depressed?
Yes but to call it a "condition" implies an illness and implies it has an independent existence of some kind when in reality it is a behaviour......
----------
I was so pleased that many of the assessments of the "mental health professionals" in this programme turned out to be totally wrong. Well, not wrong but meaningless.
They couldn't say which ones had "mental illnesses" because none of them does and no one does.
But it's not necessarily their fault. They are too victims of pseudo-science and oppressed by the system that they are part of.
The conclusions are obvious as pointed out in an excellent Big Issue article.
Hopefully such people can do what they surely want to do: help people.
How mad are you?
Madness, mental illness, OCD, schizophrenia, depression, manic depression, social anxiety disorder [That's a new one - used to be called shyness!] eating disorders, ADHD....
None of these things exist.
This is obvious.
It's obvious that none of these exist as specific diseases or real diagnonsenses or conditions.
There is only behaviour.
You may say isn't someone who is depressed suffering from the condition of being depressed?
Yes but to call it a "condition" implies an illness and implies it has an independent existence of some kind when in reality it is a behaviour......
----------
I was so pleased that many of the assessments of the "mental health professionals" in this programme turned out to be totally wrong. Well, not wrong but meaningless.
They couldn't say which ones had "mental illnesses" because none of them does and no one does.
But it's not necessarily their fault. They are too victims of pseudo-science and oppressed by the system that they are part of.
The conclusions are obvious as pointed out in an excellent Big Issue article.
Hopefully such people can do what they surely want to do: help people.
10 November 2008
Reading
I am reading two very interesting pamphlets that I got at the Anarchist Bookfair.
"The Continuing Appeal of Nationalism".
"Fascism and Anti-Fascism".
Absolutely fascinating and high quality as everything usually is at the Anarchist Bookfair.
"The Continuing Appeal of Nationalism".
"Fascism and Anti-Fascism".
Absolutely fascinating and high quality as everything usually is at the Anarchist Bookfair.
9 November 2008
People do not equal their deeds
I firmly believe that people do not equal their deeds.
I firmly believe that people can make mistakes.
People are free and free to make mistakes.
Due to stupidity, ignorance and lack of understanding.
----
I speak as someone who regards himself as having done awfully wrong things.
I didn't a) set out to do the wrong thing;
b) necessarily think that I was doing the wrong thing - though I now see it was the wrong thing.
I did what I did through stupidity not necessarily malice.
And were there malice, I am so sorry.
......
I firmly believe that people can make mistakes.
People are free and free to make mistakes.
Due to stupidity, ignorance and lack of understanding.
----
I speak as someone who regards himself as having done awfully wrong things.
I didn't a) set out to do the wrong thing;
b) necessarily think that I was doing the wrong thing - though I now see it was the wrong thing.
I did what I did through stupidity not necessarily malice.
And were there malice, I am so sorry.
......
Remembrance Sunday Quote
An interesting quote for Remembrance Day:
"The law of the state is that to save the state even the innocent must be sacrificed....
the death of a single man is an event more important and more tragic than the death of a state or an empire."
Nicholas BERDYAEV. 1946.
Quoted in "Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism" by Peter Marshall.
http://www.petermarshall.net/
-------
Like so many I tend towards the view that World War One was a tragic waste - that all sides were rapacious empires and that it was an immoral war - but that in contrast World War Two was possibly necessary.
[Bertrand Russell, for example, went to prison for his opposition to World War One, but later came to support World War Two because of the nature of the enemy....]
However, it is perhaps not entirely mistaken to regard the years from 1918-1939 as merely a pause in the fighting, as a French thinker asserted. (Must find the quote).
...
---------------------
I am opposed to the idea that music or any art form is an "industry".
....
"The law of the state is that to save the state even the innocent must be sacrificed....
the death of a single man is an event more important and more tragic than the death of a state or an empire."
Nicholas BERDYAEV. 1946.
Quoted in "Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism" by Peter Marshall.
http://www.petermarshall.net/
-------
Like so many I tend towards the view that World War One was a tragic waste - that all sides were rapacious empires and that it was an immoral war - but that in contrast World War Two was possibly necessary.
[Bertrand Russell, for example, went to prison for his opposition to World War One, but later came to support World War Two because of the nature of the enemy....]
However, it is perhaps not entirely mistaken to regard the years from 1918-1939 as merely a pause in the fighting, as a French thinker asserted. (Must find the quote).
...
---------------------
I am opposed to the idea that music or any art form is an "industry".
....
6 November 2008
Orwell's Art
"What I have most wanted to do… is to make political writing into an art."
George Orwell.
http://www.theorwellprize.co.uk/
---------
We must guard against the institutionalisation of Orwell and his work.
That would be the ultimate irony. "Big Brother George" is watching you....
.....
George Orwell.
http://www.theorwellprize.co.uk/
---------
We must guard against the institutionalisation of Orwell and his work.
That would be the ultimate irony. "Big Brother George" is watching you....
.....
5 November 2008
Voting and anarchism
At its most basic, anarchists support abstentionism because "participation in elections means the transfer of one's will and decisions to another, which is contrary to the fundamental principles of anarchism."
(Emma Goldman, "Anarchists and Elections", Vanguard III, June-July 1936, p. 19)
I fundamentally disagree with this. It's not true for a start.
- If I vote I am not surrendering any power I may have. I am merely voting.
Voting emphatically does not "legitimise government"; voting emphatically does not "divert attention from grassroots action". I am merely voting: It only takes a few moments.
I am not necessarily "consenting to let someone act for me rather than acting myself."
I am merely voting. I can still act for myself in any way I want. If I didn't vote I would still be in the same situation.
.....
I am not transferring my will and decisions. I am merely voting. If only as a tactic.
- What if voting helps secure the ultimate objective of achieving freedom?
- Voting is not compulsory.
(Though I think that voting or expressed registered abstention should be compulsory).
- If I don't vote, nothing will change.
If I don't vote nothing whatsoever will actually be achieved by my action of not voting.
No political government system that involves voting ever dissolved itself because not enough people voted in total. Low turnout does not mean that no one wins.
Low turnout won't mean that voting is abolished.
.....
- Whereas if I do vote I have the chance of changing things if only slightly.
Yes I agree with anarchism and I don't want government.
But I see voting as a door opening to achieve more freedom rather than as a door closing on the prospect of freedom....
At the least voting is just a tactic among many.
A tactic that should not necessarily be rejected.
....
-----------------
Anyway, if Chomsky votes "occasionally" and says that it's a good idea "to chose the lesser of two evils" and vote for the more progressive candidate then that's good enough for me!
Now that's surrendering to authority :)
.....
(Emma Goldman, "Anarchists and Elections", Vanguard III, June-July 1936, p. 19)
I fundamentally disagree with this. It's not true for a start.
- If I vote I am not surrendering any power I may have. I am merely voting.
Voting emphatically does not "legitimise government"; voting emphatically does not "divert attention from grassroots action". I am merely voting: It only takes a few moments.
I am not necessarily "consenting to let someone act for me rather than acting myself."
I am merely voting. I can still act for myself in any way I want. If I didn't vote I would still be in the same situation.
.....
I am not transferring my will and decisions. I am merely voting. If only as a tactic.
- What if voting helps secure the ultimate objective of achieving freedom?
- Voting is not compulsory.
(Though I think that voting or expressed registered abstention should be compulsory).
- If I don't vote, nothing will change.
If I don't vote nothing whatsoever will actually be achieved by my action of not voting.
No political government system that involves voting ever dissolved itself because not enough people voted in total. Low turnout does not mean that no one wins.
Low turnout won't mean that voting is abolished.
.....
- Whereas if I do vote I have the chance of changing things if only slightly.
Yes I agree with anarchism and I don't want government.
But I see voting as a door opening to achieve more freedom rather than as a door closing on the prospect of freedom....
At the least voting is just a tactic among many.
A tactic that should not necessarily be rejected.
....
-----------------
Anyway, if Chomsky votes "occasionally" and says that it's a good idea "to chose the lesser of two evils" and vote for the more progressive candidate then that's good enough for me!
Now that's surrendering to authority :)
.....
Over the Moon!
I am over the moon about the election result!
Cockahoop!
Proof that voting is worth it!
This change is momentous.
It would be so even if it were only symbolic.
And it is obviously far more than just symbolic change.
Some may say it makes no difference.
Look at what the alternative to Obama was and you'll soon realise that cannot be true.
Cockahoop!
Proof that voting is worth it!
This change is momentous.
It would be so even if it were only symbolic.
And it is obviously far more than just symbolic change.
Some may say it makes no difference.
Look at what the alternative to Obama was and you'll soon realise that cannot be true.
4 November 2008
What's wrong with shagging sheep?
What's wrong with shagging sheep anyway?
It's legal in Denmark.
Between consenting parties.
It's legal in Denmark.
Between consenting parties.
2 November 2008
30 October 2008
I Support The Daily Sport
Very pleased to see the lone crusading voice of The Daily Sport come out in support of the beleaguered Brand and Ross.
I actually prefer The Daily Sport to The Sun.
I have more respect for it as a "news"paper.
The roasting this duo are getting is just ridiculous and out of proportion to what they did.
I actually prefer The Daily Sport to The Sun.
I have more respect for it as a "news"paper.
The roasting this duo are getting is just ridiculous and out of proportion to what they did.
29 October 2008
What Happened to the US?
The Triumph of Ignorance :
Posted October 28, 2008
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/10/28/the-triumph-of-ignorance/
Great article by George Monbiot about why American political and intellectual culture has degraded to such an extent.
Posted October 28, 2008
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/10/28/the-triumph-of-ignorance/
Great article by George Monbiot about why American political and intellectual culture has degraded to such an extent.
Storm in a Teacup
This furore over Brand and Ross's behaviour is another example of a storm in a teacup just like the fuss over Jade's behaviour. What kind of society is it that has such a distorted world view that so many people in it think that this issue is important?
What they did was meant to be a joke. They have apologised. Why all the fuss?
The real scandal is how much they are paid.
The real scandal is how superficial, unentertaining and unfunny both individuals can sometimes be.
I don't find people who think that life itself is a joke funny.
I certainly don't have a problem with swearing.
What would be on the front cover of every newspaper in a sane society would not be this rubbish but something like what is on the front of The Morning Star today :
"BP DRAWS FIRE FOR "OBSCENE" 6 BILLION PROFITS."
In a sane society the only papers covering the Brand and Ross story would be the joke tabloids.
What they did was meant to be a joke. They have apologised. Why all the fuss?
The real scandal is how much they are paid.
The real scandal is how superficial, unentertaining and unfunny both individuals can sometimes be.
I don't find people who think that life itself is a joke funny.
I certainly don't have a problem with swearing.
What would be on the front cover of every newspaper in a sane society would not be this rubbish but something like what is on the front of The Morning Star today :
"BP DRAWS FIRE FOR "OBSCENE" 6 BILLION PROFITS."
In a sane society the only papers covering the Brand and Ross story would be the joke tabloids.
28 October 2008
England
"There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other.
That word is ENGLAND."
Winston Churchill
That word is ENGLAND."
Winston Churchill
27 October 2008
27 Oct
Fact of the day:
Less than 1% of the population of the UK belong to any of the 3 main political parties.
Quote of the day:
"America is a mistake, a giant mistake." Sigmund Freud
Less than 1% of the population of the UK belong to any of the 3 main political parties.
Quote of the day:
"America is a mistake, a giant mistake." Sigmund Freud
26 October 2008
The "economy" is shrinking
The "economy" is "shrinking" but prices are going up.
This seems contradictory.
The "economy" here supposedly means the total value of the goods and services in a society.
Therefore if prices are rising, then how can the economy be shrinking since the value of the goods is surely rising?
Am I missing something here?
Also, if prices are rising then the income of someone somewhere is surely going up. (?)
Or at least rising prices mean that someone somewhere is making sure they don't get poorer. (?)
Maybe these musings are wrong actually.
......
25 October 2008
"Not In Our Genes"
I have heard about this book called "Not In Our Genes" by the biologist Steven Rose.
Looking forward to reading it.
------
I suspect that IQ is mainly bollocks.24 October 2008
24th October
I am still angry about the Jean Charles De Menezes case.
One of the killers was giving evidence today.
Still no clear acknowledgement from him or anyone that what happened was, in an objective analysis, an example of staggering incompetence.
"armed intervention was used in only the most "extreme" circumstances"
Well, these were obviously not such circumstances.
One of the killers was giving evidence today.
Still no clear acknowledgement from him or anyone that what happened was, in an objective analysis, an example of staggering incompetence.
"armed intervention was used in only the most "extreme" circumstances"
Well, these were obviously not such circumstances.
23 October 2008
"Mark Steel: It's all poor people's fault, isn't it?"
Another great Mark Steel article yesterday in The Independent, 23rd October 2008:
"Mark Steel: It's all poor people's fault, isn't it?"
"Mark Steel: It's all poor people's fault, isn't it?"
20 October 2008
"Smoking is not enjoyable"
This is a extract from Alan Carr's book
"Allen Carr's Easy Way to Give Up Smoking":
"...smoking is not enjoyable."
*throws book in bin*
This is a good book with excellent insights but I did find this contention - that basically smoking is not enjoyable - to be utterly ludicrous.
Why do people smoke then?
To be fair, he did qualify it in some way but I wasn't entirely convinced.
I think it was something along the lines of "smoking is not enjoyable, but nicotine addiction is...."
I speak as an ex-smoker.
Among other things, I had to accept that smoking was in some way enjoyable before I gave up.
----
"Virtue consists not in abstaining from vice but in not desiring it." GBS.
Once I realised that yes, smoking is enjoyable but that it is not worth it because it is extremely bad for you and the environment in so many ways and not just in the future but right now, I no longer wanted to smoke. So I made the decision not to.
I also had to accept that having an occasional cigarette was impossible because smoking's essence is addictiveness - physical and psychological - and one cigarette demands another.
I don't really believe in addiction so I would maybe say habit-forming then.
I also saw it as one less thing to worry about, once the decision had been made.
.....
....
"Allen Carr's Easy Way to Give Up Smoking":
"...smoking is not enjoyable."
*throws book in bin*
This is a good book with excellent insights but I did find this contention - that basically smoking is not enjoyable - to be utterly ludicrous.
Why do people smoke then?
To be fair, he did qualify it in some way but I wasn't entirely convinced.
I think it was something along the lines of "smoking is not enjoyable, but nicotine addiction is...."
I speak as an ex-smoker.
Among other things, I had to accept that smoking was in some way enjoyable before I gave up.
----
"Virtue consists not in abstaining from vice but in not desiring it." GBS.
Once I realised that yes, smoking is enjoyable but that it is not worth it because it is extremely bad for you and the environment in so many ways and not just in the future but right now, I no longer wanted to smoke. So I made the decision not to.
I also had to accept that having an occasional cigarette was impossible because smoking's essence is addictiveness - physical and psychological - and one cigarette demands another.
I don't really believe in addiction so I would maybe say habit-forming then.
I also saw it as one less thing to worry about, once the decision had been made.
.....
....
20 October 2008: "This recession is the ideal time to deal with global warming."
20 October 08.
Great article today by Johann Hari in The Independent:
"This recession is the ideal time to deal with global warming."
http://www.johannhari.com/
Great article today by Johann Hari in The Independent:
"This recession is the ideal time to deal with global warming."
http://www.johannhari.com/
19 October 2008
16 October 2008
Why I still vote and will always vote
(*under intellectual construction*)
Anarchists are (mainly) opposed to voting.
Among other things it is regarded as giving consent to be governed.
I regard myself as an anarchist: yet:
I have always voted, still vote and will always vote, whilst there is a vote and whilst there is still government.
I even think voting or expressed registered abstention should be compulsory.
Proportional Representation should be guaranteed as well.
--------
As an anarchist I suppose I should look towards a time when there is no government and hence no voting as currently conceived.
The essential principle of anarchism is individual autonomy. I will not rule and I will not be ruled.
Well if voting is merely part of organisation and not part of government then I am not opposed to it.....
--------
I am an anarchist who votes.
I will attempt to explain why I vote.
[I do not regard voting as consent to be governed I regard it as consenting to be governed with certain conditions....]
I regard voting as a step towards giving more power to people, to individuals.
A step in the right direction.
I regard it as pragmatic to vote.
I regard a society where there is a parliamentary democracy where people can vote, as better than a governed society where there is no vote and almost always better that what went before it.
I regard it as giving consent to be governed less. Maybe like a stepping stone...
I regard it as a way to have more power and more of a say in what goes on.
Many people fought and died to secure universal suffrage and this should never be forgotten.
The benefits that voting has secured for people are many.
I regard voting as voluntary co-operation in organisation.
In a free non-governed society voting of some kind may still be necessary.
I believe in real democracy.
I am against governments: I am a true democrat.
I am even in favour of more voting! On more issues!
If voting means having a say in what goes on then surely we must be in favour of it, and more of it!
More democracy! And less government!... if that makes sense.
.....
These are incomplete ramblings in which I am trying to work out what I think....
But at the present time I still say I have always voted, I do vote and I will always vote.
*under construction*
*Socratic dialogue*
The alternative to the ballot is often the jackboot.
?
----
But how can you want freedom, no government and individual autonomy and still vote?
It doesn't make sense.
It is agreeing to government.
I still vote because it gives me a chance of obtaining more freedom!
.....
Saying that "voting has never changed anything" is a bald lie.
I can give lots of examples.
I suppose the people who say "voting never changes anything" really mean "voting never changes anything worth changing."
If that's what they mean, then that's what they should say.
But voting definitely has changed things and can change things to some extent.
Can voting harm? That depends on who you vote for.
Is "signaling consent to be governed" as it is seen by anarchists, actually doing any harm?
I still say VOTE!
even if you are an anarchist.
VOTING HAS CHANGED THINGS!
VOTING DOES CHANGE THINGS!
VOTING WILL CHANGE THINGS!
-------------
I VOTE!
Anarchists are (mainly) opposed to voting.
Among other things it is regarded as giving consent to be governed.
I regard myself as an anarchist: yet:
I have always voted, still vote and will always vote, whilst there is a vote and whilst there is still government.
I even think voting or expressed registered abstention should be compulsory.
Proportional Representation should be guaranteed as well.
--------
As an anarchist I suppose I should look towards a time when there is no government and hence no voting as currently conceived.
The essential principle of anarchism is individual autonomy. I will not rule and I will not be ruled.
Well if voting is merely part of organisation and not part of government then I am not opposed to it.....
--------
I am an anarchist who votes.
I will attempt to explain why I vote.
[I do not regard voting as consent to be governed I regard it as consenting to be governed with certain conditions....]
I regard voting as a step towards giving more power to people, to individuals.
A step in the right direction.
I regard it as pragmatic to vote.
I regard a society where there is a parliamentary democracy where people can vote, as better than a governed society where there is no vote and almost always better that what went before it.
I regard it as giving consent to be governed less. Maybe like a stepping stone...
I regard it as a way to have more power and more of a say in what goes on.
Many people fought and died to secure universal suffrage and this should never be forgotten.
The benefits that voting has secured for people are many.
I regard voting as voluntary co-operation in organisation.
In a free non-governed society voting of some kind may still be necessary.
I believe in real democracy.
I am against governments: I am a true democrat.
I am even in favour of more voting! On more issues!
If voting means having a say in what goes on then surely we must be in favour of it, and more of it!
More democracy! And less government!... if that makes sense.
.....
These are incomplete ramblings in which I am trying to work out what I think....
But at the present time I still say I have always voted, I do vote and I will always vote.
*under construction*
*Socratic dialogue*
The alternative to the ballot is often the jackboot.
?
----
But how can you want freedom, no government and individual autonomy and still vote?
It doesn't make sense.
It is agreeing to government.
I still vote because it gives me a chance of obtaining more freedom!
.....
Saying that "voting has never changed anything" is a bald lie.
I can give lots of examples.
I suppose the people who say "voting never changes anything" really mean "voting never changes anything worth changing."
If that's what they mean, then that's what they should say.
But voting definitely has changed things and can change things to some extent.
Can voting harm? That depends on who you vote for.
Is "signaling consent to be governed" as it is seen by anarchists, actually doing any harm?
I still say VOTE!
even if you are an anarchist.
VOTING HAS CHANGED THINGS!
VOTING DOES CHANGE THINGS!
VOTING WILL CHANGE THINGS!
-------------
I VOTE!
12 October 2008
Be honest
Be honest.
If what psychiatry does is "(possibly necessary) social control" then say that's what it is!
Don't pretend it's medicine.
If what psychiatry does is "(possibly necessary) social control" then say that's what it is!
Don't pretend it's medicine.
The wisdom of Oasis
"Is it worth the aggravation to find yourself a job when there's nothing worth working for?"
"Don't go put your life in the hands of a rock and roll band who'll throw it all away."
Oasis.
"Don't go put your life in the hands of a rock and roll band who'll throw it all away."
Oasis.
Overall Oasis as a pop band are pretty crap.
The Stone Roses are better.
Let us not delude ourselves any longer - the USA and England are to blame
Who is responsible for the financial crisis we are suffering?
It's time to point out that most of the responsibility is to be borne by the governments of the USA and England and their extreme belief in unregulated and unsafe financial practices.
Let's not delude ourselves anymore.
-----
The UK government for example is itself to blame for the Iceland collapse, as made clear here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/11/iceland-savings
It's time to point out that most of the responsibility is to be borne by the governments of the USA and England and their extreme belief in unregulated and unsafe financial practices.
Let's not delude ourselves anymore.
-----
The UK government for example is itself to blame for the Iceland collapse, as made clear here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/11/iceland-savings
11 October 2008
What I do
I spend my time doing the following.
Saying totally obvious things that everyone knows anyway but that no one ever says.
---------------------------------------------------
I have told the truth all my life.
I will continue to do so whilst I live.
---------------------------------------------------
Fame is the new shame.
If you are famous you must have done something really crap.
Is it just me or is everything shit?
Saying totally obvious things that everyone knows anyway but that no one ever says.
---------------------------------------------------
I have told the truth all my life.
I will continue to do so whilst I live.
---------------------------------------------------
Fame is the new shame.
If you are famous you must have done something really crap.
Is it just me or is everything shit?
10 October 2008
Hurtful acts.
"A hurtful act is the transference to others of the degradation which we bear in ourselves."
Simone Weil.
Simone Weil.
Pointing out the obvious again.
Every price that exists and every price that has ever existed and every price that will ever exist is determined by humans.
It is perfectly possible to have a society without money.
For most of existence there was no money.
It is perfectly possible to have a society without money.
For most of existence there was no money.
9 October 2008
"Neither a lender nor a borrower be."
"Neither a lender nor a borrower be."
What's the bigger crime, robbing a bank or opening one?
"What is the robbing of a bank compared to the founding of a bank?"
Berthold Brecht.
----
So I think I've figured this thing out.
They are lending out lots and lots of money that they don't have
to people that can't pay it back.
Banks are needed to loan out money to people. Maybe.
But it needs a bit of regulation surely.
What's the bigger crime, robbing a bank or opening one?
"What is the robbing of a bank compared to the founding of a bank?"
Berthold Brecht.
----
So I think I've figured this thing out.
They are lending out lots and lots of money that they don't have
to people that can't pay it back.
Banks are needed to loan out money to people. Maybe.
But it needs a bit of regulation surely.
8 October 2008
Tenner on the dogs. 20 on the bank.
TENNER ON THE DOGS.
20 ON THE COPPER MINE.
FIVER ON THE HORSES.
20 ON ROONEY TO SCORE FIRST.
50 ON THE BANK OF SCOTLAND.
What is the difference between John McCririck and an economist?
John McCririck is honest about his job.
"
NAT WEST. MIDLANDS. BARCLAYS. LLOYDS.
BLACK HORSE APOCALYPSE!
DEATH SANITISED THROUGH CREDIT.
"
--------
What's the difference between a bookies and the London Stock Exchange?
The people in the bookies are less greedy and don't destroy the planet.
20 ON THE COPPER MINE.
FIVER ON THE HORSES.
20 ON ROONEY TO SCORE FIRST.
50 ON THE BANK OF SCOTLAND.
What is the difference between John McCririck and an economist?
John McCririck is honest about his job.
"
NAT WEST. MIDLANDS. BARCLAYS. LLOYDS.
BLACK HORSE APOCALYPSE!
DEATH SANITISED THROUGH CREDIT.
"
--------
What's the difference between a bookies and the London Stock Exchange?
The people in the bookies are less greedy and don't destroy the planet.
7 October 2008
6 October 2008
Think of the Planet as a 46 year old
Think of the planet Earth as a 46 year old …
The Earth is thought to be around 4 600 million years old, an almost inconceivable time-span. For the moment, think of it as someone in middle age, 46 years old.
This person is a late developer. Nothing at all is known about their first seven years and only sketchy information exists about the next 35 years. It is only at the age of 42 that the Earth began to flower. Dinosaurs and the great reptiles did not appear until a year ago, when this planet reached 45. Mammals arrived only eight months ago. In the middle of last week, human-like apes evolved into ape-like humans, and at the weekend the last ice age enveloped the Earth.
Modern humans have been around for four hours. During the last hour we discovered agriculture. The industrial revolution began just a minute ago. During those sixty seconds of biological time, humans have made a rubbish dump out of Paradise. We have caused the extinction of many hundreds of species of animals, many of which have been here longer than us, and ransacked the planet for fuel.
Now we stand, like brutish infants, gloating over the meteoric rise to ascendancy, poised on the brink of the final mass extinction and of effectively destroying this oasis of life in the solar system.
- Greenpeace
Christianity and sex
Why is Christianity traditionally so anti-sex?
Does this opposition to sex come from the Old Testament or
from medieval Eruope?
"Castitas infamiae nvbe Obs curata emergit" (“Chastity emerges from the dark clouds of Infamy”).
Often true surely....
......
Does this opposition to sex come from the Old Testament or
from medieval Eruope?
"Castitas infamiae nvbe Obs curata emergit" (“Chastity emerges from the dark clouds of Infamy”).
Often true surely....
......
Staggered As Usual
I am staggered as usual.
The Cop Woman responsible for the murder of Jean Charles De Menezes says, "We did nothing wrong."
Er. Er. Er. No.
I think you.. er.. did do something wrong. Er.. you murdered an innocent man.
Rather a serious error. Or I should say serious crime.
Once again Orwellian doublethink offered for consumption to the bewildered populace.
For her to say "We did nothing wrong" is literally absurd.The point to make is that what happened that day was, in an objective analysis, an example of staggering incompetence.
--------------------------------------------
Why is there no questioning of the insane economic system that we live under and which
we do not have to live under?
It is running society on the principles of a gambling shop.
Running the world as a bookies.
Gambling with our lives.
We don't have to do it this way.
Unnecessary and insane.
The Cop Woman responsible for the murder of Jean Charles De Menezes says, "We did nothing wrong."
Er. Er. Er. No.
I think you.. er.. did do something wrong. Er.. you murdered an innocent man.
Rather a serious error. Or I should say serious crime.
Once again Orwellian doublethink offered for consumption to the bewildered populace.
For her to say "We did nothing wrong" is literally absurd.The point to make is that what happened that day was, in an objective analysis, an example of staggering incompetence.
--------------------------------------------
Why is there no questioning of the insane economic system that we live under and which
we do not have to live under?
It is running society on the principles of a gambling shop.
Running the world as a bookies.
Gambling with our lives.
We don't have to do it this way.
Unnecessary and insane.
5 October 2008
Psychiatric "medication" is fake and kills for no reason!
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/ignored-the-mentally-ill-killed-by-drugs-that-are-meant-to-help-them-951821.html
Excellent that someone is telling the truth!
But still no one is asking the question: How are these "medicines" supposed to work? This is never asked!
"But it is also important to remember people who need the strongest medication are the most severely ill." (Royal College of Psychiatrists).
What illness? What medication?
Where is the evidence that giving more of a substance changes the behaviour in any way?
Psychiatric medication is fake. It is poison and not much more.
There is no evidence that this medication achieves anything at all.
Excellent that someone is telling the truth!
But still no one is asking the question: How are these "medicines" supposed to work? This is never asked!
"But it is also important to remember people who need the strongest medication are the most severely ill." (Royal College of Psychiatrists).
What illness? What medication?
Where is the evidence that giving more of a substance changes the behaviour in any way?
Psychiatric medication is fake. It is poison and not much more.
There is no evidence that this medication achieves anything at all.
4 October 2008
Checklist
Keep your eye on the checklist.
Could add a few things.
For example, talk of the need for continuous and fake wars....
and wars in general...
3 October 2008
A Lament for the Dying Bookshops
Does anyone remember "Books For A Change" in Charing Cross Road?
or "Compendium" in Camden Town?
Both gone.
Superseded by profit and the Internet......
or "Compendium" in Camden Town?
Both gone.
Superseded by profit and the Internet......
1 October 2008
29 September 2008
I am a sceptic
http://skeptic.org.uk/
I don't believe that knowledge is impossible but I believe that what is accepted as knowledge should be questioned.....
I don't believe that knowledge is impossible but I believe that what is accepted as knowledge should be questioned.....
Community? What community?
We are communal and social animals....
Yet we don't always have communities....
Yet we don't always have communities....
28 September 2008
The Greatest Film Ever Made?
Someone has slagged Life of Brian today in The Independent on Sunday in a totally vacuous article.
Life of Brian is probably the greatest film ever made.
And probably will remain so.
This rather hyperbolic assessment perhaps says more about my view of the medium of film than it does about my view of the film itself.
Life of Brian says a great deal.
For example: about leadership, human freedom, revolutionaries, messiahs, empires, activism, right-wing people, religious nuts, women, politics....
------
Gerald Kaufman said that Schindler's List was possibly "the greatest film ever made."
Maybe he's right.
Life of Brian's scope is possibly much broader. Comparing comedy with tragedy is not really comparing like with like.
-------------
"Crucifixion's a doddle!"
-----------------
Life of Brian is probably the greatest film ever made.
And probably will remain so.
This rather hyperbolic assessment perhaps says more about my view of the medium of film than it does about my view of the film itself.
Life of Brian says a great deal.
For example: about leadership, human freedom, revolutionaries, messiahs, empires, activism, right-wing people, religious nuts, women, politics....
------
Gerald Kaufman said that Schindler's List was possibly "the greatest film ever made."
Maybe he's right.
Life of Brian's scope is possibly much broader. Comparing comedy with tragedy is not really comparing like with like.
-------------
"Crucifixion's a doddle!"
-----------------
25 September 2008
Religion
I would like to say that the (only) religious people I want to hear from are people that are not trying to change the way I think - religious people who are not trying to convert me.
Religions do good.
I think atheists have to face this.
Religions do do some good.
Religions do good.
I think atheists have to face this.
Religions do do some good.
23 September 2008
Contradiction
One of Gordon Brown's contentions in his speech is that some people's supposed attitude that they can receive "something for nothing" should be replaced with an attitude that says "something for something, nothing for nothing".
This is in direct contradiction of the socialist principle:
"from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs".
This should be taken on board by sections of the media and even sections of the "Left" who seem to think that people don't deserve their basic needs; and who encourage this and similar attitudes.
Part of the reason that they do so is to justify the exorbitant riches of some people who want to feel that they worked for their riches and deserve their riches.
-------------
The above is the essence of what I want to say in this post but there follows a mini-rant coda.
Work is not always paid work! This is the 21st century!
What about the millions who work unpaid for charities?
Do they get "nothing for something" Mr. Brown?
What about job satisfattion? Working for something you believe in and not just for money?..
----
This very attitude - that the world owes no one a living, that there is no free lunch, you've got to work for a living, is an attitude I have scorn for.
It is the attitude of the lowest Daily Mail-reading vermin.
It is not the attitude of a true socialist.
It is firstly totally and utterly untrue.
Giving everyone their basic needs is extremely simple and totally feasible.
Loads of work that is done is totally unnecessary.
"There's enough for everyone's needs. But not for everyone's greed". Gandhi.
Most technology is invented to save work...
It is also morally reprehensible.
To say that if you don't work you can starve is disgusting and unreasonable.
Everyone wants to work, everyone does work; they just don't always get paid for it...
Surely we are above this as a civilisation.
Work should be done because it needs doing.... For a reason....
........
Sure everyone should work. But everyone is also owed their basic needs.
You want me to work by selling people things that they don't need, ripping people off, blowing up women and children??
If that's work, I'm glad I don't work.
If that's your work, fuck your work!
-----
If all the truly necessary work in a technological society was shared out, then no one would need to work more than a few days a week, surely?.....
This is in direct contradiction of the socialist principle:
"from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs".
This should be taken on board by sections of the media and even sections of the "Left" who seem to think that people don't deserve their basic needs; and who encourage this and similar attitudes.
Part of the reason that they do so is to justify the exorbitant riches of some people who want to feel that they worked for their riches and deserve their riches.
-------------
The above is the essence of what I want to say in this post but there follows a mini-rant coda.
Work is not always paid work! This is the 21st century!
What about the millions who work unpaid for charities?
Do they get "nothing for something" Mr. Brown?
What about job satisfattion? Working for something you believe in and not just for money?..
----
This very attitude - that the world owes no one a living, that there is no free lunch, you've got to work for a living, is an attitude I have scorn for.
It is the attitude of the lowest Daily Mail-reading vermin.
It is not the attitude of a true socialist.
It is firstly totally and utterly untrue.
Giving everyone their basic needs is extremely simple and totally feasible.
Loads of work that is done is totally unnecessary.
"There's enough for everyone's needs. But not for everyone's greed". Gandhi.
Most technology is invented to save work...
It is also morally reprehensible.
To say that if you don't work you can starve is disgusting and unreasonable.
Everyone wants to work, everyone does work; they just don't always get paid for it...
Surely we are above this as a civilisation.
Work should be done because it needs doing.... For a reason....
........
Sure everyone should work. But everyone is also owed their basic needs.
You want me to work by selling people things that they don't need, ripping people off, blowing up women and children??
If that's work, I'm glad I don't work.
If that's your work, fuck your work!
-----
If all the truly necessary work in a technological society was shared out, then no one would need to work more than a few days a week, surely?.....
12 September 2008
Excellent article in an excellent newspaper
Read an excellent article in an excellent newspaper today.
It was about how the rises in people's fuel bills are really all about profiteering by the energy companies and are not about a "recession" at all.
It was in "The Morning Star" which I am lucky enough to be able to get hold of occasionally.
I might subscribe or join them.
I'm not a communist but this newspaper is truly excellent.
Truly heroic. Done on a shoe-string budget and yet they get it out every day.
The article is: -
The great energy rip-off
(Thursday 11 September 2008)
JERRY JONES
www.morningstaronline.co.uk/
-------------------------------
As mainstream newspaper media become more and more bland and homogenous, this tiny newspaper is a last bastion of balanced journalism.
It was about how the rises in people's fuel bills are really all about profiteering by the energy companies and are not about a "recession" at all.
It was in "The Morning Star" which I am lucky enough to be able to get hold of occasionally.
I might subscribe or join them.
I'm not a communist but this newspaper is truly excellent.
Truly heroic. Done on a shoe-string budget and yet they get it out every day.
The article is: -
The great energy rip-off
(Thursday 11 September 2008)
JERRY JONES
www.morningstaronline.co.uk/
-------------------------------
As mainstream newspaper media become more and more bland and homogenous, this tiny newspaper is a last bastion of balanced journalism.
Saxon Street
"We used to play
On Saxon Street....
Black boots on Latin feet
At school they taught us
How they'd ruled the world
Then they'd smother us
With their flag unfurled
....
Well some of us run businesses
And some of us are in jail
And most of us quite frequently
Upon a cross get nailed....."
Ezio lyrics to Saxon Street.
On Saxon Street....
Black boots on Latin feet
At school they taught us
How they'd ruled the world
Then they'd smother us
With their flag unfurled
....
Well some of us run businesses
And some of us are in jail
And most of us quite frequently
Upon a cross get nailed....."
Ezio lyrics to Saxon Street.
11 September 2008
Poverty Chastity and Obedience?
"filo'sofos nutridos en sopa de convento
contemplan impasibles el amplio firmamento"
Antonio Machado.
------
Christianity in monasticism rightly emphasises....
poverty, chastity and obedience.
(St.Benedict. et al.)
Monasticism as a general concept PRE-DATES and in my opinion is superior to "economics" and "psychiatry" and their attendant lies.
It was also a dominant force in the maintenance and preservation of European culture and civilisation for a millennium at least.
What would a 21st-century version be?
To my more modern way of thinking:-
POVERTY means simple living. NOT lack of money PER SE, nor privation, nor not working..... "Live simply so that others may simply live" Gandhi. Green living, consuming less...
CHASTITY means appropriate use of sexuality. NOT it's extinction - which is impossible really....
chastity in relationships.
To say that a male (or female for that matter) has to be totally celibate and not be sexually active in any way is probably possible but unreasonable and unnecessary....
Relationships are a different thing....
and
OBEDIENCE means to the "UBI CARITAS ET AMOR IBI DEUS EST" type of principle....
obedience to philosophy, to the intellect (?)
Monasteries were important as stores of knowledge and educational institutions.....
T.B.C...
"GIM": Green Intellectual Monk. :) :D Add the P if you want!
Signed
The (Franciscan) Gimp.
......
contemplan impasibles el amplio firmamento"
Antonio Machado.
------
Christianity in monasticism rightly emphasises....
poverty, chastity and obedience.
(St.Benedict. et al.)
Monasticism as a general concept PRE-DATES and in my opinion is superior to "economics" and "psychiatry" and their attendant lies.
It was also a dominant force in the maintenance and preservation of European culture and civilisation for a millennium at least.
What would a 21st-century version be?
To my more modern way of thinking:-
POVERTY means simple living. NOT lack of money PER SE, nor privation, nor not working..... "Live simply so that others may simply live" Gandhi. Green living, consuming less...
CHASTITY means appropriate use of sexuality. NOT it's extinction - which is impossible really....
chastity in relationships.
To say that a male (or female for that matter) has to be totally celibate and not be sexually active in any way is probably possible but unreasonable and unnecessary....
Relationships are a different thing....
and
OBEDIENCE means to the "UBI CARITAS ET AMOR IBI DEUS EST" type of principle....
obedience to philosophy, to the intellect (?)
Monasteries were important as stores of knowledge and educational institutions.....
T.B.C...
"GIM": Green Intellectual Monk. :) :D Add the P if you want!
Signed
The (Franciscan) Gimp.
......
Shares in the Amazon Rainforest?
I saw Panorama on BBC1 the other day.
It was about how a solution to the problem of the disappearing Amazon Rainforest is to be found in buying parts of it from governments and allowing people to buy shares in it etc.
The idea is to give the rainforest a monetary value commensurate with the services that the rainforest renders to the people of the planet.
Surely that entails the idea that someone could buy your shares and that the value could change?
Surely the rainforest is priceless.
Would it not be easier just to have them as National Parks that it is illegal in any circumstances to destroy? If buying them is what it takes then do it.
No one owns shares in the Lake District National Park in the north of England, do they?
It would be illegal for me to buy the Lake District from the government and build on it, would it not?
It should be the same for the Amazon.
The countries in question, Brazil and Guyana, are extremely poor and are developing countries that see the "development" of the Rainforest as one of the only routes to development.
The solution is to compensate them and give them other routes to development.
Buy up their rainforest if necessary and compensate them and allow them to develop in other ways.
It was about how a solution to the problem of the disappearing Amazon Rainforest is to be found in buying parts of it from governments and allowing people to buy shares in it etc.
The idea is to give the rainforest a monetary value commensurate with the services that the rainforest renders to the people of the planet.
Surely that entails the idea that someone could buy your shares and that the value could change?
Surely the rainforest is priceless.
Would it not be easier just to have them as National Parks that it is illegal in any circumstances to destroy? If buying them is what it takes then do it.
No one owns shares in the Lake District National Park in the north of England, do they?
It would be illegal for me to buy the Lake District from the government and build on it, would it not?
It should be the same for the Amazon.
The countries in question, Brazil and Guyana, are extremely poor and are developing countries that see the "development" of the Rainforest as one of the only routes to development.
The solution is to compensate them and give them other routes to development.
Buy up their rainforest if necessary and compensate them and allow them to develop in other ways.
30 August 2008
On the difference between the term "Mental illness" and "mental disorder"
"Mental illness" v. "Mental disorder".
Wikipedia seems to be taking the line that these two terms mean the same thing; and wikipedia at present seems to imply that the term "mental disorder" is preferable.
I think that the term "mental disorder" is preferable to the term "mental illness".
I don't however believe that they mean the same thing or infer the same thing.
"Mental illness" implies a biological illness; or if not a biological illness then a metaphorical illness.
"Mental disorder" of course means and infers disapproval of the behaviour that is supposedly "disordered".
The term implies that there is a mental problem of some kind and that there is a lack of organisation.
To say that someone's behaviour/thoughts/feelings are "disordered" is ultimately an opinion.
The term implies disapproval and not a great deal else.
Discuss.
However the term "mental disorder" is I think preferable to the term "mental illness" because it has at last set us free from the concept of illness being used in this sphere where it does not necessarily belong.
Wikipedia seems to be taking the line that these two terms mean the same thing; and wikipedia at present seems to imply that the term "mental disorder" is preferable.
I think that the term "mental disorder" is preferable to the term "mental illness".
I don't however believe that they mean the same thing or infer the same thing.
"Mental illness" implies a biological illness; or if not a biological illness then a metaphorical illness.
"Mental disorder" of course means and infers disapproval of the behaviour that is supposedly "disordered".
The term implies that there is a mental problem of some kind and that there is a lack of organisation.
To say that someone's behaviour/thoughts/feelings are "disordered" is ultimately an opinion.
The term implies disapproval and not a great deal else.
Discuss.
However the term "mental disorder" is I think preferable to the term "mental illness" because it has at last set us free from the concept of illness being used in this sphere where it does not necessarily belong.
28 August 2008
Another utterly vicious and reprehensible "Sun" headline
The Sun "news" paper's true home remains in the gutter with yesterday's headline regarding Paul Gadd: "You Can Run But You Can't Hide."
This headline is utterly vicious and reprehensible.
In a civilised country this would simply not be tolerated.
The Sun must one day be called to account for the torrent of rubbish that it produces.
If he is guilty of a crime then the law should arrest and punish him.
If he is not then no one had the right to interfere with him, let alone the right to encourage vigilantism as this rag does.
The Sun is a Murdoch paper like the "raving righty" Times.
What d'you expect?
If I'm a "loony lefty" then they're "raving righties".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saw the Jerry Springer documentary regarding his family.
Very moving and very important.
People need to be made aware of The Holocaust and of all genocides.
----
This headline is utterly vicious and reprehensible.
In a civilised country this would simply not be tolerated.
The Sun must one day be called to account for the torrent of rubbish that it produces.
If he is guilty of a crime then the law should arrest and punish him.
If he is not then no one had the right to interfere with him, let alone the right to encourage vigilantism as this rag does.
The Sun is a Murdoch paper like the "raving righty" Times.
What d'you expect?
If I'm a "loony lefty" then they're "raving righties".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saw the Jerry Springer documentary regarding his family.
Very moving and very important.
People need to be made aware of The Holocaust and of all genocides.
----
26 August 2008
19 August 2008
The Law of Supply and Demand
There was a lady wittering on about the Law of Supply and Demand on Newsnight last night.
I disagreed with her.
There is no such law.
There are basic human needs.
That's about as far as it goes.
Every price that exists and every price that has ever existed and every price that will ever exist is determined by humans.
The news and professional economists (deliberately) encourage people to believe that prices and other economic phenomena are like the weather, and that nothing can be done about them and that they just change like the wind and we are powerless to affect them.
Bollocks.
I disagreed with her.
There is no such law.
There are basic human needs.
That's about as far as it goes.
Every price that exists and every price that has ever existed and every price that will ever exist is determined by humans.
The news and professional economists (deliberately) encourage people to believe that prices and other economic phenomena are like the weather, and that nothing can be done about them and that they just change like the wind and we are powerless to affect them.
Bollocks.
17 August 2008
Spanish Anti-Fascist War
Spanish Anti-Fascist War. 1936-1975.
!NO PASARA'N!
!NO AL FASCISMO!
!!CHRISTIANITY IS THE OPPOSITE OF FASCISM!!
......
-----
!NO PASARA'N!
!NO AL FASCISMO!
!!CHRISTIANITY IS THE OPPOSITE OF FASCISM!!
......
-----
16 August 2008
I believe?
I believe in God in such a way that it would be of no consequence if I called myself an atheist.
I believe in God depending on the time of day.
---
Two things need saying.
If someone is loving and forgiving and morally good in every way to all fellow creatures, what does it matter what they believe about the Universe?
Second, surely I cannot actually force anyone to believe anything about the Universe, particularly if there is no evidence for the belief.
No one should be able to force anyone to believe anything. No one can force anyone to believe anything anyway.
I believe in God depending on the time of day.
---
Two things need saying.
If someone is loving and forgiving and morally good in every way to all fellow creatures, what does it matter what they believe about the Universe?
Second, surely I cannot actually force anyone to believe anything about the Universe, particularly if there is no evidence for the belief.
No one should be able to force anyone to believe anything. No one can force anyone to believe anything anyway.
15 August 2008
C.S. Lewis and "The Screwtape Letters"
Dear Uncle --- ,
I have decided to read “The Screwtape Letters” as you recommended and I also have resolved to write an appreciation with my view of it. I am also returning the book to you.
I am sorry that I didn’t read it when you first sent it.
I did read some of it at that time but as often happens with me didn’t complete the book at that time. I particularly remembered the account of the man sitting reading a book who is distracted by the Screwtape, just as he starts to have religious thoughts. Screwtape reminds him of lunch or something mundane and he dismisses the thoughts. Quite delightful and it rings true.
I didn’t realise that you wanted it to be returned. Sorry.
It is indeed an excellent book, the product of a fine mind.
I have decided to read “The Screwtape Letters” as you recommended and I also have resolved to write an appreciation with my view of it. I am also returning the book to you.
I am sorry that I didn’t read it when you first sent it.
I did read some of it at that time but as often happens with me didn’t complete the book at that time. I particularly remembered the account of the man sitting reading a book who is distracted by the Screwtape, just as he starts to have religious thoughts. Screwtape reminds him of lunch or something mundane and he dismisses the thoughts. Quite delightful and it rings true.
I didn’t realise that you wanted it to be returned. Sorry.
It is indeed an excellent book, the product of a fine mind.
I must say that I find it impossible that there can literally be such things as Satan, the Devil or devils or hell. I think that these ideas are quite pernicious ones. Metaphorically these concepts might make some sense. But I cannot find it possible to believe in an independent supernatural force of evil.
Among other things, I believe such concepts to have been an invention of religions to inspire fear into their followers, and also a part of some religions that ascribed any bad things that happened to some force of evil that had to be fought.
God was good and loving so bad things must be the work of something else.
As a kind of Catholic Deist myself (if I am religious at all) I would say that it is illogical to believe in such things. It is surely an evil to tell someone that if they do not believe a certain thing or behave in a certain way they will suffer forever in hell. How can an omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving, all-good deity allow the existence of an independent force of evil to exist? It is simply an impossibility.
The idea that people should behave well simply because if they don’t they will suffer is wrong. People should behave well because they want to. I agree with Albert Einstein: “A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
The idea of hell is, I believe, a terrible and a wrong idea, a real scar on the history of religion. Maybe literal belief in it withered away after the Middle Ages, but no apology for it has been made. As far as I am aware it still forms an official part of some Christian doctrine.
I don’t even think that Hitler should suffer eternal torture as this would achieve nothing except causing a human being endless pain. What is achieved by that? Such a “revenge psychology” is I believe un-Christian, and appeals to man’s baser instincts.
To me it is a pitiful irony that a religion like Christianity that purports to want good can have included in it at some point the threat of endless suffering; can have countenanced the idea of causing someone endless suffering. This is surely an evil doctrine. The church should renounce it finally and apologise for the suffering it has caused by the propagation of this belief. It is thelogically incompatible with a God of infinite goodness.
As a kind of Catholic Deist myself (if I am religious at all) I would say that it is illogical to believe in such things. It is surely an evil to tell someone that if they do not believe a certain thing or behave in a certain way they will suffer forever in hell. How can an omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving, all-good deity allow the existence of an independent force of evil to exist? It is simply an impossibility.
The idea that people should behave well simply because if they don’t they will suffer is wrong. People should behave well because they want to. I agree with Albert Einstein: “A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
The idea of hell is, I believe, a terrible and a wrong idea, a real scar on the history of religion. Maybe literal belief in it withered away after the Middle Ages, but no apology for it has been made. As far as I am aware it still forms an official part of some Christian doctrine.
I don’t even think that Hitler should suffer eternal torture as this would achieve nothing except causing a human being endless pain. What is achieved by that? Such a “revenge psychology” is I believe un-Christian, and appeals to man’s baser instincts.
To me it is a pitiful irony that a religion like Christianity that purports to want good can have included in it at some point the threat of endless suffering; can have countenanced the idea of causing someone endless suffering. This is surely an evil doctrine. The church should renounce it finally and apologise for the suffering it has caused by the propagation of this belief. It is thelogically incompatible with a God of infinite goodness.
Such beliefs are those of quite a primitive world view. They are things that surely should be left behind.
I am sure that C.S. Lewis is using it as a powerful rhetorical device but I must part company with him if he believes that such beings and places actually exist. I don’t think any grey area can be allowed in this matter. Either he believes in that kind of thing or he doesn’t. The epigraph says that the best way to fight the devil is to mock him. So Lewis does seem to imply that he belives that there is such a thing as a devil. I must part company with him here.
Of course the purpose of the book is didactic; to show how and where a Christian can go wrong in his life. It also does so in a funny light-hearted way.
It is quite a clear delineation of Christian truth but sometimes I hoped for something clearer as I always had to work things out the wrong way round because Screwtape is talking from an anti-Christian viewpoint.
It should be said in Lewis’s defence that he at no point tries to scare the reader, or imply that the reader deserves punishment. He is merely saying how we can go wrong; the Screwtape figure being a metaphor for the spotting of human foibles.
Lewis is saying we have a choice. And showing the sometimes subtle ways that we can be led to make the wrong choice, or make a mistake.
It shows profound psychological insight about human life and human relations and how people are led astray into problems and unwholesome living.
I didn’t agree with some of his political points about democracy and equality in the final section “Screwtape Proposes a Toast.” Or at least I feel that his criticism, whilst valid in a sense, misses the point. He attacks the idea of making everyone equal and how the desire to be equal is really the desire not to be inferior even though one really may be inferior.
This may be true in itself, but this is no argument against creating equality of opportunity. He seems to fear the abolition of the Middle Classes and of private education. I don’t think that this would have the negative effects he says it would and I am certainly personally sympathetic to the abolition of private schools. I don’t believe in cultural classes. Economic classes may exist but the ideal is to give all a basic minimum, in my view.
Your loving and affectionate nephew
-----
I am sure that C.S. Lewis is using it as a powerful rhetorical device but I must part company with him if he believes that such beings and places actually exist. I don’t think any grey area can be allowed in this matter. Either he believes in that kind of thing or he doesn’t. The epigraph says that the best way to fight the devil is to mock him. So Lewis does seem to imply that he belives that there is such a thing as a devil. I must part company with him here.
Of course the purpose of the book is didactic; to show how and where a Christian can go wrong in his life. It also does so in a funny light-hearted way.
It is quite a clear delineation of Christian truth but sometimes I hoped for something clearer as I always had to work things out the wrong way round because Screwtape is talking from an anti-Christian viewpoint.
It should be said in Lewis’s defence that he at no point tries to scare the reader, or imply that the reader deserves punishment. He is merely saying how we can go wrong; the Screwtape figure being a metaphor for the spotting of human foibles.
Lewis is saying we have a choice. And showing the sometimes subtle ways that we can be led to make the wrong choice, or make a mistake.
It shows profound psychological insight about human life and human relations and how people are led astray into problems and unwholesome living.
I didn’t agree with some of his political points about democracy and equality in the final section “Screwtape Proposes a Toast.” Or at least I feel that his criticism, whilst valid in a sense, misses the point. He attacks the idea of making everyone equal and how the desire to be equal is really the desire not to be inferior even though one really may be inferior.
This may be true in itself, but this is no argument against creating equality of opportunity. He seems to fear the abolition of the Middle Classes and of private education. I don’t think that this would have the negative effects he says it would and I am certainly personally sympathetic to the abolition of private schools. I don’t believe in cultural classes. Economic classes may exist but the ideal is to give all a basic minimum, in my view.
Your loving and affectionate nephew
-----
"Recessions" are entirely avoidable
I have an anarchist friend whose contention is that all so-called recessions are totally avoidable and a result not of inevitable economic forces, but of the economic system itself.
EDF
I will just point the following out as not enough people in England seem to be aware of it.
EDF Energy - the energy company that swashbuckles away here in the UK - is a continuation of Electricite' de France - French Electricity - a continuation of the French version of what we used to call The Electricity Board here in England.
So electricity distribution in England is often run by a company that is a continuation of the French state electricity company.
I'm not sure what the Duke of Wellington would make of this!:)
....
EDF Energy - the energy company that swashbuckles away here in the UK - is a continuation of Electricite' de France - French Electricity - a continuation of the French version of what we used to call The Electricity Board here in England.
So electricity distribution in England is often run by a company that is a continuation of the French state electricity company.
I'm not sure what the Duke of Wellington would make of this!:)
....
GM
Good on yer Charlie Windsor!
GM crops are rather dodgy and dangerous in terms of health and environmentally damaging.
GM crops are rather dodgy and dangerous in terms of health and environmentally damaging.
13 August 2008
12 August 2008
The Genius of Charles Darwin
I have been watching some of the Richard Dawkins documentary called "The Genius of Charles Darwin".
I was pleased that he said he hated Social Darwinism and the evils it has contributed to. And pleased that he made the distinction between Darwinism and Social Darwinism.
A friend texted me and made an interesting point. It is interesting that many Americans are Christians who reject Darwinism and embrace creationism. They do not believe that we evolved from apes nor that we are apes.
Now in the social sphere, in contrast to this, they embrace Social Darwinism with enthusiasm. In the business sphere, even for evangelical Christians, competition and money-making are encouraged. This would seem to be an inconsistency.
I don't think being a Christian necessarily precludes belief in Darwinism, but it certainly and explicitly calls for a rejection of Social Darwinism.
In the same way, being a Darwinist atheist in no way has to necessarily entail a belief in Social Darwinism.
http://richarddawkins.net/
Atheists For Jesus!
I was pleased that he said he hated Social Darwinism and the evils it has contributed to. And pleased that he made the distinction between Darwinism and Social Darwinism.
A friend texted me and made an interesting point. It is interesting that many Americans are Christians who reject Darwinism and embrace creationism. They do not believe that we evolved from apes nor that we are apes.
Now in the social sphere, in contrast to this, they embrace Social Darwinism with enthusiasm. In the business sphere, even for evangelical Christians, competition and money-making are encouraged. This would seem to be an inconsistency.
I don't think being a Christian necessarily precludes belief in Darwinism, but it certainly and explicitly calls for a rejection of Social Darwinism.
In the same way, being a Darwinist atheist in no way has to necessarily entail a belief in Social Darwinism.
http://richarddawkins.net/
Atheists For Jesus!
If there is an NHS.
If there is an NHS - a National Health Service - then why isn't there a National Education Service, a National Housing Service, a National Transport Service and a National Energy Service, a National Water Service? etc.?
What is the difference?
Health provision is a need. So we all accept that it is a right to which we are all entitled.
The same applies to many other things, yet for some reason it is expected that we must provide these things for ourselves in a sort of "dog eat dog" way. There is no reason for the difference other than tradition and inertia.
What is the difference?
Health provision is a need. So we all accept that it is a right to which we are all entitled.
The same applies to many other things, yet for some reason it is expected that we must provide these things for ourselves in a sort of "dog eat dog" way. There is no reason for the difference other than tradition and inertia.
7 August 2008
Inspiration - Holy Wisdom
"Hagia Sophia" - Ἁγία Σοφία - Holy Wisdom.
Philosophy can cure all ills - "Plato Not Prozac".
Philosophy can cure all ills - "Plato Not Prozac".
4 August 2008
Blogger Guidlines
HATEFUL CONTENT: Users may not publish material that promotes hatred towards groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status and sexual orientation/gender identity.
From http://www.blogger.com/ guidelines.
The intention of some of the content in my "think tank" here is
a) To give examples of racism. Just because something is wrong, does not mean it does not exist.
I do not endorse racism of any kind.
b) To promote positive criticism of the behaviour of a group of people.
c) To use humour to fight oppression.
The intention is not to promote hatred towards anyone at all,
whether towards a group or towards an individual.
I do not endorse racism of any kind.
From http://www.blogger.com/ guidelines.
The intention of some of the content in my "think tank" here is
a) To give examples of racism. Just because something is wrong, does not mean it does not exist.
I do not endorse racism of any kind.
b) To promote positive criticism of the behaviour of a group of people.
c) To use humour to fight oppression.
The intention is not to promote hatred towards anyone at all,
whether towards a group or towards an individual.
I do not endorse racism of any kind.
3 August 2008
"Given a voice to millions."
"It's our strong belief that blogs help make the Web an important medium of self-expression; Blogger has given a voice to millions of people. Our users gossip, joke, rant, publish, share, and on occasion might post potentially objectionable stuff."
From http://www.blogger.com/ information.
I agree. I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
I believe I have a right to my views, I believe I have the right to express my views.
Also, I believe my views can help.
They can help contribute to the debates we have in the process of creating a better life for humanity.
From http://www.blogger.com/ information.
I agree. I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
I believe I have a right to my views, I believe I have the right to express my views.
Also, I believe my views can help.
They can help contribute to the debates we have in the process of creating a better life for humanity.
=============================
Recently read "Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction" by the philosopher Nigel Warburton.
Very good indeed.
1 August 2008
29 July 2008
Blogging Summer Holiday
I am going to take a summer holiday from blogging.
It seems to be one of the only things that I do though, so I'll have to find something to replace it.
I'll write in a notebook instead and then if I come up with any gems you'll be pleased to know that I will share them with the planet on the internut.
It seems to be one of the only things that I do though, so I'll have to find something to replace it.
I'll write in a notebook instead and then if I come up with any gems you'll be pleased to know that I will share them with the planet on the internut.
Family
"God save the Royal Family!
God save every family!
God save the extended family!"
That was another thing that I wrote in 1992.
I need to hold onto the good things that I wrote then, rather than being fully of regret for the wrong things I wrote that year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fathers-4-justice.org/
God save every family!
God save the extended family!"
That was another thing that I wrote in 1992.
I need to hold onto the good things that I wrote then, rather than being fully of regret for the wrong things I wrote that year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fathers-4-justice.org/
27 July 2008
Bibliomania
If bibliomania was a recognised "mental illness" I think I'd have to see the doctor about it.
They might vote it into existence as a "mental illness". They have a highly scientific procedure, you see: if most of them believe it to be an illness it becomes one.
I'm planning on have a big sort out of my books.
The excessive buying and hoarding of books is firstly a behaviour.
As is for example the compulsive or excessive buying and hoarding of shoes.
......
They might vote it into existence as a "mental illness". They have a highly scientific procedure, you see: if most of them believe it to be an illness it becomes one.
I'm planning on have a big sort out of my books.
The excessive buying and hoarding of books is firstly a behaviour.
As is for example the compulsive or excessive buying and hoarding of shoes.
......
"The sight of books removes sorrow from the heart." - Moroccan proverb.
21 July 2008
De Gaulle on Europe
"Richard Kearney:
Do you believe that there is such a thing as the "whole mind of Europe"?
George Steiner: I believe that there is in the history of Europe a very strong central tradition, which is by no means an easy one to live with. It is that of the Roman Empire meeting Christianity. Our Europe is still to an astonishing degree, after all the crises and changes, that Christian Roman Empire.......
It is very striking that when General de Gaulle, who really used to think hard about these things, was interviewed and asked: "Are there three or four authors who are Europe to you?" he said immediately, without hesistating, "Of course, Dante, Goethe, Chateaubriand". The astonished interviewer, having fallen like an elephant into the pit, said, "What, Monsieur? No Shakespeare?" And the icy smile came, "You asked me about "Europe"". In that joke there is a deep Roman Christian truth."
From "Visions of Europe: Challenging Ideas in Dialogue" by Richard Kearney, 1992.
Do you believe that there is such a thing as the "whole mind of Europe"?
George Steiner: I believe that there is in the history of Europe a very strong central tradition, which is by no means an easy one to live with. It is that of the Roman Empire meeting Christianity. Our Europe is still to an astonishing degree, after all the crises and changes, that Christian Roman Empire.......
It is very striking that when General de Gaulle, who really used to think hard about these things, was interviewed and asked: "Are there three or four authors who are Europe to you?" he said immediately, without hesistating, "Of course, Dante, Goethe, Chateaubriand". The astonished interviewer, having fallen like an elephant into the pit, said, "What, Monsieur? No Shakespeare?" And the icy smile came, "You asked me about "Europe"". In that joke there is a deep Roman Christian truth."
From "Visions of Europe: Challenging Ideas in Dialogue" by Richard Kearney, 1992.
Good quote
"In proudly reclaiming the Jewish radical tradition, he reminds us that cultures are not the exclusive franchises of nation-states, and that Zionists and anti-semites share the same sinister, racialised concept of group identity. Both in the eloquence of his writing and the deep humanism of his vision, he stands shoulder to shoulder with the spirits of Isaace Deutscher and Edward Said."
Mike Davis, writing about Mike Marqusee.
I'll sign up to that.
Mike Davis, writing about Mike Marqusee.
I'll sign up to that.
18 July 2008
In my day Exams were marked by Universities
Sorry to sound like an old fogey again but in my day all exams were set and marked by universities and not by American companies.
17 July 2008
Sermon of Brian
Sermon of Brian.
Don't ever let anyone tell you what to think!
Don't ever let anyone tell you what to do!
You're all individuals!
You don't need to follow me!
You don't need to follow anybody!
You've got to think for yourselves!
You're all individuals!
You've all got to work it out for yourselves!
Don't ever let anyone tell you what to think!
Don't ever let anyone tell you what to do!
You're all individuals!
You don't need to follow me!
You don't need to follow anybody!
You've got to think for yourselves!
You're all individuals!
You've all got to work it out for yourselves!
Biogenesis and "The Fifth Miracle"
As Dawkins and co. do not mention enough, even evolutionary theory cannot (yet?) explain biogenesis - the origin of life itself.
A few years ago, whilst visiting the Science Museum in London, I bought "The Fifth Miracle" by Paul Davies which discusses what we know about biogenesis and explanations for it.
A couple of years after buying it, a miracle did happen: I actually read it.
I am not really a scientist but I managed quite well with this book.
Can't remember a great deal about it now but remember realising that we really don't yet know what caused biogenesis.
Paul Davies is not really a megastar like Richard Dawkins, but I think he's good.
He is a cosmologist who seems to think that there is some kind of order in the universe.
Thankfully he seems keen to steer clear of advocating any kind of religion.
Though he may contribute to giving succour to a religious world view of some kind.
--------
The following is an extract from an interview with him published in Loaded magazine - yes amazingly it was Loaded magazine. It was a really good special issue called "The Meaning of Life" issue. Been trying to get hold of that back issue.
Anyway here's the extract:
Does the universe have a meaning, a purpose?“I’m convinced on the basis of my scientific work that there is something like a meaning or purpose of physical existence. I base that on the fact that the underlying laws of physics, which are the basic laws of the universe, seem to be remarkably ingenious in the way that they operate - ....
The real universe is such an exquisite mix of order and chaos, of law and openness and creativity, that this leads me to believe in some evidence of meaning and purpose – that there is something beyond our daily lives which the universe is about.”
Is the universe organic?
“The underlying laws of the universe are bio-friendly, so the emergence of life and mind are written into the basic laws of the universe in a fundamental way.”
But that makes human beings pretty pointless…
“From what I understand of the universe, there is a point to it, and human beings… our role may not be central.
I think that, in some small but significant way, we are part of a larger grand scheme, and this scheme includes the emergence of life and mind – not specifically homo sapiens, but we happen to be representatives of that trend and I do think that is written into the basic laws of the universe. I don’t think our existence is an accident.
..the general trend from simple to complex, with the emergence of life and mind, is written into the basic structure of the universe, and so we are connected into that basic structure – so whatever the meaning of the universe is, our lives form part of that meaning.”
Paul Davies in “Loaded” Magazine (“Meaning of Life” Issue).
------
And now an extract from one of his speeches which I will put here because it's interesting:
"Where do we human beings fit into this great cosmic scheme? Can we gaze out into the cosmos, as did our remote ancestors, and declare: "God made all this for us"? I think not.
Are we then but an accident of nature, the freakish outcome of blind and purposeless forces, incidental by-product of a mindless, mechanistic universe? I reject that, too.
The emergence of life and consciousness, I maintain, are written into the laws of the universe in a very basic way.
True, the actual physical form and general mental make-up of Homo sapiens contain many accidental features of no particular significance. If the universe were rerun a second time, there would be no solar system, no Earth, and no people. But the emergence of life and consciousness somewhere and somewhen in the cosmos is, I believe, assured by the underlying laws of nature. The origin of life and consciousness were not interventionist miracles, but nor were they stupendously improbable accidents. They were, I believe, part of the natural outworking of the laws of nature, and as such our existence as conscious enquiring beings springs ultimately from the bedrock of physical existence - those ingenious, felicitous laws.
That is the sense in which I wrote in The Mind of God: "We are truly meant to be here." I mean "we" in the sense of conscious beings, not Homo sapiens specifically. Thus although we are not at the center of the universe, human existence does have a powerful wider significance. Whatever the universe as a whole may be about, the scientific evidence suggests that we, in some limited yet ultimately still profound way, are an integral part of its purpose.
How can we test these ideas scientifically? One of the great challenges to science is to understand the nature of consciousness in general and human consciousness in particular. We still have no clue how mind and matter are related, or what process led to the emergence of mind from matter in the first place. This is an area of research that is attracting considerable attention at present, and for my part I intend to pursue my own research in this field. I expect that when we do come to understand how consciousness fits into the physical universe, my contention that mind is an emergent and in principle predictable product of the laws of the universe will be borne out.
Moreover, if I am right that the universe is fundamentally creative in a pervasive and continuing manner, and that the laws of nature encourage matter and energy to self-organize and self-complexify to the point that life and consciousness emerge naturally, then there will be a universal trend or directionality towards the emergence of great complexity and diversity. We might then expect life and consciousness to exist throughout the universe. That is why I attach such importance to the search for extraterrestrial organisms, be they bacteria on Mars or advanced technological communities on the other side of the galaxy.
The search may prove hopeless-the distances and numbers are certainly daunting - but it is a glorious quest. If we are alone in the universe, if the Earth is the only life-bearing planet among countless trillions, then the choice is stark. Either we are the product of a unique supernatural event in a universe of profligate over-provision, or else an accident of mind-numbing improbability and irrelevance. On the other hand, if life and mind are universal phenomena, if they are written into nature at its deepest level, then the case for an ultimate purpose to existence would be compelling."
Paul Davies in “Physics and the Mind of God – The Templeton Address”.
A few years ago, whilst visiting the Science Museum in London, I bought "The Fifth Miracle" by Paul Davies which discusses what we know about biogenesis and explanations for it.
A couple of years after buying it, a miracle did happen: I actually read it.
I am not really a scientist but I managed quite well with this book.
Can't remember a great deal about it now but remember realising that we really don't yet know what caused biogenesis.
Paul Davies is not really a megastar like Richard Dawkins, but I think he's good.
He is a cosmologist who seems to think that there is some kind of order in the universe.
Thankfully he seems keen to steer clear of advocating any kind of religion.
Though he may contribute to giving succour to a religious world view of some kind.
--------
The following is an extract from an interview with him published in Loaded magazine - yes amazingly it was Loaded magazine. It was a really good special issue called "The Meaning of Life" issue. Been trying to get hold of that back issue.
Anyway here's the extract:
Does the universe have a meaning, a purpose?“I’m convinced on the basis of my scientific work that there is something like a meaning or purpose of physical existence. I base that on the fact that the underlying laws of physics, which are the basic laws of the universe, seem to be remarkably ingenious in the way that they operate - ....
The real universe is such an exquisite mix of order and chaos, of law and openness and creativity, that this leads me to believe in some evidence of meaning and purpose – that there is something beyond our daily lives which the universe is about.”
Is the universe organic?
“The underlying laws of the universe are bio-friendly, so the emergence of life and mind are written into the basic laws of the universe in a fundamental way.”
But that makes human beings pretty pointless…
“From what I understand of the universe, there is a point to it, and human beings… our role may not be central.
I think that, in some small but significant way, we are part of a larger grand scheme, and this scheme includes the emergence of life and mind – not specifically homo sapiens, but we happen to be representatives of that trend and I do think that is written into the basic laws of the universe. I don’t think our existence is an accident.
..the general trend from simple to complex, with the emergence of life and mind, is written into the basic structure of the universe, and so we are connected into that basic structure – so whatever the meaning of the universe is, our lives form part of that meaning.”
Paul Davies in “Loaded” Magazine (“Meaning of Life” Issue).
------
And now an extract from one of his speeches which I will put here because it's interesting:
"Where do we human beings fit into this great cosmic scheme? Can we gaze out into the cosmos, as did our remote ancestors, and declare: "God made all this for us"? I think not.
Are we then but an accident of nature, the freakish outcome of blind and purposeless forces, incidental by-product of a mindless, mechanistic universe? I reject that, too.
The emergence of life and consciousness, I maintain, are written into the laws of the universe in a very basic way.
True, the actual physical form and general mental make-up of Homo sapiens contain many accidental features of no particular significance. If the universe were rerun a second time, there would be no solar system, no Earth, and no people. But the emergence of life and consciousness somewhere and somewhen in the cosmos is, I believe, assured by the underlying laws of nature. The origin of life and consciousness were not interventionist miracles, but nor were they stupendously improbable accidents. They were, I believe, part of the natural outworking of the laws of nature, and as such our existence as conscious enquiring beings springs ultimately from the bedrock of physical existence - those ingenious, felicitous laws.
That is the sense in which I wrote in The Mind of God: "We are truly meant to be here." I mean "we" in the sense of conscious beings, not Homo sapiens specifically. Thus although we are not at the center of the universe, human existence does have a powerful wider significance. Whatever the universe as a whole may be about, the scientific evidence suggests that we, in some limited yet ultimately still profound way, are an integral part of its purpose.
How can we test these ideas scientifically? One of the great challenges to science is to understand the nature of consciousness in general and human consciousness in particular. We still have no clue how mind and matter are related, or what process led to the emergence of mind from matter in the first place. This is an area of research that is attracting considerable attention at present, and for my part I intend to pursue my own research in this field. I expect that when we do come to understand how consciousness fits into the physical universe, my contention that mind is an emergent and in principle predictable product of the laws of the universe will be borne out.
Moreover, if I am right that the universe is fundamentally creative in a pervasive and continuing manner, and that the laws of nature encourage matter and energy to self-organize and self-complexify to the point that life and consciousness emerge naturally, then there will be a universal trend or directionality towards the emergence of great complexity and diversity. We might then expect life and consciousness to exist throughout the universe. That is why I attach such importance to the search for extraterrestrial organisms, be they bacteria on Mars or advanced technological communities on the other side of the galaxy.
The search may prove hopeless-the distances and numbers are certainly daunting - but it is a glorious quest. If we are alone in the universe, if the Earth is the only life-bearing planet among countless trillions, then the choice is stark. Either we are the product of a unique supernatural event in a universe of profligate over-provision, or else an accident of mind-numbing improbability and irrelevance. On the other hand, if life and mind are universal phenomena, if they are written into nature at its deepest level, then the case for an ultimate purpose to existence would be compelling."
Paul Davies in “Physics and the Mind of God – The Templeton Address”.
13 July 2008
"British Humanist"
I am not sure about this phrase "British Humanist".
For a start, the only kind of humanist can really be is a human humanist.
Furthermore, the word "British" is meaningless and imperialist.
For a start, the only kind of humanist can really be is a human humanist.
Furthermore, the word "British" is meaningless and imperialist.
I AM first and foremost A GREEN!
Green politics
is a political ideology that aims to create
an ecologically sustainable society rooted in
NONVIOLENCE,
environmentalism (one planet, one environment),
social justice,
and
grassroots democracy.
.......
I also believe in a FREE SOCIETY!....
I am an anarchist - a libertarian socialist.
I am a Green Anarchist!....
This implies that I do not believe that GOVERNMENT is needed to save the Environment!......
.........
..............................................................................
Not really a nationalist incidentally. IF I am any kind of "nationalist" it is a VERY moderate one.
is a political ideology that aims to create
an ecologically sustainable society rooted in
NONVIOLENCE,
environmentalism (one planet, one environment),
social justice,
and
grassroots democracy.
.......
I also believe in a FREE SOCIETY!....
I am an anarchist - a libertarian socialist.
I am a Green Anarchist!....
This implies that I do not believe that GOVERNMENT is needed to save the Environment!......
.........
..............................................................................
Not really a nationalist incidentally. IF I am any kind of "nationalist" it is a VERY moderate one.
Bertrand Russell was against nationalism as many thinkers are, but he did speak in favour of cultural nationalism. He regarded political nationalism as very wrong.
It is part of a very good summary of anarchist belief to be found here:
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/1931/
"Given this, we do support nationality and cultural difference, diversity and self-determination as a natural expression of our love of freedom and support for decentralisation. This should not, however, be confused with supporting nationalism."
---------
........
Must find a quote for that.
When I say cultural nationalism I don't really mean nationalism, as nationalism is, strictly speaking, always political.
I mean that he was in favour of the existence and preservation of various cultures.
Bertrand Russell was against all (political) nationalism - whether civic nationalism (e.g. France, UK, USA) or ethnic nationalism (e.g. 19th century Germany).
----
I have realized that this blog may have a major contradiction, possibly one of several.
I am working on all of them, and I tend towards thinking that they can all be solved.
Perhaps it's biggest contradiction at the moment is it's apparent support for nationalism of various kinds and its simultaneous profession of anarchism.
I haven't changed the basic view as summarized in the intro: rationalist, humanist, atheist; green, socialist, anarchist.
This has not changed for about 6 years and I have no intention of changing it.
----
If nationalism is always political, and that is after all included in the meaning of the word, then it is necessarily in favour of states of some kind. An anarchist is against any form of state. Anarchism is also against all (political) borders. Against all national flags. Against all national anthems.
It is not really possible to be a (political) nationalist and an anarchist.
Furthermore, to be a nationalist of any kind surely means to be a cultural separatist and preservationist of some kind. Being a cultural preservationist implies that people cannot pursue cultural development and cultural change.
It denies their individuality and hence their common humanity with others.
.....
I am inclined to believe that anarchism and nationalism of any kind are incompatible.
I will continue to think about this.
I am not so keen on many mainstream anarchist groups because they almost always say that all anarchism is about class war and class struggle.
Like Marx, I am not a Marxist.
I am sympathetic to the view of class struggle in economic terms, but in social terms it tends to divide humanity, which is what anarchism opposes.
To resent the "bourgeoisie" and the "upper classes" and wish for their destruction is to deny their humanity. In some ways I see it as being as divisive as nationalism.
I see anarchism as more about the liberation of humanity than about class war.
The real class stuggle today is between the rich world and the poor world. Most people in the rich world have a decent standard of living though there are many super-rich. The super rich do not see themselves as parasites - which is what they are - they see themselves as merely doing what capitalism asks of them.
Also many mainstream anarchist groups seem to approve of violence, which is something I am not so sure about.
-----
NESSUNO STATO!
NESSUNA PATRIA!
No State!
No Country!
.....
Surely anarchism is against:
States
Nations
Nationalism
National flags
National anthems
Imperialism
.....
???
-------------------------------
Seek and you shall find. Found a very good commentary upon this subject here:
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/1931/secD6.html and here:
When I say cultural nationalism I don't really mean nationalism, as nationalism is, strictly speaking, always political.
I mean that he was in favour of the existence and preservation of various cultures.
Bertrand Russell was against all (political) nationalism - whether civic nationalism (e.g. France, UK, USA) or ethnic nationalism (e.g. 19th century Germany).
----
I have realized that this blog may have a major contradiction, possibly one of several.
I am working on all of them, and I tend towards thinking that they can all be solved.
Perhaps it's biggest contradiction at the moment is it's apparent support for nationalism of various kinds and its simultaneous profession of anarchism.
I haven't changed the basic view as summarized in the intro: rationalist, humanist, atheist; green, socialist, anarchist.
This has not changed for about 6 years and I have no intention of changing it.
----
If nationalism is always political, and that is after all included in the meaning of the word, then it is necessarily in favour of states of some kind. An anarchist is against any form of state. Anarchism is also against all (political) borders. Against all national flags. Against all national anthems.
It is not really possible to be a (political) nationalist and an anarchist.
Furthermore, to be a nationalist of any kind surely means to be a cultural separatist and preservationist of some kind. Being a cultural preservationist implies that people cannot pursue cultural development and cultural change.
It denies their individuality and hence their common humanity with others.
.....
I am inclined to believe that anarchism and nationalism of any kind are incompatible.
I will continue to think about this.
I am not so keen on many mainstream anarchist groups because they almost always say that all anarchism is about class war and class struggle.
Like Marx, I am not a Marxist.
I am sympathetic to the view of class struggle in economic terms, but in social terms it tends to divide humanity, which is what anarchism opposes.
To resent the "bourgeoisie" and the "upper classes" and wish for their destruction is to deny their humanity. In some ways I see it as being as divisive as nationalism.
I see anarchism as more about the liberation of humanity than about class war.
The real class stuggle today is between the rich world and the poor world. Most people in the rich world have a decent standard of living though there are many super-rich. The super rich do not see themselves as parasites - which is what they are - they see themselves as merely doing what capitalism asks of them.
Also many mainstream anarchist groups seem to approve of violence, which is something I am not so sure about.
-----
NESSUNO STATO!
NESSUNA PATRIA!
No State!
No Country!
.....
Surely anarchism is against:
States
Nations
Nationalism
National flags
National anthems
Imperialism
.....
???
-------------------------------
Seek and you shall find. Found a very good commentary upon this subject here:
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/1931/secD6.html and here:
It is part of a very good summary of anarchist belief to be found here:
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/1931/
"Given this, we do support nationality and cultural difference, diversity and self-determination as a natural expression of our love of freedom and support for decentralisation. This should not, however, be confused with supporting nationalism."
---------
........
9th September 2008.
Basically my approach to nationalism is now much more nuanced and complex.
Expressing cultural identity is not the same thing as nationalism.
......
I may not be a nationalist but I am definitely anti-imperialist.
10 July 2008
"Mistaken Identity"
An extract from another excellent piece by Kenan Malik entitled "Mistaken Identity"
https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/1809/mistaken-identity
"...Clearly no human can live outside of culture. But then no human does.
"To say that no human can live outside of culture, however, is not to say that they have to live inside a particular one. To view humans as culture-bearing is to view them as social beings, and hence as transformative beings. It suggests that humans have the capacity for change, for progress and for the creation of universal moral and political forms through reason and dialogue."
-------
Generally speaking in my opinion it is right to be against multiculturalism
and right to be against fundamentalist nationalism too.
This argument against multiculturalism is clearly related to some of the many arguments against nationalism.
"Nationalism requires too much belief in what simply is not so."
Eric Hobsbawm.
https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/1809/mistaken-identity
"...Clearly no human can live outside of culture. But then no human does.
"To say that no human can live outside of culture, however, is not to say that they have to live inside a particular one. To view humans as culture-bearing is to view them as social beings, and hence as transformative beings. It suggests that humans have the capacity for change, for progress and for the creation of universal moral and political forms through reason and dialogue."
-------
Generally speaking in my opinion it is right to be against multiculturalism
and right to be against fundamentalist nationalism too.
This argument against multiculturalism is clearly related to some of the many arguments against nationalism.
"Nationalism requires too much belief in what simply is not so."
Eric Hobsbawm.
9 July 2008
Cultual Lag
I have talked of cultural lag in a previous blog.
This refers to the phenomenon of the culture of a society "lagging behind" the reality of life as lived by that society.
There are so many examples of this.
But what could be a more clear example than religious texts
written hundreds of years ago?
Anyone reasonable would have to accept that at least there should
be a layer of interpretation between then and now....
.....
This refers to the phenomenon of the culture of a society "lagging behind" the reality of life as lived by that society.
There are so many examples of this.
But what could be a more clear example than religious texts
written hundreds of years ago?
Anyone reasonable would have to accept that at least there should
be a layer of interpretation between then and now....
.....
8 July 2008
It was better in my day
Is it just the cynicism of old age or was television drama actually much better in almost every way back in the 1980s?
Dramas like "Robin of Sherwood", "Boys from the Blackstuff" and "The Monocled Mutineer" were amazing.
In terms of the themes, plots, scripts and special effects they were superior to much of the perfunctory TV dramas of our times.
Also the new version of "Doctor Who" has little depth or seriousness, and not a great deal of genuine science fiction. So much of it is in some way about planet Earth. I sometimes want to escape from Earth and try Gallifrey.
I went off it when the second or third episode was about flatulent aliens taking over London. Since when was "Doctor Who" a comedy?
Why the decline? Commercialism? Cherchez l'argent?
----
Saw "Bonekickers" last night. So bad it was good.
Quite exciting and interesting once you accepted it as what it was. Lots of scope for the idea.
Dramas like "Robin of Sherwood", "Boys from the Blackstuff" and "The Monocled Mutineer" were amazing.
In terms of the themes, plots, scripts and special effects they were superior to much of the perfunctory TV dramas of our times.
Also the new version of "Doctor Who" has little depth or seriousness, and not a great deal of genuine science fiction. So much of it is in some way about planet Earth. I sometimes want to escape from Earth and try Gallifrey.
I went off it when the second or third episode was about flatulent aliens taking over London. Since when was "Doctor Who" a comedy?
Why the decline? Commercialism? Cherchez l'argent?
----
Saw "Bonekickers" last night. So bad it was good.
Quite exciting and interesting once you accepted it as what it was. Lots of scope for the idea.
2 July 2008
Totally Crazy, mon! Why can't you have smoking clubs?
So because of the smoking ban in the Netherlands people will only be able to smoke joints with no tobacco in?
That's crazy.
Cannabis smoke can give you cancer too, can't it?
The only answer is to allow voluntary smokers clubs where the staff are smokers or agree to accept on some level the undoubted serious damage caused by the smoke from both tobacco and cannabis. Or have air filters.
That's what I think about the ban on tobacco smoking too. I am all in favour of it for all public buildings and all public places.
But I simply cannot see why there shouldn't some scope for limited voluntary private smoking clubs where the staff - if there is a need for staff - are willing to accept being polluted and poisoned to some degree. Once again there could be a role for air filters.
It's a freedom issue surely?
That's crazy.
Cannabis smoke can give you cancer too, can't it?
The only answer is to allow voluntary smokers clubs where the staff are smokers or agree to accept on some level the undoubted serious damage caused by the smoke from both tobacco and cannabis. Or have air filters.
That's what I think about the ban on tobacco smoking too. I am all in favour of it for all public buildings and all public places.
But I simply cannot see why there shouldn't some scope for limited voluntary private smoking clubs where the staff - if there is a need for staff - are willing to accept being polluted and poisoned to some degree. Once again there could be a role for air filters.
It's a freedom issue surely?
1 July 2008
NHS 60th Anniversary
So the NHS is going to get a constitution before the country itself.
Speaks volumes about this pathetic country.
NHS p.l.c.?
Either something is the case or it isn't.
Either the NHS is being privatised or it isn't.
It obviously is. And by a "Labour" government.
NHS R.I.P.?
The government is giving wheel-barrowfuls of the public's tax money to private companies!
I curse this banditry!
Let's say no to an American system and multinationals ruling everything.
Speaks volumes about this pathetic country.
NHS p.l.c.?
Either something is the case or it isn't.
Either the NHS is being privatised or it isn't.
It obviously is. And by a "Labour" government.
NHS R.I.P.?
The government is giving wheel-barrowfuls of the public's tax money to private companies!
I curse this banditry!
Let's say no to an American system and multinationals ruling everything.
29 June 2008
29th June 2008
I believe it is obvious that most opposition to Gordon Brown in England and elsewhere in the UK is to the left of NewLabourUSDemocratPartyofEngland.
So the belief that Cameron will be the next Prime Minister shows the disconnection of our political culture from the population.
David Cameron is not and never can be to the left of New Labour.
Hence he should not win the next election.
-----
In The Observer today there is a lot of coverage of the treatment of those who supposedly suffer from so-called "mental illness".
The treatment of these unfortunate people is truly disgusting and far worse in England than in other Western European countries.
These people are imprisoned and poisoned and have committed no crime other than entering a psychiatrist's office with the arbitrary distinction of being called "mentally ill".
These prisons are presented as hospitals, where one might possibly be helped.
How sadly deluded are people who believe this to be so.
There is mention of violence by the imprisoned at these so-called hospitals. No mention of the violence inflicted by the staff/jailors.
The Observer deserves great credit for highlighting life as it really is and not presenting the fantasy that dominates other sectors of the media.
However, there is still no questioning of whether there is such a thing as a "mental illness" and whether or not those designated as "mentally ill" are merely having problems in living.
This questioning would help to create progress.
For example there is discussion of prisoners with "mental health problems", when the distinction between prisoners with "mental health problems" and those without is surely arbitrary and meaningless.
There is still bland and confident use of the terms "schizophrenia" and "schizophrenic" when this term obviously has no (scientific) meaning and is just a dehumanising label.
If 1 in 4 people have at some point "mental health problems" then there's a lot of people telling lies or keeping quiet. And there's a lot of supposed "brain disease" about.
The simple truth is that there's no such thing as mental illness. If distress is mental illness then everyone has mental illness..... etc.
......
"Having frightened us half to death, environmentalists then consistently oppose all large-scale solutions: wind farms, nuclear power, the Severn barrage, carbon capture. People aren't stupid. They see the idea of a return to some pre-industrial Elysium as bonkers."
From letter about environmentalism entitled "Stop complaining and start saving the planet" in The Observer today. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/29/climatechange
Environmentalism isn't about living in caves. There is however obviously a great deal of scope for consuming less. So much consumption and travel is totally unnecessary.
For example, there are solutions that don't involve nuclear power or fossil fuels.
.....
So the belief that Cameron will be the next Prime Minister shows the disconnection of our political culture from the population.
David Cameron is not and never can be to the left of New Labour.
Hence he should not win the next election.
-----
In The Observer today there is a lot of coverage of the treatment of those who supposedly suffer from so-called "mental illness".
The treatment of these unfortunate people is truly disgusting and far worse in England than in other Western European countries.
These people are imprisoned and poisoned and have committed no crime other than entering a psychiatrist's office with the arbitrary distinction of being called "mentally ill".
These prisons are presented as hospitals, where one might possibly be helped.
How sadly deluded are people who believe this to be so.
There is mention of violence by the imprisoned at these so-called hospitals. No mention of the violence inflicted by the staff/jailors.
The Observer deserves great credit for highlighting life as it really is and not presenting the fantasy that dominates other sectors of the media.
However, there is still no questioning of whether there is such a thing as a "mental illness" and whether or not those designated as "mentally ill" are merely having problems in living.
This questioning would help to create progress.
For example there is discussion of prisoners with "mental health problems", when the distinction between prisoners with "mental health problems" and those without is surely arbitrary and meaningless.
There is still bland and confident use of the terms "schizophrenia" and "schizophrenic" when this term obviously has no (scientific) meaning and is just a dehumanising label.
If 1 in 4 people have at some point "mental health problems" then there's a lot of people telling lies or keeping quiet. And there's a lot of supposed "brain disease" about.
The simple truth is that there's no such thing as mental illness. If distress is mental illness then everyone has mental illness..... etc.
......
"Having frightened us half to death, environmentalists then consistently oppose all large-scale solutions: wind farms, nuclear power, the Severn barrage, carbon capture. People aren't stupid. They see the idea of a return to some pre-industrial Elysium as bonkers."
From letter about environmentalism entitled "Stop complaining and start saving the planet" in The Observer today. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/29/climatechange
Environmentalism isn't about living in caves. There is however obviously a great deal of scope for consuming less. So much consumption and travel is totally unnecessary.
For example, there are solutions that don't involve nuclear power or fossil fuels.
.....
25 June 2008
A good book by Julian Baggini
Read a good book: "A Very Short Introduction to Atheism" by Julian Baggini.
He has also written an article called "Spirituality for Atheists" which I cut out of Psychologies magazine and which I must dig out.
....
An extract from it:
"What we think of as spiritual is simply all those things which make us creatures with rich inner lives and not just inert rocks and pebbles.
Many of us have let go of religion but hold on to the vaguer notion of spirituality as a security blanket. It's time we realised that traditional religion is far from the only source of meaning, values and a sense of the transcendent."
Julian Baggini.
-----
Another interesting thing that he wrote is this essay:
"This is what the clash of civilisations is really about."
"Relativism has made liberal openness appear weak, empty and repugnant compared with the clarity of dogma."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/apr/14/comment.comment3
In it he wrote this
"Unless we can make a convincing case that the choice is not between relativism or dogmatism, more and more people will reject the former and embrace the latter.
When they do, those who helped create the impression that modern, secular rationality leaves everything up for grabs in the marketplace of belief will have to take their share of the blame."
Julian Baggini.
I think "post-modernism" and thinkers like Foucault, and the veneration of thinkers like Foucault, along with other opposition to the Enlightenment, have encouraged the impression that "everything is up for grabs".
The popularity of post-modernism and thinkers such as Foucault and Nietzsche in universities has often degraded in the minds of students who are taught to venerate such thinkers, into the basest and simplest moral relativism and amoralism.
In this context I am reminded of Bernard Shaw's quote to serve as a good watchman -
“A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry. Hence University education.”
He has also written an article called "Spirituality for Atheists" which I cut out of Psychologies magazine and which I must dig out.
....
An extract from it:
"What we think of as spiritual is simply all those things which make us creatures with rich inner lives and not just inert rocks and pebbles.
Many of us have let go of religion but hold on to the vaguer notion of spirituality as a security blanket. It's time we realised that traditional religion is far from the only source of meaning, values and a sense of the transcendent."
Julian Baggini.
-----
Another interesting thing that he wrote is this essay:
"This is what the clash of civilisations is really about."
"Relativism has made liberal openness appear weak, empty and repugnant compared with the clarity of dogma."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/apr/14/comment.comment3
In it he wrote this
"Unless we can make a convincing case that the choice is not between relativism or dogmatism, more and more people will reject the former and embrace the latter.
When they do, those who helped create the impression that modern, secular rationality leaves everything up for grabs in the marketplace of belief will have to take their share of the blame."
Julian Baggini.
I think "post-modernism" and thinkers like Foucault, and the veneration of thinkers like Foucault, along with other opposition to the Enlightenment, have encouraged the impression that "everything is up for grabs".
The popularity of post-modernism and thinkers such as Foucault and Nietzsche in universities has often degraded in the minds of students who are taught to venerate such thinkers, into the basest and simplest moral relativism and amoralism.
In this context I am reminded of Bernard Shaw's quote to serve as a good watchman -
“A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry. Hence University education.”
24 June 2008
Still no complete news coverage of civilian deaths?
Why is there apparently still no complete coverage of civilian deaths caused by NATO in Afghanistan on the BBC?
There is always exhaustive coverage of UK deaths in Afghanistan but there doesn't seem to be the same for civilian deaths in Afghanistan?
There is always exhaustive coverage of UK deaths in Afghanistan but there doesn't seem to be the same for civilian deaths in Afghanistan?
10 June 2008
Peasants are the Answer!
"Peasants are detested by both communists and capitalists - but when it comes to productivity a small farm is unbeatable."
"These objects of contempt are now our best chance of feeding the world."
George Monbiot, The Guardian, June 10th 2008.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/06/10/small-is-bountiful/
"These objects of contempt are now our best chance of feeding the world."
George Monbiot, The Guardian, June 10th 2008.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/06/10/small-is-bountiful/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)