Environmentalism? Why make a virtue out of the unecessary?

Mark Lynas raises many issues in ‘Bring in the Police to save the Planet’ (9th. May) (1)but does give vent to something of a barely muted class bias and a huge degree of ignorance.

Perhaps the environment as an issue was dropped from the headlines during the election because it doesn’t fit in with the aspirations of people – any people. This would apply to our good Mr. Lynas himself, after all, his solutions imply going with out – your PC, holiday, means of transport, books, etc., etc. or being ‘guilt’ taxed for the privilege of being able to consume.

Instead, our self loathing Mr. Lynas reveals everything that is wrong with the Green ‘movement’ – its anti human content. He completely ignores the benefits that mass production of food and transport links have provided to both the producing and consuming countries, of course far from evenly spread but the general effect is that living standards throughout have risen.

As with much, if not all, Lynas’ arguments the energy issue is contradictory, if not simplistic. Wind power can only offer small scale promise; to do otherwise utilises far greater land mass or sea area - both having problems for man and beast.
Supposedly free power poses far more problems than it will solve – more effort and resources goes into less and inconsistent energy supply.

Nuclear power is still in its infancy - progress thwarted by alarmist and chauvinistic environmentalists and incoherent government.

As for depleting fish stocks then the solution would be to develop and intensify fish farming. (Here we go) When on Holiday in Keffalonia (wi' me lad)I loved a boat trip we went out on (I'll spare you the Karaoke, moped, barbie, fucking gorgeous smell the moment you walk off the plane - sunbaked fir tree sap that smelt like a baker's or toffee). Our boat passed a fish farm - two large steel cylinders with net at the top and bottom. The ship's Captain said that now the bone structure of the fish had altered and they were meatier - well fed topfeeders as to bottom scraping scavengers. And now the fisherman no longer has to go to the trouble, expense, and effort in going out not quite all weathers but for quite a long time. And we get cheaper, meatier fish.(2)

(Back to the 'plot')

Of course, Lynas’ argument has little backbone as what he really means is that we should trade Bridlington for Barbados, and then likely in a hands off ‘environmentally friendly’ way.

Whatever happened to constructive criticism? Our good friend Lynas whinges much but can only offer spoilt brat solutions.
His satisfaction is in denial.


(1)http://www.newstatesman.com/nssubsfilter.php3?newTemplate=NSArticle_NS&newDisplayURN=200505090019
(2)Of further interest http://www.farmfreshsalmon.org/images/PDFS/rptupdate.pdf

Retiring the Royalty. Should we really listen to fools?

Not a big fan of the Royal Family or, for that matter, the Royles, but I reluctantly warmed to the old boy himself, Prince Phillip, when watching a program on TV letting us know what they are for. In a candid moment amidst all the splendour of some Knights of the Garter ceremony he talked of how lunatic it actually all was with a faintly endearing smile but how the public and the tourists seemed to like it. He then went about his business - a reasonably down to earth sort of guy, quite normal actually. (Hmm? maybe Baldrick was on to something).
And then Charles - totally at home as a Milligan but you wouldn't want him in charge of the fleet (whatever colour it is). But then again I wish he'd spoken out loud when his 'alarming' gaffe was exposed muttering to what was a weaselly question from Nicholas Widgell (1)- talk about sucking up. Why can't people ask proper questions?

Bloody Hell! Even The Daily Star had a headline saying 'Off with their heads! They did of course mean drom stamps and other stuff but blimey all the same.

. . . (ibb)

Some that went astray.

A selection of items that went astray either because of my own pc ineptitude or just weren't published.


Reply to MP. Mary Creagh, W/Express, June 28th. 2005.

It’s good to see that Wakefield MP, Mary Creagh, is taking an interest in school meals but it must be asked as to what is meant by ‘junkfood’. Is there any significant nutritional difference between say an Allum’s pork pie (1), one of Jamie Oliver’s mate’s organic sausages or the sausage rolls banned at St. John’s school, let alone chips and burgers?
It’s becoming a well used cliché that we are living longer and healthier lives despite our supposedly bad diets and everything else we do.
Intensified agriculture, industrialised food processes and greater transport links have given us a wide variety and abundance of foods. Much more than small scale production, which I hope is not what Ms. Creagh means when she states that under her bill children will be taught how to grow food. It would be good if that meant GMO food technology but in these wary and backward looking times that seems unlikely.
Food quality and availability has increased to the point that we probably don’t need three square meals a day and can actually do quite well on mass produced and relatively inexpensive snack food - as well as the odd square meal. Testament to this is the earlier onset of puberty in kids. It’s just a pity that this earlier physical maturing isn’t matched by social maturity. That is something for adults to deal with.
Thankfully we are not all the same and to some extent have different needs and wants. That kids choose so called junk food over ‘proper’ food isn’t really the problem and is something they will likely grow out of.
Behind this lies New Labour’s agenda to micro manage ever more aspects of our behaviour, lifestyle and choices. This isn’t forwards, it’s back.


(1) see Mary Creagh’s weblog.

*

BBC fox hunting response: Open season on Politicians?

A one time veggy (5yrs of crap food and many a broken tooth - that's lentils for you) and still a nature lover I think some of the respondents are getting their arguments mixed up. Others hit the nail on the head re importance of other issues. In truth the hunting issue is about much more than how it is presented.
It is a classic Labour fudging issue, a delaying tactic. Why rerun this non issue when there is an election next year and UK presidency of the European Union? Blair proposes having a referendum after the election, but what does he stand for now?
It is also a sop to Labour's sentimental middle class support but has 'radical' chic for bashing the rich. Revenge by proxy for the miner's strike? In this though it catches all, convention paves the way for legislation that extends to all our liberty. The state establishes the right to intervene in our lives. Heads are cracked and peoples lives are severely disrupted, and over what?
We afford nature sentiment that it doesn't have - witness leopard seals after fulfilling their immediate needs playing with dead penguins - Oi! no, cut it out!, or a penguin chick finding itself well down the pecking order and the subject of digestion at dinner. These animals have no morals and no manners, perhaps ALF et al could discuss this with the lions - that would make interesting conversation I'm sure. Or even our friend Basil, the cunning fox, a beautiful creature but full of disease, will he thank us? Unless you are a Doolittle he'll be rummaging through your bins or, in the case of where I live - twixt town and country - killing your chickens. Of course he's more likely to be secretly fraternising with his canine cousins and forming a resistance movement. Then we'll really be in trouble - the pavements will run with . . . .
Hunting, shooting 'n' fishing are fine, bull fights aren't particularly my thing but neither was cricket, a cock-fight? - perhaps, but I'm not too sure about badger baiting - maybe Sky could give it an image makeover.
As a means of pest control fox hunting must rank pretty expensively but then it's no more about that than the ban is about it being cruel. The ignorant should take their blinkers off and take a look at what's going on then we might be able to address some real issues for a change.

*

A response to Mick Hume's column in The Times -'Buy a fish and become a potential abuser'.

Recent events have fair made me want to go and join my 'local' hunt - after all, that seems to be where all the action is. And what could be more fun? A license to do what the bally heck one likes, though mayhaps with a certain etiquette. Even better - the assorted toffs and yeomanry - our country cousins - prepared to stand up and say they'd had enough - had enough of playing by the rules, doing the decent thing, following procedure and getting nowhere for it. And this because the Labour party, when not dragging it's feet over something important like Europe flails around for some self fulfilling mission that has us all for fools.
For a start, since when has nature afforded itself the comforts that we would seem to bestow upon it? Never! Nature may have it's beauty but it will always be savage - witness any quality wildlife programme for details. The current state of affairs risks putting all humanity below nature. Nature has definitely not asked to be liberated - it's too busy eating itself. Are we to assume that the feeding frenzy that is nature will adopt civilized rules? We may as well throw those to the lions that think they come up with a convincing enough argument.
New Labour - take 'em with a pinch of salt.

*

To the Wakefield Express.

Your Express comment of last week - 'Build on brown sites, not green' raised some interesting points. However, I contest developing brownfield sites for housing. They would be much better put to use as parks and recreational areas and we should turn our attention to some fresh material - the countryside.
It is a myth that we are overcrowded and destroying the 'natural' environment. UK agriculture is productive enough to free up vast areas of land so that we could spread out, live in the countryside and with plenty of room too. This would not see everywhere covered in concrete - far from it. Some 75% would remain 'untouched' even at the highest build rates.
Current policy is to cram more people (taxpayers/consumers) into higher density urban housing, limit car use and impose a set of rules and regulations as to how we should be living our lives. The housing market is inflated by low interest rates, high demand and limited supply - coupled with the backward nature of the construction industry and stifling officialdom, development falters.
That this is happening at a time when we have never had it so good and is based on some romanticised, pastoral idyll more reflects todays pessimistic outlook than anything else. Do we really have such a low opinion of ourselves that we believe we are out to spoil the world we live in?

*

Fight club?

A film that on first view seems slightly offball becomes on second more noticeable for the inner conflict between what a man wants to be and who he really is. In this case the vulnerable office nerd believes he wants to be more like the decadent sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll anti hero and sometime leader of men as portrayed by his Brad Pitt alter ego.

Pitt's 'half' rejects all that is beneficial about the west and thrives in its outer margins, primal, selfish. The real guy is vulnerable and seems trapped in dead end work and a life without meaning.

The film fits into a broader narrative of a victim male, emotionally castrated and unsure of who or what he should be.
Alright, it's a long time since I've seen the film but this is more to do with white male identity (almost).

An article by a female doctor (Who's feminising medicine? Dr. Liz Frayn.http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA652.htm ) explained an emergency situation carried out entirely by female staff quietly and efficiently ie. without the macho posturing of us blokes. Point taken but they were probably all lesbians anyway. However, it does point to the starring role that men liked to play at certain times - hero, suave, cool, hard, in command, whatever.

A half remembered newspaper article/story about a man and woman sailing crew was of particular interest. The man quit, feeling hugely inadequate as his partner carried on without him in what was quite an arduous event. I'm unsure as to the ending but the point illustrates the man being less than heroic, chivalrous even - and 'beaten' by a woman. He may have been coming down with the flu though.
Likewise, Helen MacArthur proved that the sisters can indeed do it for themselves, thankyou very much.

Okay, so they are not quite there yet with football but maybe it's only a matter of time.

I'd say it brings up a question of identity or a searching for a new one. The slightly self conscious celebration of St. George's day, no doubt enjoyed by many but largely a jumping on the back of the success of St. Patrick's day (the patron saint of Guiness?) (5), a desperate attempt to gain some civic pride for others and perhaps undermine the BNP. However the artificiality of the celebrations matched the brief outpouring of 'patriotism' or shared national experience that was Euro 2004.

Perhaps the Iraq war, Rover fiasco and other failed notions of national pride have cooled some of this much hyped but short lived enthusiasm. A climate of uncertainty fuels an increasingly cynical population led by an admittedly 'terrified of the future' prime minister. Though most likely to return New labour to power come May 5th. as none of the contenders are anything special.

In some respects Blair's election will likely match that of Bush, his buddy through the good times, inasmuch as that any decent contender should have knocked Dubya flying out of the ring. Trouble is, with little more than a few cells between them they both preferred to shadow box on the ropes. A triumphant George could indeed thank his worthy opponent for a tough fight -where the contestants largely agreed on the main issues.

If you can liken the US presidency to a lightweight champion of the western hemisphere boxing contest then Good ol' Blighty's election is what? - 'can you spot the difference between these three pictures?' or a bit of pantomime maybe (as in - your credibility? - behind you!). At least Michael Howard put a bit of spunk in his stride - shame he seems to be doing politics by rote though still largely the highlight of an otherwise dull election campaign which is opportunistic and gaffe prone, superficial and barely connected.

Public cynicism with politicians is understandable. Pretty much like shopping in a supermarket the special offers don't quite seem to be the ones on the shelf somehow.
A jittery elite cannot really identify with anything too strongly as all the traditional repositories for the national faith have been undermined - the spirit of St. George invites tension that a 'squeaky' prime minister can't deal with. Saint George becomes a trademark shadow of his former values - all his noble traits are tainted with the mark of an abuser or a self doubter and the symbolism is just a little too hot to handle for some, particularly with the misguided Iraq venture lurking in the background.

If Bush is an oilman then Blair surely does aid the legal profession, albeit with all the prissy legalesse of a school prefect. Crude parallel, fair enough. Oil itself may play a minor role in the equation but the west was mainly involved in finding a mission.

Blair should be terrified. The increasing regulation in more aspects of our daily lives, work or at home thwarts innovation and inspiration to progess - something of a requirement in a modern economy and one that in the future will have to deal with perhaps the rather more real perils of the slowly rousing dragon that is China. Couple this with the high level view that the world we are living in is facing eco-doom then it is little wonder that people switch off, batten down the hatches and face inwards. This deludes us from the real problems we face today.

In a society where the elite are reluctant to invoke the values of heroes past, and instead choose to elevate the mundane and celebrate the weak . . . for being weak, it becomes a little difficult to see who are our heroes or role models.
I have to argue that no such thing should exist for us. Maybe it is part of an english character trait - always bringing a man or woman down but it does encourage people to look for leadership elsewhere other than within themselves.

At a not too recent discussion group involving Socialist Workers Party supporters, I asked whether the speaker was called Cliff. The barely concealed glee this question caused surprised me but, no, it wasn't 'Cliff '. 'Is Cliff like your Lenin?' got a foolishly reverent nod of the head.
I had to think about this one. Lenin,a hero of the left and to some, a god. To be honest it was a view I once had, but it represents a weakness. A belief that some one that we can look up to will appear as a saviour; that we can ride on the back of the endeavours of others and perhaps claim we were there.

As a one time wannabe communist I'd read various of Lenin's work but must admit to being a bit non-plussed determining who was who and getting lost in the plot. During a period of disarray I read 'Lenin' by David Shub, a selective biography (1969 reprint). This was a real eye opener and put flesh to the bones of a remarkable man. An ordinary human being albeit one with a singular drive. Lenin though capable of genuine warmth was no hippy. He could bare a grudge, often made mistakes, was guilty of under and overestimating situations and capable of commanding vast forces.

According to other accounts(2) he had his romantic flings, his thoughts may have been influenced by syphillis and then there's the sealed train and 'collaboration with the enemy' (which kind of makes allegations against George Galloway look like chickenfeed. I'd take money from Michael Moore seeing as how it's offered(3).
Although Lenin's biggest impediment was the backward nature of Russia - largely peasant based agriculture and a very small industrial base. Coupled with a lack of dynamism in Left wing circles in more advanced capitalist nations.

Lenin was a chancer, a bluffer and a hero. My favourite thought of him is declaring his outfit the majority - bolshevik - when they were anything but in size. Methinx he meant in influence. A little bravery and conviction go a long way.

Despite Stalin's attempt to cultivate links with the spirit of Leninism and claim some continuation of his methodology his vision of the road to socialism started collapsing at inception (4).

Lenin's dying words were to not trust Stalin. Whatever, the man died a long time ago in different circumstances and there are no more Lenins anymore.



W.W.J.D?

Around about the same time as coming across Shub's 'Lenin' a very good friend brought back a wristband from the states (although not a tacky plastic bangle). The letters on it stood for 'what would Jesus do?' and the wristband was widespread. This is interesting because it signifies a move away from worshipping of god(s) to considering doing the decent thing. Maybe it is more indicative of the collapse of the church in its most recent role as the spirit of the nation and as moral guide or the difference between good, honest ground level christians and the higher clergy and adherents. The Bible itself warns against false prophets and . . erm? 'social chauvinists'. Maybe they should take a leaf or two out of their own book.

Maybe the Bible is based on a typograhical error. What if god and devil turn out to be merely corruptions of the words good and evil?

. . . . . . ,



Lovers and fighters?



(2) See Kollontai, 'Lenin' by Robert Service.
(3) Somewhere in 'Dude, where's my country?'
(4) I am no expert on Soviet affairs. Try The Soviet Union demystified for starters. http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2004w13/msg00272.htm
(5)http://www.bombardier.co.uk/stgeorgesday.php