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.
29 July 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)