Reply to ‘offensive art’ article, Wakefield Express.
Art should not have to deny a right to offend. Isn’t it through having our everyday experiences challenged that we gain a new understanding of things?
This work in that case is timely given the retreat from reason and a reverence for nature over humanity.
Nature of course being inherently 'cruel' and if designed by god then he is not that much to look up to.
Not that I would want religious art to be banned any more than the dead dogs as both can explain more about the human condition.
Anyway, at least it’s organic.
This is another example of local councillors posing as moral guardians as the issue appeared in the local press with our then Lady Mayor, Janet Holmes (lab). One assumes that in her mayoral position the good lady had fur on her collar?
Friday, May 13, 2005
Monday, May 09, 2005
Election fraud? a personal account. Normanton 2005.
A 'campaign' that was always behind before it started yielded quite a result - 780 votes surpassed expectations on one count but does need some explaining.
The decision was made to stand when 2 days before final call a letter was received from Labour man on a mission, Ed Balls, asking for input on his listener panel. Others include a goading 4th estate, various other wind up merchants but mainly the conditions of our daily lives and the direction that we are headed for.
A leaflet was laboured over and eventually spewed out something of a hackjob. All the deadlines were approaching so it had to do.
A day at the printers before final off and a chance to put things in to perspective - What the hell are you doing!?! Followed by a dark, moody period calming to introspection, sleep and facing the inevitable. Whatever faults, at least there was a measure of belief.
Barely subdued anger fuels much action but does little for direction. The election provided an element of direction and a chance to promote some ideas - not particularly my own, but shared ones. The goal in the election was never a personal one, it was more to get people to see the pitfalls and potentials ahead, to challenge their beliefs and see themselves as potential.
All grand plans proved illusory as the campaign fell further behind - 1o, ooo leaflets for 4o, ooo households over 6 days (3500 delivered) and targetted for public meetings.
Brief respite came in the form of a 'meet the candidates' meeting promoted by Churches together (thanks given to secretary, D. Rowland and the Bishop of Pontefract as chair). All the thoughts that had previously seemed so clear were now absent and the 5 minute intro took two hours to prepare and stumbled out over one and a half minutes.
(Dig in.)
Quite a lively event with a small cross section of community players giving us wannabes a grilling. Mr. Balls had done his homework and did sterling work but largely stuck to the party line as did the Tory candidate. The Liberal stand in deviated slightly considering youth and John Aveyard of the BNP gave an honest enough account of his beliefs. Yours truly performed consistently offering half remembered arguments and trying to put the case for humanity.
Chatting to the audience afterwards revealed that it hadn't gone down as bad as first thought.
The rest of the campaign then largely fell into one of technicalities - delivering leaflets and barely any chance to discuss aims with the public.
Meetings prepared on the hoof would have been a joke if the whole thing hadn't been considered something of an experiment. In effect one caretaker heard the first speech and the others were used as practice.
78o votes doesn't mean much under those circumstances other than perhaps representing something of a critical but disconnected public.
And potential.
The decision was made to stand when 2 days before final call a letter was received from Labour man on a mission, Ed Balls, asking for input on his listener panel. Others include a goading 4th estate, various other wind up merchants but mainly the conditions of our daily lives and the direction that we are headed for.
A leaflet was laboured over and eventually spewed out something of a hackjob. All the deadlines were approaching so it had to do.
A day at the printers before final off and a chance to put things in to perspective - What the hell are you doing!?! Followed by a dark, moody period calming to introspection, sleep and facing the inevitable. Whatever faults, at least there was a measure of belief.
Barely subdued anger fuels much action but does little for direction. The election provided an element of direction and a chance to promote some ideas - not particularly my own, but shared ones. The goal in the election was never a personal one, it was more to get people to see the pitfalls and potentials ahead, to challenge their beliefs and see themselves as potential.
All grand plans proved illusory as the campaign fell further behind - 1o, ooo leaflets for 4o, ooo households over 6 days (3500 delivered) and targetted for public meetings.
Brief respite came in the form of a 'meet the candidates' meeting promoted by Churches together (thanks given to secretary, D. Rowland and the Bishop of Pontefract as chair). All the thoughts that had previously seemed so clear were now absent and the 5 minute intro took two hours to prepare and stumbled out over one and a half minutes.
(Dig in.)
Quite a lively event with a small cross section of community players giving us wannabes a grilling. Mr. Balls had done his homework and did sterling work but largely stuck to the party line as did the Tory candidate. The Liberal stand in deviated slightly considering youth and John Aveyard of the BNP gave an honest enough account of his beliefs. Yours truly performed consistently offering half remembered arguments and trying to put the case for humanity.
Chatting to the audience afterwards revealed that it hadn't gone down as bad as first thought.
The rest of the campaign then largely fell into one of technicalities - delivering leaflets and barely any chance to discuss aims with the public.
Meetings prepared on the hoof would have been a joke if the whole thing hadn't been considered something of an experiment. In effect one caretaker heard the first speech and the others were used as practice.
78o votes doesn't mean much under those circumstances other than perhaps representing something of a critical but disconnected public.
And potential.
'Pawns of War?'
War – what is it good for?: a response to Wakefield Express article: British Legion fighting new war – against apathy.
As Remembrance Day came and went maybe the question should be asked – what is it we are actually supposed to remember? Do we agonise over the deaths of our long dead relatives or are we honouring the cause they fought for?
Dodgy headlines such as the raping of Belgian nuns and bayonetting of babies helped galvanize public opinion. Britain’s farmhands, factory and office workers plus a great many from India in particular, other colonies, dominions and protectorates, enlisted to fight for King and country without further question.
These headlines have long been exposed for the propaganda they were, much like Iraqis throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait (Gulf war #1) or indeed that Fikret Alic symbolised Serbian concentration camps. Yet any criticism or even unbiased analysis of the war, Nation or Remembrance Day invites scorn, that the dead are being mocked.
But who is doing the mocking? Our forebears died in their youth before they had led much of a life. We would better serve their memory by questioning the motives behind the war rather than dulling thought with foolish, sentimental and misplaced remembrance stunts.
The sickest part of events such as Remembrance Day is that the reasons for conflict are whitewashed and the dead resurrected to march for their political masters once more. These men (and women) though dead live on in the memory as a convenient prop for the pantomime and pageantry that is National pride, wheeled out and re-enlisted for every convenient commemoration and hastily reburied when they become stinkingly embarrassing.
Our leadership open up the old wounds of the twisted and maimed and shed crocodile tears over tortured memories. In so doing they mock the dead and seek to lock the minds of the living. Freedom of speech, to criticise, to think and argue a point becomes subverted to the limited concerns of a self-interested and deceitful minority. The national flag effectively becoming a security blanket that muffles discerning voices.
In the Express article, veteran Ralph Denby states that only one year has passed without the death of a member of the armed forces. Doesn’t this nail the myth of Remembrance Day? The day when war was supposed to end? Yet Britain’s leaders and those of an ever-shifting band of allies have continuously waged war and sold short those who believed they were fighting a just cause. To be willing to fight and die for a cause is a noble thing but senseless if that cause is neither believed in nor understood. Perhaps I judge our forebears harshly – after all, what do many of us, let alone your average 19yr old, choose to know about war?
Today’s well-documented and one-sided war in Iraq lumbers on without aim, direction or justification. The very reasons for going to war in the first place have proven to be something of a moving target – buried and resurfacing only to be lost again as war develops a crude logic. Perhaps this may explain public apathy. Our smug leaders, with no opposition of merit, vainly expose themselves through their use of ‘embeds’. Desperate for some hint of success and finding none they cling to so-called glorious days of the past, risk shooting themselves in the foot and opening the whole can of worms.
Read on: The War in Europe: What really happened?
http://www.heartfield.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WWII/contents.htm
As Remembrance Day came and went maybe the question should be asked – what is it we are actually supposed to remember? Do we agonise over the deaths of our long dead relatives or are we honouring the cause they fought for?
Dodgy headlines such as the raping of Belgian nuns and bayonetting of babies helped galvanize public opinion. Britain’s farmhands, factory and office workers plus a great many from India in particular, other colonies, dominions and protectorates, enlisted to fight for King and country without further question.
These headlines have long been exposed for the propaganda they were, much like Iraqis throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait (Gulf war #1) or indeed that Fikret Alic symbolised Serbian concentration camps. Yet any criticism or even unbiased analysis of the war, Nation or Remembrance Day invites scorn, that the dead are being mocked.
But who is doing the mocking? Our forebears died in their youth before they had led much of a life. We would better serve their memory by questioning the motives behind the war rather than dulling thought with foolish, sentimental and misplaced remembrance stunts.
The sickest part of events such as Remembrance Day is that the reasons for conflict are whitewashed and the dead resurrected to march for their political masters once more. These men (and women) though dead live on in the memory as a convenient prop for the pantomime and pageantry that is National pride, wheeled out and re-enlisted for every convenient commemoration and hastily reburied when they become stinkingly embarrassing.
Our leadership open up the old wounds of the twisted and maimed and shed crocodile tears over tortured memories. In so doing they mock the dead and seek to lock the minds of the living. Freedom of speech, to criticise, to think and argue a point becomes subverted to the limited concerns of a self-interested and deceitful minority. The national flag effectively becoming a security blanket that muffles discerning voices.
In the Express article, veteran Ralph Denby states that only one year has passed without the death of a member of the armed forces. Doesn’t this nail the myth of Remembrance Day? The day when war was supposed to end? Yet Britain’s leaders and those of an ever-shifting band of allies have continuously waged war and sold short those who believed they were fighting a just cause. To be willing to fight and die for a cause is a noble thing but senseless if that cause is neither believed in nor understood. Perhaps I judge our forebears harshly – after all, what do many of us, let alone your average 19yr old, choose to know about war?
Today’s well-documented and one-sided war in Iraq lumbers on without aim, direction or justification. The very reasons for going to war in the first place have proven to be something of a moving target – buried and resurfacing only to be lost again as war develops a crude logic. Perhaps this may explain public apathy. Our smug leaders, with no opposition of merit, vainly expose themselves through their use of ‘embeds’. Desperate for some hint of success and finding none they cling to so-called glorious days of the past, risk shooting themselves in the foot and opening the whole can of worms.
Read on: The War in Europe: What really happened?
http://www.heartfield.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WWII/contents.htm
Both barrels.
As a kid I loved it when the family went camping. In them days you could chop down trees, drink home made beer and swim from rock to rock in rivers with leaping salmon - heaven (Boets-y-Coed, actually).
My Dad showed me how to tie a bowline (I was shit at it), but now oddly enough for the first time ever it comes to mind. That knot could save your life he said.
(He also taught me how to blow my nose cowboy style but you don't wanna know.)
My Dad showed me how to tie a bowline (I was shit at it), but now oddly enough for the first time ever it comes to mind. That knot could save your life he said.
(He also taught me how to blow my nose cowboy style but you don't wanna know.)
3 election presentations, 2005.
(A. k. a. 'The experimental education and public humiliation of an Independent candidate'.)
These three pieces were pretty much written on the hoof and were subject to other pressures at the time. As such they don't neccesarily fit the billing but it was hoped that an audience discussion would have taken matters further.
#1 Environmentalism: outline for presentation at Normanton.
Despite informing quite a lot of political discussion leading up to the elections the environment has been sidelined probably because it runs counter to people’s aspirations for a better life, but also because the terms in which it is defined are wrong.
Elections – a time when we believe we can choose how our lives may be mapped out and we have the limited option to exert some influence should be a time when these matters are discussed.
The fact that green issues have been quietly dropped seems to point out that there’s more to this than at first meets the eye.
I don’t want to make this a discussion about Tony Blair –that’s a different matter - but he did promise to make environmental issues - particularly climate change -central to his (expected?) presidencies of both the European Union and the G8 group of leading Industrialised nations.
Such is the level of importance attached to this issue that it is likely to inform the political landscape for some time to come, though perhaps in a different form.
Politics, however, is not an exact science and is subject to opportunism. Some elements of the mainstream are trying to change their position yet make out it’s a progression from their last one, hence good old uncle Tony belatedly endorses Nuclear power as possibly the way forward – albeit under the guise of it being greener.
Nuclear power is actually more ‘environment friendly’ but it certainly doesn’t fit into what the green ‘movement’ wants. If anything it’s their ultimate bogeyman, for now.
The whole notion of environmental politics or ideology is backwards, anti human and, in fact, contradictory.
To explain I’ll give you an example –
My own dissatisfaction with life as a teenager led me to become a vegetarian – since recovered, thankyou.
A thawing chicken on the draining board at home looked too much like a dead body and put me off meat. There then followed 5 years of ethnic and organic ‘whole’ foods which gradually slipped into cheese, biscuits and all manner of convenience foods.
The raw nature of whole foods means that nearly every aspect of them is done at home by individual processing – taking all the stones out or risk losing your teeth if you’re talking about lentils – then soaking, slow cooking, etc, etc until they are suitable to eat. And all for a result that is easier attained when these things are done on a mass scale - cheaper, more efficient and plentiful.
*
Ecological arguments undermine themselves by offering a utopian vision that is contradicted by the actions and desires of its proponents.
Despite people’s dissatisfaction with their everyday lives – myself included – we live better and healthier than ever before. Yet there is a deep rooted pessimism about our ability to make things better today.
I’d argue this ability to improve, to progress, is a defining characteristic of human beings and something that we are all capable of.
Curiosity, endeavour, then later industry, science and technology have vastly improved our lot but are being undermined by a widespread belief that we are destroying the planet, that human activity makes things worse.
Of course there are areas for improvement – that’s why people criticise or take an interest in politics.
Notions of progress when applied practically reveal things that we are initially unaware of. Sometimes the results aren’t quite what we expect but then life isn’t an exact science, but again that progressive bent means that we attempt to sort it out.
I think that’s where the confusion lies – how we sort things out, and it depends on whether you are an optimist or a pessimist or believe that a better future can be achieved.
*Nuclear power, Gmo food technology and factory farms, etc actually confound the green argument because more is provided with less thus leaving more time, space and energy for true societal and personal development. . . . tbc
*
#2 ASBOs and discipline: outline for presentation at Stanley.
To anyone who has been on the receiving end of persistent or intense nuisance behaviour I apologise if the following trivialises that experience. Although it is not my intention to do so.
It would be foolish to deny that youth and some adults do, on occasion, pose something of a nuisance to others. Graffiti, litter, petty vandalism and rowdy drunks, etc do exist and indeed always have done to one degree or another, but not to the extent that merits the attention they receive today.
I’m more concerned as to why such petty aspects of behaviour have risen to the forefront of political discussion.
*There is a generalised ‘climate of fear’ endorsed and promoted by an increasingly detached elite – those who shape and implement policy that governs all our lives.
Since no grander vision of how best society can be organised exists anymore mainstream politics has reduced itself to the management of affairs between individuals.
This is something shared by all mainstream parties to some extent, merely differing by degree as to how they choose to entice a disillusioned public.
New Labour in power has initiated over a thousand new laws, rules and regulations.
On top of this there has been a huge growth in advisory bodies, counselling groups and further recommendations as to what we can and cannot do and what we ought to do.
This extends through most aspects of our daily lives whether at home, in the workplace, on the roads, wherever.
This reflects an ever greater distancing of anxious politicians and their desire to connect in which ever way.
However, these attempts to micro manage our lives actually undermine social cohesion and displace authority from those directly involved – parents, neighbours and the wider community and place it in the hands of state authorities.
This insidious encroachment of our liberty goes largely unquestioned. In fact, with no other channel, sections of the public are likely to clamour for even more intrusion, which in effect only serves to make the situation worse.
*We may remember being kids ourselves and, if we are honest, many of us will recall getting up to allsorts of mischief - it's a rite of passage.
On the whole children cannot have the same understanding of events that adults do. They neither have to work for a living, pay the mortgage and other household bills or even bring up children.
As they grow older the things that they were lead to believe in are confronted by reality, but still, society pays lip service to convention and these beliefs are transferred to successive generations, perhaps slightly modified but largely unquestioned.
It’s hardly surprising then that children and youths test the barriers and get up to mischief as they become older.
*Abuse is the term now widely applied to many aspects of behaviour that an individual rightly or wrongly finds disagreeable.
Parents, Teachers and other adults can no longer chastise unruly children without their authority being called into question.
The way education is implemented and the subject matter is an issue of its own yet Teachers are also hampered in their delivery of lessons by unruly classes for fear of inviting an investigation of their behaviour.
Little wonder then that many are fed up with their profession and there is a problem with holding on to staff.
*Proper cases of abuse, adequately covered by existing laws, have been used to introduce a raft of measures that can be and are implanted in what are quite ordinary circumstances.
Such is the all encompassing approach of regulation and its application in trivial circumstances that serious matters go unnoticed until it becomes too late.
The Police, notably in South Yorkshire, have stated that they can no longer attach much importance to burglary and the like, which does beg the question as to why more endeavour is placed in what should be the private realm.
Indeed crime - by any measure - has fallen only to be replaced by the ‘fear of crime’, despite evermore activities now being classed as criminal at worst or subject to investigation by state authorities.
The Chief Commissioner of Police, I believe, actually rebuked Michael Howard for raising fears over increasing levels of crime.
*To conclude this very brief introduction I would argue that these fears are generally overplayed and in themselves problematic leading to ever increasing calls for regulation and further societal mistrust and breakdown.
*
#3 Multiculturalism: outline for presentation at Ossett.
This year the UK will be holding the presidencies of both the European Union and the G8 group of leading industrialised nations. Therefore it comes as something of a surprise that this hasn’t featured more prominently in mainstream political circles.
Interesting enough that New Labour decided fox-hunting was more of an issue than something as important as this, deciding to hold any referendum on Europe only after the general election. This in itself proves the limited nature of electoral politics - such is the importance attached to anything that really matters.
The European Union is perhaps best understood as a protectionist zone for European Business; now something of a bulwark against a rapidly emerging far eastern economy and in times past the USA. Although the UK’s special interest with the US has always been one of the factors holding up European integration.
Of course Britain is not alone in this as all European nations have their own specific interests – cohering their respective populations around a set of values, or culture, and safeguarding the interests of their own economies.
Britain’s unique role stems from new international relations that came into effect after WW2 when the world order was determined by America – the true victor of WW1 and 2.
Now though, the USA is the largest debtor nation of all time. This stands in sharp contrast to its post war position as The global economic, political and military power, the world reordered around US interests and defined against the Soviet bloc.
It is the demise of the Soviet Union that has undermined all the old post war institutions and the beliefs attached to them that has led to the crisis of confidence in the west.
Western capitalism’s triumphant mood has proven short lived leading to the quest for new values and cultural identity as all the old ones are called into question.
This process is well under way in the US and has been lurking in the background in the UK for some time.
*Despite many a reason being given for it, the war in Iraq was for no other purpose than to find a sense of mission and reclaim the moral high ground against a brutal dictator – one of many that western governments do business with.
This ill considered venture has been a spectacular failure for the erstwhile ‘coalition of the willing’ and a huge setback for the Iraqi population.
The Iraq war has left a bad taste in the mouth for some and many others choose to ignore it, now that it has descended into debacle.
Yet it may, and should, serve to haunt the establishment for some time to come.
Further intervention abroad is likely to prove much more difficult. Although that is not going to stop them from trying. Expect more character assassinations of foreign dictators and, by implication, their populations.
Interesting to note, that with the failure of the Iraq mission, New Labour has changed tack and turned it’s attention to Africa – the plight of impoverished Africans long being the subject of middle class and radical sympathies.
From Non Governmental Organisations to the Government itself this usually comes in the guise of Aid, charity or ‘sustainable development’ – keeping things pretty much as they are, perhaps selling ethnic goods to ethical tourists or growing cash crops in a very competitive market.
But rarely development like advanced nations. In fact, under the guise of sustainable development and not destroying the planet, the developing world is not likely to see much of any real benefit. This is a disingenuous argument as the world is in a better
state, environmentally speaking, than it has been for centuries.
Rather than giving peasant farmers a fair trade logo and a marginal increase in profit or holding ‘feed the world’ gigs, just a 1% increase of African exports would give $70 billion dollars worth of revenue.
This dwarfs any amount of charitable donations Africa receives and would bring the continent closer to the living standards enjoyed in more advanced countries.
When you consider that 40% of the EU budget goes to subsidising agriculture and that Mozambique – almost the poorest nation on earth – had to end subsidies to its farmers as part of a World Bank austerity package, then things take on a new perspective.
The subsidies given to some farmers were government surplus goods, such as clothing, that they then had to sell and pay back the Government.
Pretty alarming when even the Royal family receive farming handouts in the UK.
Sympathy does nothing for Africa.
It enshrines the belief that Africans and blacks are intrinsically inferior people, worthy of charity and beneficial guidance.
*
The international focus is mirrored by its domestic counterpart, inasmuch as immigrant peoples, of any category, are seen as embodying values that we in the west may find uncivilised or backward.
Some elements of this are indeed true, which is why immigrants come here in the first place – to develop and better their prospects.
Falling birthrates and an ageing population in the UK means that immigration is a necessity.
Likewise, a fluctuating but still buoyant labour market is in need of more overseas workers. *
The belief that foreigners are different means that they are seen as requiring special attention - their cultural differences needing to be respected in the name of tolerance.
Yet many come to escape the cloying confines of their inherited culture only to find attempts to reaffirm it by politicians with a lack of ideas as to any progressive or unifying identity.
Some may recall Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of blood’ speech where he warned of the white man being an alien in his own country.
To some this rings true today.
It’s not too hard to see why what with erstwhile radical politicians banning hot cross buns and the celebrations of diverse cultures and religious festivals in schools.
These things weren’t asked for by minority groups, rather they were foisted upon them by detached politicians.
Yet anything that is overtly British is avoided like the plague, much to the annoyance of members of the general public.
It’s safe to say that a modern understanding of British culture is amiss and
in mainstream circles there is an increasing element of alarm.
A rapidly globalising economy will become very competitive as new markets and souces of raw materials are sought and any economy not up to speed will, obviously, fall behind.
It is this that is driving the search for an inclusive yet multicultural identity.
Multiculturalism is problematic because it celebrates opposing values as being of equal merit which leaves backward ideas unchallenged and creates further division along artificial lines.
*
These three pieces were pretty much written on the hoof and were subject to other pressures at the time. As such they don't neccesarily fit the billing but it was hoped that an audience discussion would have taken matters further.
#1 Environmentalism: outline for presentation at Normanton.
Despite informing quite a lot of political discussion leading up to the elections the environment has been sidelined probably because it runs counter to people’s aspirations for a better life, but also because the terms in which it is defined are wrong.
Elections – a time when we believe we can choose how our lives may be mapped out and we have the limited option to exert some influence should be a time when these matters are discussed.
The fact that green issues have been quietly dropped seems to point out that there’s more to this than at first meets the eye.
I don’t want to make this a discussion about Tony Blair –that’s a different matter - but he did promise to make environmental issues - particularly climate change -central to his (expected?) presidencies of both the European Union and the G8 group of leading Industrialised nations.
Such is the level of importance attached to this issue that it is likely to inform the political landscape for some time to come, though perhaps in a different form.
Politics, however, is not an exact science and is subject to opportunism. Some elements of the mainstream are trying to change their position yet make out it’s a progression from their last one, hence good old uncle Tony belatedly endorses Nuclear power as possibly the way forward – albeit under the guise of it being greener.
Nuclear power is actually more ‘environment friendly’ but it certainly doesn’t fit into what the green ‘movement’ wants. If anything it’s their ultimate bogeyman, for now.
The whole notion of environmental politics or ideology is backwards, anti human and, in fact, contradictory.
To explain I’ll give you an example –
My own dissatisfaction with life as a teenager led me to become a vegetarian – since recovered, thankyou.
A thawing chicken on the draining board at home looked too much like a dead body and put me off meat. There then followed 5 years of ethnic and organic ‘whole’ foods which gradually slipped into cheese, biscuits and all manner of convenience foods.
The raw nature of whole foods means that nearly every aspect of them is done at home by individual processing – taking all the stones out or risk losing your teeth if you’re talking about lentils – then soaking, slow cooking, etc, etc until they are suitable to eat. And all for a result that is easier attained when these things are done on a mass scale - cheaper, more efficient and plentiful.
*
Ecological arguments undermine themselves by offering a utopian vision that is contradicted by the actions and desires of its proponents.
Despite people’s dissatisfaction with their everyday lives – myself included – we live better and healthier than ever before. Yet there is a deep rooted pessimism about our ability to make things better today.
I’d argue this ability to improve, to progress, is a defining characteristic of human beings and something that we are all capable of.
Curiosity, endeavour, then later industry, science and technology have vastly improved our lot but are being undermined by a widespread belief that we are destroying the planet, that human activity makes things worse.
Of course there are areas for improvement – that’s why people criticise or take an interest in politics.
Notions of progress when applied practically reveal things that we are initially unaware of. Sometimes the results aren’t quite what we expect but then life isn’t an exact science, but again that progressive bent means that we attempt to sort it out.
I think that’s where the confusion lies – how we sort things out, and it depends on whether you are an optimist or a pessimist or believe that a better future can be achieved.
*Nuclear power, Gmo food technology and factory farms, etc actually confound the green argument because more is provided with less thus leaving more time, space and energy for true societal and personal development. . . . tbc
*
#2 ASBOs and discipline: outline for presentation at Stanley.
To anyone who has been on the receiving end of persistent or intense nuisance behaviour I apologise if the following trivialises that experience. Although it is not my intention to do so.
It would be foolish to deny that youth and some adults do, on occasion, pose something of a nuisance to others. Graffiti, litter, petty vandalism and rowdy drunks, etc do exist and indeed always have done to one degree or another, but not to the extent that merits the attention they receive today.
I’m more concerned as to why such petty aspects of behaviour have risen to the forefront of political discussion.
*There is a generalised ‘climate of fear’ endorsed and promoted by an increasingly detached elite – those who shape and implement policy that governs all our lives.
Since no grander vision of how best society can be organised exists anymore mainstream politics has reduced itself to the management of affairs between individuals.
This is something shared by all mainstream parties to some extent, merely differing by degree as to how they choose to entice a disillusioned public.
New Labour in power has initiated over a thousand new laws, rules and regulations.
On top of this there has been a huge growth in advisory bodies, counselling groups and further recommendations as to what we can and cannot do and what we ought to do.
This extends through most aspects of our daily lives whether at home, in the workplace, on the roads, wherever.
This reflects an ever greater distancing of anxious politicians and their desire to connect in which ever way.
However, these attempts to micro manage our lives actually undermine social cohesion and displace authority from those directly involved – parents, neighbours and the wider community and place it in the hands of state authorities.
This insidious encroachment of our liberty goes largely unquestioned. In fact, with no other channel, sections of the public are likely to clamour for even more intrusion, which in effect only serves to make the situation worse.
*We may remember being kids ourselves and, if we are honest, many of us will recall getting up to allsorts of mischief - it's a rite of passage.
On the whole children cannot have the same understanding of events that adults do. They neither have to work for a living, pay the mortgage and other household bills or even bring up children.
As they grow older the things that they were lead to believe in are confronted by reality, but still, society pays lip service to convention and these beliefs are transferred to successive generations, perhaps slightly modified but largely unquestioned.
It’s hardly surprising then that children and youths test the barriers and get up to mischief as they become older.
*Abuse is the term now widely applied to many aspects of behaviour that an individual rightly or wrongly finds disagreeable.
Parents, Teachers and other adults can no longer chastise unruly children without their authority being called into question.
The way education is implemented and the subject matter is an issue of its own yet Teachers are also hampered in their delivery of lessons by unruly classes for fear of inviting an investigation of their behaviour.
Little wonder then that many are fed up with their profession and there is a problem with holding on to staff.
*Proper cases of abuse, adequately covered by existing laws, have been used to introduce a raft of measures that can be and are implanted in what are quite ordinary circumstances.
Such is the all encompassing approach of regulation and its application in trivial circumstances that serious matters go unnoticed until it becomes too late.
The Police, notably in South Yorkshire, have stated that they can no longer attach much importance to burglary and the like, which does beg the question as to why more endeavour is placed in what should be the private realm.
Indeed crime - by any measure - has fallen only to be replaced by the ‘fear of crime’, despite evermore activities now being classed as criminal at worst or subject to investigation by state authorities.
The Chief Commissioner of Police, I believe, actually rebuked Michael Howard for raising fears over increasing levels of crime.
*To conclude this very brief introduction I would argue that these fears are generally overplayed and in themselves problematic leading to ever increasing calls for regulation and further societal mistrust and breakdown.
*
#3 Multiculturalism: outline for presentation at Ossett.
This year the UK will be holding the presidencies of both the European Union and the G8 group of leading industrialised nations. Therefore it comes as something of a surprise that this hasn’t featured more prominently in mainstream political circles.
Interesting enough that New Labour decided fox-hunting was more of an issue than something as important as this, deciding to hold any referendum on Europe only after the general election. This in itself proves the limited nature of electoral politics - such is the importance attached to anything that really matters.
The European Union is perhaps best understood as a protectionist zone for European Business; now something of a bulwark against a rapidly emerging far eastern economy and in times past the USA. Although the UK’s special interest with the US has always been one of the factors holding up European integration.
Of course Britain is not alone in this as all European nations have their own specific interests – cohering their respective populations around a set of values, or culture, and safeguarding the interests of their own economies.
Britain’s unique role stems from new international relations that came into effect after WW2 when the world order was determined by America – the true victor of WW1 and 2.
Now though, the USA is the largest debtor nation of all time. This stands in sharp contrast to its post war position as The global economic, political and military power, the world reordered around US interests and defined against the Soviet bloc.
It is the demise of the Soviet Union that has undermined all the old post war institutions and the beliefs attached to them that has led to the crisis of confidence in the west.
Western capitalism’s triumphant mood has proven short lived leading to the quest for new values and cultural identity as all the old ones are called into question.
This process is well under way in the US and has been lurking in the background in the UK for some time.
*Despite many a reason being given for it, the war in Iraq was for no other purpose than to find a sense of mission and reclaim the moral high ground against a brutal dictator – one of many that western governments do business with.
This ill considered venture has been a spectacular failure for the erstwhile ‘coalition of the willing’ and a huge setback for the Iraqi population.
The Iraq war has left a bad taste in the mouth for some and many others choose to ignore it, now that it has descended into debacle.
Yet it may, and should, serve to haunt the establishment for some time to come.
Further intervention abroad is likely to prove much more difficult. Although that is not going to stop them from trying. Expect more character assassinations of foreign dictators and, by implication, their populations.
Interesting to note, that with the failure of the Iraq mission, New Labour has changed tack and turned it’s attention to Africa – the plight of impoverished Africans long being the subject of middle class and radical sympathies.
From Non Governmental Organisations to the Government itself this usually comes in the guise of Aid, charity or ‘sustainable development’ – keeping things pretty much as they are, perhaps selling ethnic goods to ethical tourists or growing cash crops in a very competitive market.
But rarely development like advanced nations. In fact, under the guise of sustainable development and not destroying the planet, the developing world is not likely to see much of any real benefit. This is a disingenuous argument as the world is in a better
state, environmentally speaking, than it has been for centuries.
Rather than giving peasant farmers a fair trade logo and a marginal increase in profit or holding ‘feed the world’ gigs, just a 1% increase of African exports would give $70 billion dollars worth of revenue.
This dwarfs any amount of charitable donations Africa receives and would bring the continent closer to the living standards enjoyed in more advanced countries.
When you consider that 40% of the EU budget goes to subsidising agriculture and that Mozambique – almost the poorest nation on earth – had to end subsidies to its farmers as part of a World Bank austerity package, then things take on a new perspective.
The subsidies given to some farmers were government surplus goods, such as clothing, that they then had to sell and pay back the Government.
Pretty alarming when even the Royal family receive farming handouts in the UK.
Sympathy does nothing for Africa.
It enshrines the belief that Africans and blacks are intrinsically inferior people, worthy of charity and beneficial guidance.
*
The international focus is mirrored by its domestic counterpart, inasmuch as immigrant peoples, of any category, are seen as embodying values that we in the west may find uncivilised or backward.
Some elements of this are indeed true, which is why immigrants come here in the first place – to develop and better their prospects.
Falling birthrates and an ageing population in the UK means that immigration is a necessity.
Likewise, a fluctuating but still buoyant labour market is in need of more overseas workers. *
The belief that foreigners are different means that they are seen as requiring special attention - their cultural differences needing to be respected in the name of tolerance.
Yet many come to escape the cloying confines of their inherited culture only to find attempts to reaffirm it by politicians with a lack of ideas as to any progressive or unifying identity.
Some may recall Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of blood’ speech where he warned of the white man being an alien in his own country.
To some this rings true today.
It’s not too hard to see why what with erstwhile radical politicians banning hot cross buns and the celebrations of diverse cultures and religious festivals in schools.
These things weren’t asked for by minority groups, rather they were foisted upon them by detached politicians.
Yet anything that is overtly British is avoided like the plague, much to the annoyance of members of the general public.
It’s safe to say that a modern understanding of British culture is amiss and
in mainstream circles there is an increasing element of alarm.
A rapidly globalising economy will become very competitive as new markets and souces of raw materials are sought and any economy not up to speed will, obviously, fall behind.
It is this that is driving the search for an inclusive yet multicultural identity.
Multiculturalism is problematic because it celebrates opposing values as being of equal merit which leaves backward ideas unchallenged and creates further division along artificial lines.
*
Election address, Normanton 2005.
ELECTION ADDRESS Independent Candidate
NORMANTON CONSTITUENCY. Mark Harrop
With falling interest in politics now seems to be an odd time to be offering another ‘alternative to all the others’. But this is not a manifesto, program for social change or management. There are no promises of funds or resources to any particular group. It is more to do with promoting ideas.
Disengagement in social and political life is a huge problem. In times past people have fought and died for ideas – including the right to vote. Such things have driven society forwards. But today cynicism is rife - ‘they’re all the same’ being one of the most widespread and annoying claims to be heard of politicians, although to some extent excusable. Perhaps worse than being all the same mainstream parties appear to have abandoned their traditional principles and now opt for the ‘special offer’ approach. ‘There is no alternative’ – once the battle cry of the last great Tory warrior, and now everyone seems to agree.
The end of the Soviet Union as a model to be defined against has had destabilising effects –in both international and domestic politics. Absent are any competing notions of how a society can best be organised. The ‘left’ is more disorientated than most having never been able to advance an independent program of credibility.
There are limited ideas of a grand vision and a decline in the belief that people can make any positive difference. Instead, there is a deep rooted pessimism about the human condition and a clamour for victim status, special need or single issue.
Are we approaching the endgame of ‘traditional’ politics? The stasis in political life would seem to suggest so. However it would be foolish to expect that things carry on as they are and just hope that we won’t be one of the losers as society faces up to the challenges of the 21st century.
What are the challenges?
The issue likeliest to affect international politics is the rise of eastern economies.
Huge reserves of cheap labour and the dynamism of new growth will be something the west finds hard to deal with. Despite efforts to maintain economic stability, the pull of the Chinese economy already has a significant impact and this is likely to increase in years to come. On this footing alone global politics will change. Alarmist perhaps, speculative? - yes. But history does reveal a habit of change.
Domestically change is already happening as more efforts are made to cohere a cynical and disaffected public around a set of values – any values. Nearly every aspect of our daily lives comes with a recommendation or regulation as to best practice and the bulk of this informed by prejudice if not anxiety on the part of our current leadership.
ASBOs and discipline. There are many aspects to anti-social behavioural orders. On one hand, kids are being hassled for just being themselves – mischievous, exuberant, testing. Adolescence, the transition from child to adult is a clumsy and often difficult period as a child questions much of the fairytale nonsense of their early years and begins to face the realities of the adult world.
On the other hand, there is ever greater state interference in normal activities that used to be worked out within the confines of the family or neighbourhood. The whole notion of parental control has been undermined by overplayed notions of abuse. Unruly kids who may previously have had a ‘clip around the ear’ or be put in their place by a stern word from an adult now no little of such things. Now, discipline is enforced by authorities.
ASBOs are bad enough for kids and, even worse, they infantilise adults and question decision making. They are a symptom of a society lacking direction.
Environmentalism is the scourge of progress. It places human development beneath a sentimentalised view of nature and denigrates our achievements. Alarmist views concerning man’s impact on the planet are nothing new but strike more of a chord in these apolitical times. Indeed there are better ways to run things but they will be harder to determine until people are seen not as the problem but the solution.
Behind all this lies the notion of running down aspirations, or paying ‘guilt’ taxes over non-issues. It depends what kind of world we want to live in.
Immigration tends to be discussed in superficial or alarmist terms. Much discussion is made over the supposed drain on resources that immigration causes yet the contribution made is actually greater per head - £112 goes to the exchequer for every £100 contributed by a UK citizen (2003-4 figures).
Many areas of the UK labour market would collapse without the contributions of immigrants, other areas have seen economic regeneration and attracted more business.
Many British workers see immigrants as a competitive element that holds down wages. There is a kernel of truth in this but such a mechanism exists regardless of immigration and labelling foreign workers as the problem distorts the truth. It is more the case that workers have no mechanism to fight for their interests and the immigrant ‘scare’ becomes a convenient excuse for disillusion. The problem is not one of immigration but down to the fact that society as it exists cannot organise its labour time. Given that capitalism is uneven in its development any notion of immigration controls is pure ideology.
Multiculturalism does nothing but alienate people from one another, setting out an agenda where individuals are viewed as distinct and separate groups in relation to race, culture or religion. The divisive effect of multiculturalism fragments societies further into national, regional, local or the single issue as each becomes promoted as a special need.
Promoting ‘Diversity’ actually does the opposite – it promotes a social code, a barrier. By not challenging ideas that we find odd undermines individual identity. How can anyone respect a viewpoint if all others are equally relevant? Being politically correct is akin to intellectual and moral cowardice – a refusal to challenge the constraints of the norm and acceptance of evermore stifling regulation as to what can be said or done. A dumbing down of culture and relativising of experiences as being of equal worth – you are what you are and shouldn’t expect anymore. In effect, it is a gift to be simple, work hard and don’t get ideas above your station.
Innovation ought to be a basic art but loses out as regulation becomes the norm. A progressive view in art, technology, medical science and humanities – the understanding of that which separates us from everything else, is threatened. Isn’t this a retreat from science, reason and commonsense?
Foolish to predict the future but trends and events prove that it is the actions or inactions of individuals that shape events. A positive outlook will only arise when we begin to question the conventions of the day.
Choose whoever wins the election there will be challenges ahead.
Public meetings-
Normanton: Environment - do we have a problem? Sat. 30th April, 12 –2.00 pm
Normanton Community Centre, Market St. (01924) 302525
Stanley: ASBOs and discipline. Tues. 3rd May, 7.30 – 9.30pm
Stanley Library and Community Centre. (01924) 303130
Ossett: Multiculturalism. Wed.4th May, 7 – 9pm
Ossett Town Hall. (01924) 305573
(1st. edition 28/04/05. Printed at 17 industrial st.)
NORMANTON CONSTITUENCY. Mark Harrop
With falling interest in politics now seems to be an odd time to be offering another ‘alternative to all the others’. But this is not a manifesto, program for social change or management. There are no promises of funds or resources to any particular group. It is more to do with promoting ideas.
Disengagement in social and political life is a huge problem. In times past people have fought and died for ideas – including the right to vote. Such things have driven society forwards. But today cynicism is rife - ‘they’re all the same’ being one of the most widespread and annoying claims to be heard of politicians, although to some extent excusable. Perhaps worse than being all the same mainstream parties appear to have abandoned their traditional principles and now opt for the ‘special offer’ approach. ‘There is no alternative’ – once the battle cry of the last great Tory warrior, and now everyone seems to agree.
The end of the Soviet Union as a model to be defined against has had destabilising effects –in both international and domestic politics. Absent are any competing notions of how a society can best be organised. The ‘left’ is more disorientated than most having never been able to advance an independent program of credibility.
There are limited ideas of a grand vision and a decline in the belief that people can make any positive difference. Instead, there is a deep rooted pessimism about the human condition and a clamour for victim status, special need or single issue.
Are we approaching the endgame of ‘traditional’ politics? The stasis in political life would seem to suggest so. However it would be foolish to expect that things carry on as they are and just hope that we won’t be one of the losers as society faces up to the challenges of the 21st century.
What are the challenges?
The issue likeliest to affect international politics is the rise of eastern economies.
Huge reserves of cheap labour and the dynamism of new growth will be something the west finds hard to deal with. Despite efforts to maintain economic stability, the pull of the Chinese economy already has a significant impact and this is likely to increase in years to come. On this footing alone global politics will change. Alarmist perhaps, speculative? - yes. But history does reveal a habit of change.
Domestically change is already happening as more efforts are made to cohere a cynical and disaffected public around a set of values – any values. Nearly every aspect of our daily lives comes with a recommendation or regulation as to best practice and the bulk of this informed by prejudice if not anxiety on the part of our current leadership.
ASBOs and discipline. There are many aspects to anti-social behavioural orders. On one hand, kids are being hassled for just being themselves – mischievous, exuberant, testing. Adolescence, the transition from child to adult is a clumsy and often difficult period as a child questions much of the fairytale nonsense of their early years and begins to face the realities of the adult world.
On the other hand, there is ever greater state interference in normal activities that used to be worked out within the confines of the family or neighbourhood. The whole notion of parental control has been undermined by overplayed notions of abuse. Unruly kids who may previously have had a ‘clip around the ear’ or be put in their place by a stern word from an adult now no little of such things. Now, discipline is enforced by authorities.
ASBOs are bad enough for kids and, even worse, they infantilise adults and question decision making. They are a symptom of a society lacking direction.
Environmentalism is the scourge of progress. It places human development beneath a sentimentalised view of nature and denigrates our achievements. Alarmist views concerning man’s impact on the planet are nothing new but strike more of a chord in these apolitical times. Indeed there are better ways to run things but they will be harder to determine until people are seen not as the problem but the solution.
Behind all this lies the notion of running down aspirations, or paying ‘guilt’ taxes over non-issues. It depends what kind of world we want to live in.
Immigration tends to be discussed in superficial or alarmist terms. Much discussion is made over the supposed drain on resources that immigration causes yet the contribution made is actually greater per head - £112 goes to the exchequer for every £100 contributed by a UK citizen (2003-4 figures).
Many areas of the UK labour market would collapse without the contributions of immigrants, other areas have seen economic regeneration and attracted more business.
Many British workers see immigrants as a competitive element that holds down wages. There is a kernel of truth in this but such a mechanism exists regardless of immigration and labelling foreign workers as the problem distorts the truth. It is more the case that workers have no mechanism to fight for their interests and the immigrant ‘scare’ becomes a convenient excuse for disillusion. The problem is not one of immigration but down to the fact that society as it exists cannot organise its labour time. Given that capitalism is uneven in its development any notion of immigration controls is pure ideology.
Multiculturalism does nothing but alienate people from one another, setting out an agenda where individuals are viewed as distinct and separate groups in relation to race, culture or religion. The divisive effect of multiculturalism fragments societies further into national, regional, local or the single issue as each becomes promoted as a special need.
Promoting ‘Diversity’ actually does the opposite – it promotes a social code, a barrier. By not challenging ideas that we find odd undermines individual identity. How can anyone respect a viewpoint if all others are equally relevant? Being politically correct is akin to intellectual and moral cowardice – a refusal to challenge the constraints of the norm and acceptance of evermore stifling regulation as to what can be said or done. A dumbing down of culture and relativising of experiences as being of equal worth – you are what you are and shouldn’t expect anymore. In effect, it is a gift to be simple, work hard and don’t get ideas above your station.
Innovation ought to be a basic art but loses out as regulation becomes the norm. A progressive view in art, technology, medical science and humanities – the understanding of that which separates us from everything else, is threatened. Isn’t this a retreat from science, reason and commonsense?
Foolish to predict the future but trends and events prove that it is the actions or inactions of individuals that shape events. A positive outlook will only arise when we begin to question the conventions of the day.
Choose whoever wins the election there will be challenges ahead.
Public meetings-
Normanton: Environment - do we have a problem? Sat. 30th April, 12 –2.00 pm
Normanton Community Centre, Market St. (01924) 302525
Stanley: ASBOs and discipline. Tues. 3rd May, 7.30 – 9.30pm
Stanley Library and Community Centre. (01924) 303130
Ossett: Multiculturalism. Wed.4th May, 7 – 9pm
Ossett Town Hall. (01924) 305573
(1st. edition 28/04/05. Printed at 17 industrial st.)
Friday, April 29, 2005
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
Monday, April 25, 2005
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)
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?
*
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?
*
Sunday, April 24, 2005
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
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
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Letter to Spiked - density of housing.
Another equally alarming aspect to the dismal amount of new house build is the density and poverty of spirit in the build. Sure, there are some nice houses out there but many are built on poor quality land, with limited additional infrastructure and stacked quite high. It's nice sunny day imagery but it doesn't last. One of the first things noticed when returning to old roads was the patches of newbuilt houses dotted around main roads. After a while you get to see previous expansions - maybe by style, layout or materials used. But still largely around a decrepit road system. If it's not being dug up then it's getting speed bumps and cameras.
The wry tone of the Heineken advert appeals - the hole dig where all the services - gas, cable, electricity, even the undertaker eye it up. If only, eh? The fact that it seems to make sense shows that we actually have a pretty low outlook but does give the nod to reality.
Why accept a pack 'em in tight, fill in all the gaps, crappy transport system philosophy? One that puts humanity beneath nature, and a cuddlybunny version of it at that. Defra's land use statisics quote 10.6% urbanised land, though as they admit not totally accurate but obviously there is plenty of land even in densely populated Britain. (www.defra.gov.uk)
The urban sprawl is more like urban squeeze, replete with ubercontrolling asbo, convention and diktat. Hardly a single normal activity is without an annoyance factor and therefore a chance to bellyache - the neighbours' exuberant children, the necessary DIY and constant upgrading of old housing stock, cars, old people doing 8 miles an hour, the cat always teasin' ma dawg, and so on - take your pick.
Until we overturn the view that man is subservient to nature then we are forever stuck to this kind of build. Newer housing designs are about and are even built. Their exotic appeal is due to their rarity. However, the simple, airy and spacious designs around easily lend themselves to mass production and with good liveable quality too. Some contemporary homes show simple ingenuity even in what could be called difficult locations, in short there's nothing much out there that is a barrier. Of course simplicity isn't always a gift and significant inroads into new technologies promise plenty.
Would it be too much to ask tomorrow's developers to put services in a seperate conduit rather than alongside or underneath roads and paths?
The wry tone of the Heineken advert appeals - the hole dig where all the services - gas, cable, electricity, even the undertaker eye it up. If only, eh? The fact that it seems to make sense shows that we actually have a pretty low outlook but does give the nod to reality.
Why accept a pack 'em in tight, fill in all the gaps, crappy transport system philosophy? One that puts humanity beneath nature, and a cuddlybunny version of it at that. Defra's land use statisics quote 10.6% urbanised land, though as they admit not totally accurate but obviously there is plenty of land even in densely populated Britain. (www.defra.gov.uk)
The urban sprawl is more like urban squeeze, replete with ubercontrolling asbo, convention and diktat. Hardly a single normal activity is without an annoyance factor and therefore a chance to bellyache - the neighbours' exuberant children, the necessary DIY and constant upgrading of old housing stock, cars, old people doing 8 miles an hour, the cat always teasin' ma dawg, and so on - take your pick.
Until we overturn the view that man is subservient to nature then we are forever stuck to this kind of build. Newer housing designs are about and are even built. Their exotic appeal is due to their rarity. However, the simple, airy and spacious designs around easily lend themselves to mass production and with good liveable quality too. Some contemporary homes show simple ingenuity even in what could be called difficult locations, in short there's nothing much out there that is a barrier. Of course simplicity isn't always a gift and significant inroads into new technologies promise plenty.
Would it be too much to ask tomorrow's developers to put services in a seperate conduit rather than alongside or underneath roads and paths?
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Sex education for children?
The proposal to teach children as young as five about sex education is quite an interesting one. Children can understand concepts at a very early age and this proposal will at least remove parents from having to kid the kids that babies come from mom's bellybutton. This way we avoid further deceit and trickery (it reminds me of the ever larger hole Basil Fawlty digs for himself when avoiding issues). While we are at it, maybe we should consider weaning them off some of the other fairytale rubbish we fill their heads with. Wouldn't life start making sense?
What of a true depiction of History? The world in which we live has much to offer through a true study of its development. It wouldn't take a child long to fathom that life on earth has evolved over millenia and not six days and one at rest (if god had put the effort in on sunday then maybe humanity wouldn't be stumbling along - he'd maybe even qualify for double time. Puh-lease).
What of Science or the study of Nature? Not some cutesy fluffy-bunny version but one that shows children that nature is not designed; rather that it adapts to it's environment and not always in what we would call a pleasant manner.
Of course the motivations behind under 5 sex education lie elsewhere but, as per usual, it could prove to be a bungled affair. Is it to combat the high rate of teenage pregnancies that are considered to be problematic or to encourage indigenous population growth? I hardly think the latter, not at five anyway.
Of course there are some that will cry outrage at such a proposal but it is a discussion worth having.
What of a true depiction of History? The world in which we live has much to offer through a true study of its development. It wouldn't take a child long to fathom that life on earth has evolved over millenia and not six days and one at rest (if god had put the effort in on sunday then maybe humanity wouldn't be stumbling along - he'd maybe even qualify for double time. Puh-lease).
What of Science or the study of Nature? Not some cutesy fluffy-bunny version but one that shows children that nature is not designed; rather that it adapts to it's environment and not always in what we would call a pleasant manner.
Of course the motivations behind under 5 sex education lie elsewhere but, as per usual, it could prove to be a bungled affair. Is it to combat the high rate of teenage pregnancies that are considered to be problematic or to encourage indigenous population growth? I hardly think the latter, not at five anyway.
Of course there are some that will cry outrage at such a proposal but it is a discussion worth having.
Prince Harry and that uniform.
Prince Harry managed to offend most with his choice of uniform at the 'colonial and native' private party he attended. One wonders wether he would have suffered the same level of outcry if he had gone as Brigadier-General Reginald "Rex" Edward Harry Dyer - infamous for the Amritsar massacre and a true colonial , or as some officer twat from Sandhurst (1)
Of course the atrocities of the Nazis in the concentration camps are singularly abhorrent yet despite knowledge of the issue the Allies suppressed much information and refused to take any action in support of Jews and others. In fact much of the Allied elites shared Nazi views concerning Jews and the issue was tacked on towards the end of the war adding noble gloss to
Allied war aims. (2)
Incidentally, Harry wore an Afrika korps uniform, far removed from the horrors of Auschwitz. Indeed, Rommel (Commander of the Deutches Afrika korps) was considered to have been something of a gentleman soldier and stood up to Hitler to some extent over the 'final solution', his name even being used to attract others to the failed plot against Hitler. (3)
(1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Dyer
(2)http://www.aish.com/holocaust/overview/The_Allied_Effort.asp
(3)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel
See also http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4170635.stm
and Living Marxism (June '94).
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
A Royal visit?
The Queen may be coming to visit The 'merrie citie' of Wakefield for Maundy Tuesday/Thursday. Maybe the old gal will get a clean up (Wakefield that is) and no doubt fawning dignitaries and other Wakefield notables will be drafted in to fawn appreciably.
Part of the ceremony is the handing out of commemorative coins and, in times past, the washing of underlings' feet. The money is more than welcome (bring plenty) but I doubt EIIR's skills as a pedicurist although since the service has been cut from the NHS there would be plenty grateful of an opportunity.
Rumour has it that our noble Queen likes to enjoy herself and rightly so. May I suggest we throw a ball (fancy dress optional) and hold a hunt with hounds to mark the occasion? And please bring Harry, he seems alright enough despite the circumstances he lives his life under.
There are also many people deserving of a Royal pardon that I for one would be most willing to discuss.
Part of the ceremony is the handing out of commemorative coins and, in times past, the washing of underlings' feet. The money is more than welcome (bring plenty) but I doubt EIIR's skills as a pedicurist although since the service has been cut from the NHS there would be plenty grateful of an opportunity.
Rumour has it that our noble Queen likes to enjoy herself and rightly so. May I suggest we throw a ball (fancy dress optional) and hold a hunt with hounds to mark the occasion? And please bring Harry, he seems alright enough despite the circumstances he lives his life under.
There are also many people deserving of a Royal pardon that I for one would be most willing to discuss.
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Grant Hazlewood is innocent.
Grant Hazlewood was a former workmate who now pleases Her Majesty. A self confessed wide-boy, somewhat loveable rogue but a damn fine worker.
In desperation, and assumedly for his amusement, he did a 'job' at one of the manager's houses. For his efforts he is now in residence at HMP Armley.(since moved)
Grant's original sin was to be the unofficial spokesman for the nightshift, in particular concerning the biennial bonus reappraisal. The bonus is always reviewed downwards and conditions for its application are as relevant as those in insurance disclaimers. It is a huge bone of contention and subject to many a differing view.
Factory productivity has risen by some 50% over a period of 4 years. Despite most of the improvements coming from on-the-job personnel this is not reflected in improvements in wages or conditions. In fact, the reverse is true. Bonus payments are curtailed for the pettiest of reasons and 'promised' individual wage reviews are delayed; the goalposts always moved. For instance, many a worker who may put in plenty of overtime would be deemed to have an appalling attendance record for being late perhaps three times in as many months. Real reasons ignored, minor ones upheld. It really only leaves the sick route but who wants to be ill or a victim all the time?
Back to the plot -
Shopfloor anger over the bonus proposals dissipated as quickly as the unofficial overtime ban. Some had mixed faith in the procedural route, others more grudgingly, one or two muttered 'fuck 'em', one wanted to fight them on the beaches but everyone knew that it was all over and anyway Christmas was coming.
We've been drybummed said Grant. And yes we had been.
Grant was singled out for punishment - the aforementioned manager busted him to the dayshift with less pay and less suited to his accustomed lifestyle. He appealed and wanted an explanation for the move as none was given.
Pressures built and a petty spat with a supervisor was blown up out of all proportion and became the focal point. Grant is definitely not an angel and certainly made life awkward for himself and others. Tension was relieved by suspending Grant (on full pay) but leaving 'the half dozen of the other' to build a case against him and exonerate his self.
The fact that the supervisor is asian does play a minor part. It depends whether you like your asians served up tabloid/broadsheet or in the flesh. A likeable enough fella in many circumstances - even as a supervisor but often in this role, a pain in the backside. Personal advancement, just doing the job and following orders all play a part.
The race element was widely accepted to have been a convenient blanket.
Grant finally got to have his appeal but only after much delay, a case built up against him and his isolation leading to desperation. At his 'trial' he gave an eloquent defence of himself and laid out the course of events leading up to the spat (upon which all this hinged). The company representative, who had previously been copying everything down; now exasperated but wouldn't have any of it, accused him of 'rambling' (decency holds me back from a Jerry Spinger Opera line here). He actually sputtered that he had 'never heard such insubordination in the lower ranks!'
In short, the case had already been decided. The Company instigated the real crime, made the rules up as it went along, picked at the evidence, provided judge, jury, executioner and set a procedure for the grounds for the defence. Not quite hung, drawn and quartered but the cuffs were out.
In desperation, and assumedly for his amusement, he did a 'job' at one of the manager's houses. For his efforts he is now in residence at HMP Armley.(since moved)
Grant's original sin was to be the unofficial spokesman for the nightshift, in particular concerning the biennial bonus reappraisal. The bonus is always reviewed downwards and conditions for its application are as relevant as those in insurance disclaimers. It is a huge bone of contention and subject to many a differing view.
Factory productivity has risen by some 50% over a period of 4 years. Despite most of the improvements coming from on-the-job personnel this is not reflected in improvements in wages or conditions. In fact, the reverse is true. Bonus payments are curtailed for the pettiest of reasons and 'promised' individual wage reviews are delayed; the goalposts always moved. For instance, many a worker who may put in plenty of overtime would be deemed to have an appalling attendance record for being late perhaps three times in as many months. Real reasons ignored, minor ones upheld. It really only leaves the sick route but who wants to be ill or a victim all the time?
Back to the plot -
Shopfloor anger over the bonus proposals dissipated as quickly as the unofficial overtime ban. Some had mixed faith in the procedural route, others more grudgingly, one or two muttered 'fuck 'em', one wanted to fight them on the beaches but everyone knew that it was all over and anyway Christmas was coming.
We've been drybummed said Grant. And yes we had been.
Grant was singled out for punishment - the aforementioned manager busted him to the dayshift with less pay and less suited to his accustomed lifestyle. He appealed and wanted an explanation for the move as none was given.
Pressures built and a petty spat with a supervisor was blown up out of all proportion and became the focal point. Grant is definitely not an angel and certainly made life awkward for himself and others. Tension was relieved by suspending Grant (on full pay) but leaving 'the half dozen of the other' to build a case against him and exonerate his self.
The fact that the supervisor is asian does play a minor part. It depends whether you like your asians served up tabloid/broadsheet or in the flesh. A likeable enough fella in many circumstances - even as a supervisor but often in this role, a pain in the backside. Personal advancement, just doing the job and following orders all play a part.
The race element was widely accepted to have been a convenient blanket.
Grant finally got to have his appeal but only after much delay, a case built up against him and his isolation leading to desperation. At his 'trial' he gave an eloquent defence of himself and laid out the course of events leading up to the spat (upon which all this hinged). The company representative, who had previously been copying everything down; now exasperated but wouldn't have any of it, accused him of 'rambling' (decency holds me back from a Jerry Spinger Opera line here). He actually sputtered that he had 'never heard such insubordination in the lower ranks!'
In short, the case had already been decided. The Company instigated the real crime, made the rules up as it went along, picked at the evidence, provided judge, jury, executioner and set a procedure for the grounds for the defence. Not quite hung, drawn and quartered but the cuffs were out.
After a further adjournment (sic) a new 'hearing':
- formal introductions given,
- enter stage right: The Police.
- Oh! feigned Captain Mainwairing.
- Wild, eh? said Grant.
Friday, January 21, 2005
2004 local elections.
(Previously titled: The ersatz appeal of the BNP.)
These days elections - a chance to openly fight for ideas and elect people's representatives are seen as a chore - something that gets in the way of more important things like getting on with life. People have decided that best practice is not to get too involved.
Erstwhile politicians of all calibre should be wary of the level of commitment attached to their vote as voter connections are superficially based in the main. Each party may have its core of support and the attentions of a handful of people actively lobbying for a select interest but the general public aren't moved. People are motivated by values and may associate their vote for what a party may represent. This is probably less well defined than in the past. People, perhaps surprisingly, may attach one single issue to a vote or even give a local chancer a go. One amusing encounter with an exasperated voter revealed she voted for all three main parties in this local election. Such is the punter's attachment to the vote.
Yet there are underlying beliefs that people have - rightly or wrongly, that need challenging.
Reason being that everything has become an issue. The depoliticised nature of politics ie. no grand or competing visions to take society forwards, comes with its mini me alterego - the micro politics of everyday life. So much to the point that to pay attention to it all makes you wonder which of your actions is the right thing to do. Indeed, quite maddening.
Little wonder then that people vent their anger, subdued though it is, by flicking the 'v' at best or more generally ignoring it all.
I stood as an Independent candidate in the 2004 local elections, although not because of any faith in the Office of Councillor, but mainly to see what people thought, amongst other reasons (guts of election leaflet posted at bottom).
I was a little surprised as to the strength and calibre of the vote for the BNP. Not much like that as portrayed in the recent New Statesman article - too much guesswork, emphasis on statistics and a lazy pastiche for want of a 'typical' interview. This would seem to be the real problem - so called radicals making out that only white trash vote far right.(http://www.newstatesman.com/200501240011).
Many said that despite knowing 'what they are' the BNP were the only organisation offering something concrete, for instance instead of making do and mend with a local school the BNP suggested a newly built one. Even saying that immigrants should be allowed to work (albeit largely doing menial and degrading tasks).
The punters weren't fooled by the pantomime 'nazism' and the reference to some mythical golden era when things were supposedly whiter than white. Some referred to the rank opportunism and thinly veiled anti-foreigner sentiment (genteel Horbury didn't quite merit the vulgar approach that the BNP take elsewhere); many even expressed concern for the plight of the refugee. Though it would be foolish to discount the underlying currents no matter how well they are understood. Many people - not just your 'typical' council house dweller - were fed up with being marginalised whilst official policy apparently favours the immigrant (regardless of category). Not to say by any means that our foreign counterparts had plenty but in the ease with which they got what they had - housing, furniture, healthcare, etc. Yet it would be foolish to equate this with any hard held nationalist sympathies (the tacky St. Georges flags in evidence may have pleased the ardent nationalist but were soon considerably less than half mast upon Engerr-land's demise at the concurrent Euro 2004 - echoes of 30's Germany it wasn't.) People were aggrieved at the condescension, aloofness and false promises of mainstream politicians and so picked on the easiest target, although many also figured that a significant vote for the BNP would also make politicos listen to them.
Interestingly enough no candidates went out door-to-door canvassing.
(The BNP also do a fine line in character assasination.)
************************************************************************************
2004 local election leaflet.
My aim in standing in these elections is to counter some of the myths and misinformation that poses as politics. As such, I do not concern myself with the 'bean count' that is the scrabble for apparently scarce resources. I am more concerned with raising the level of discussion above this and its meagre outlook. One thing is clear - the distinct lack of vision and principle at the heart of politics today. This displayed quite readily from the top down with debate at the petty level of the playground. Little wonder then that many of us choose to ignore the bigger picture, shrug our shoulders and acquiesce. Such apathy, though understandable, does not bode well for the immediate and long term future. Instead of a progressive, dynamic culture we have one of limits - an increasingly regulated and constrained society seeking accomodation to an imagined 'golden age' and largely afraid of its own shadow.
What kind of world do we want to live in?
Environmentalists and other commentators make much of the 'fact' that we are overcrowded. This is only true to the extent that new build largely equates to urban regeneration and increased population density. This make do and mend approach needs binning. Misplaced concern for the environment above our need has lead to a chronic shortage of available and decent land for housing and the subsequent, and likely, unsustainable increase in house prices. New and readily available technologies could do much to alleviate this crisis. Instead we are faced with a more compact and constrained society - evermore regulated, watched, held back and looking to the illusory comforts of the past rather than confidently going forwards. Yet close to 90% of this green and pleasant land (most of it man made) is undeveloped, ie. non-urban. There is no shortage of space - just a lack of political will.
Similar anti-human sentiment holds back much that is progressive, be it GMO food technology, medical experimentation or dams in developing countries. we live longer and healthier than ever before precisely because of our control over nature. That some people would not only hold up progress but question the achievements made thus far betrays a lack of confidence in ourselves. Nature is both creative and destructive, but it is no coherent or stable force. We should have no worries nurturing that that is beneficial to us and progessing.
Work.
The workplace is of major concern to me. Often it is just something we put up with before going home or out to spend our hard earned cash. Job satisfaction goes out of the window as you wait for the next element of control - be it petty disciplinary, misplaced criticism or myopic helth and safety initiative.
The forthcoming bonus review where I work is not likely to be more money, more time to enjoy nor universally applied. This despite a 50% increase in productivity over the past 4 years. So how come more production equals less money? It is often the case that you have to fight to get the job done as organisation is poor. Either that or go through the motions as part of the machinery.
This is not to single out my present empolyer - such a scenario can be pretty much applied to most jobs.
The world of work ought to be an enjoyable, productive and well rewarded experience rather than the source of frustration that it frequently is.
The announced job losses at Bombardier, Sirdar and The Post Office need some serious consideration. If it is the case that the labour market is set to expand and suitable well paid employment is to be had then fair enough. Otherwise not.
Blame for the current state of affairs can largely be attributed to the old Labour party and co. for never holding out for the interests and aspirations of its constituents. The current out of control version does much to hamper with an endless array of target driven initiatives, flip charts and an accompanying army of bureaucrats.
The unions spend far too much time discussing management concerns and keeping their members in the dark, offering little more than excuses or financial or legal services. In their current form they are worse than useless.
We need to build better ones that serve our interests.
Immigrants.
Be they economic migrants, asylum seekers or refugees - these people should be made welcome here. Too often immigrants are made scapegoats for a society ill at ease with itself and not the cause of its problems. From Doctors to construction workers, and many more besides, more immigrants are a requirement and much is to be gained either way from this.
Not much of an outcry is made when UK citizens go to live the ex-pat life in Spain or as health tourists to France or Hungary. To castigate others for wanting to lead a healthier life is hypocritical to say the least. It does none of us any favours to accept that people should live in poor conditions - wherever that may be.
Iraq.
For a good year leading up to the war, and since the occupation, many a poor reason has been given as to why war in the first place. There has been a long history of western involvement overseas - Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Somalia and Sierra Leone to name but a few of the most recent. And none of these countries any better for it. Criticism of our Governments involvement is either superficial, one-sided or avoids the issue.
Much of what is happening in Iraq shows just how directionless our leadership is - a poorly considered venture, on suspect grounds and no positive end in sight. That we allow this to continue is shameful.
Faith in Humanity.
According to some we are own worst enemies - selfish, destructive and heading for disaster unless guided by some higher order, be that a god or government. Society, such as it is, does have its fair share of problems although arguably not those often presented. There are some that see teenagers as hooligans, foreigners as grabbing scroungers and a paedophile or mugger lurking around every corner. What are we scared of here? We could be forgiven for thinking that we are on the verge of complete moral collapse, yet vthis is far from the case. Theses are largely overblown fears. An informed discussion would serve us better and not the kneejerk response that is.
Ultimately, the problems we face can all be overcome - by our involvement in the workings of society. Consequently we should have no faith in religion, nor those that would have us be subservient. That denies our personal responsibility.
Community.
It's pretty safe to argue along the lines of the honourable Lady herself, Margaret Thatcher, that there is no such thing as the community or indeed society. Leastwise not one that acts out of common interest and certainly not in an effective manner. We face pretty similar concerns at a basic level yet choose to ignore them and hope the bad stuff 'goes away', or better still never happened in the first place. This is 'not in my backyard', 'not in my name', 'I'm alright, Jack' thinking - a fairy story and we must take the blinkers off.
If we are ever to build a community or greater society then we must stop avoiding the issues and get a grip of events.
**************************************************************************************
These days elections - a chance to openly fight for ideas and elect people's representatives are seen as a chore - something that gets in the way of more important things like getting on with life. People have decided that best practice is not to get too involved.
Erstwhile politicians of all calibre should be wary of the level of commitment attached to their vote as voter connections are superficially based in the main. Each party may have its core of support and the attentions of a handful of people actively lobbying for a select interest but the general public aren't moved. People are motivated by values and may associate their vote for what a party may represent. This is probably less well defined than in the past. People, perhaps surprisingly, may attach one single issue to a vote or even give a local chancer a go. One amusing encounter with an exasperated voter revealed she voted for all three main parties in this local election. Such is the punter's attachment to the vote.
Yet there are underlying beliefs that people have - rightly or wrongly, that need challenging.
Reason being that everything has become an issue. The depoliticised nature of politics ie. no grand or competing visions to take society forwards, comes with its mini me alterego - the micro politics of everyday life. So much to the point that to pay attention to it all makes you wonder which of your actions is the right thing to do. Indeed, quite maddening.
Little wonder then that people vent their anger, subdued though it is, by flicking the 'v' at best or more generally ignoring it all.
I stood as an Independent candidate in the 2004 local elections, although not because of any faith in the Office of Councillor, but mainly to see what people thought, amongst other reasons (guts of election leaflet posted at bottom).
I was a little surprised as to the strength and calibre of the vote for the BNP. Not much like that as portrayed in the recent New Statesman article - too much guesswork, emphasis on statistics and a lazy pastiche for want of a 'typical' interview. This would seem to be the real problem - so called radicals making out that only white trash vote far right.(http://www.newstatesman.com/200501240011).
Many said that despite knowing 'what they are' the BNP were the only organisation offering something concrete, for instance instead of making do and mend with a local school the BNP suggested a newly built one. Even saying that immigrants should be allowed to work (albeit largely doing menial and degrading tasks).
The punters weren't fooled by the pantomime 'nazism' and the reference to some mythical golden era when things were supposedly whiter than white. Some referred to the rank opportunism and thinly veiled anti-foreigner sentiment (genteel Horbury didn't quite merit the vulgar approach that the BNP take elsewhere); many even expressed concern for the plight of the refugee. Though it would be foolish to discount the underlying currents no matter how well they are understood. Many people - not just your 'typical' council house dweller - were fed up with being marginalised whilst official policy apparently favours the immigrant (regardless of category). Not to say by any means that our foreign counterparts had plenty but in the ease with which they got what they had - housing, furniture, healthcare, etc. Yet it would be foolish to equate this with any hard held nationalist sympathies (the tacky St. Georges flags in evidence may have pleased the ardent nationalist but were soon considerably less than half mast upon Engerr-land's demise at the concurrent Euro 2004 - echoes of 30's Germany it wasn't.) People were aggrieved at the condescension, aloofness and false promises of mainstream politicians and so picked on the easiest target, although many also figured that a significant vote for the BNP would also make politicos listen to them.
Interestingly enough no candidates went out door-to-door canvassing.
(The BNP also do a fine line in character assasination.)
************************************************************************************
2004 local election leaflet.
My aim in standing in these elections is to counter some of the myths and misinformation that poses as politics. As such, I do not concern myself with the 'bean count' that is the scrabble for apparently scarce resources. I am more concerned with raising the level of discussion above this and its meagre outlook. One thing is clear - the distinct lack of vision and principle at the heart of politics today. This displayed quite readily from the top down with debate at the petty level of the playground. Little wonder then that many of us choose to ignore the bigger picture, shrug our shoulders and acquiesce. Such apathy, though understandable, does not bode well for the immediate and long term future. Instead of a progressive, dynamic culture we have one of limits - an increasingly regulated and constrained society seeking accomodation to an imagined 'golden age' and largely afraid of its own shadow.
What kind of world do we want to live in?
Environmentalists and other commentators make much of the 'fact' that we are overcrowded. This is only true to the extent that new build largely equates to urban regeneration and increased population density. This make do and mend approach needs binning. Misplaced concern for the environment above our need has lead to a chronic shortage of available and decent land for housing and the subsequent, and likely, unsustainable increase in house prices. New and readily available technologies could do much to alleviate this crisis. Instead we are faced with a more compact and constrained society - evermore regulated, watched, held back and looking to the illusory comforts of the past rather than confidently going forwards. Yet close to 90% of this green and pleasant land (most of it man made) is undeveloped, ie. non-urban. There is no shortage of space - just a lack of political will.
Similar anti-human sentiment holds back much that is progressive, be it GMO food technology, medical experimentation or dams in developing countries. we live longer and healthier than ever before precisely because of our control over nature. That some people would not only hold up progress but question the achievements made thus far betrays a lack of confidence in ourselves. Nature is both creative and destructive, but it is no coherent or stable force. We should have no worries nurturing that that is beneficial to us and progessing.
Work.
The workplace is of major concern to me. Often it is just something we put up with before going home or out to spend our hard earned cash. Job satisfaction goes out of the window as you wait for the next element of control - be it petty disciplinary, misplaced criticism or myopic helth and safety initiative.
The forthcoming bonus review where I work is not likely to be more money, more time to enjoy nor universally applied. This despite a 50% increase in productivity over the past 4 years. So how come more production equals less money? It is often the case that you have to fight to get the job done as organisation is poor. Either that or go through the motions as part of the machinery.
This is not to single out my present empolyer - such a scenario can be pretty much applied to most jobs.
The world of work ought to be an enjoyable, productive and well rewarded experience rather than the source of frustration that it frequently is.
The announced job losses at Bombardier, Sirdar and The Post Office need some serious consideration. If it is the case that the labour market is set to expand and suitable well paid employment is to be had then fair enough. Otherwise not.
Blame for the current state of affairs can largely be attributed to the old Labour party and co. for never holding out for the interests and aspirations of its constituents. The current out of control version does much to hamper with an endless array of target driven initiatives, flip charts and an accompanying army of bureaucrats.
The unions spend far too much time discussing management concerns and keeping their members in the dark, offering little more than excuses or financial or legal services. In their current form they are worse than useless.
We need to build better ones that serve our interests.
Immigrants.
Be they economic migrants, asylum seekers or refugees - these people should be made welcome here. Too often immigrants are made scapegoats for a society ill at ease with itself and not the cause of its problems. From Doctors to construction workers, and many more besides, more immigrants are a requirement and much is to be gained either way from this.
Not much of an outcry is made when UK citizens go to live the ex-pat life in Spain or as health tourists to France or Hungary. To castigate others for wanting to lead a healthier life is hypocritical to say the least. It does none of us any favours to accept that people should live in poor conditions - wherever that may be.
Iraq.
For a good year leading up to the war, and since the occupation, many a poor reason has been given as to why war in the first place. There has been a long history of western involvement overseas - Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Somalia and Sierra Leone to name but a few of the most recent. And none of these countries any better for it. Criticism of our Governments involvement is either superficial, one-sided or avoids the issue.
Much of what is happening in Iraq shows just how directionless our leadership is - a poorly considered venture, on suspect grounds and no positive end in sight. That we allow this to continue is shameful.
Faith in Humanity.
According to some we are own worst enemies - selfish, destructive and heading for disaster unless guided by some higher order, be that a god or government. Society, such as it is, does have its fair share of problems although arguably not those often presented. There are some that see teenagers as hooligans, foreigners as grabbing scroungers and a paedophile or mugger lurking around every corner. What are we scared of here? We could be forgiven for thinking that we are on the verge of complete moral collapse, yet vthis is far from the case. Theses are largely overblown fears. An informed discussion would serve us better and not the kneejerk response that is.
Ultimately, the problems we face can all be overcome - by our involvement in the workings of society. Consequently we should have no faith in religion, nor those that would have us be subservient. That denies our personal responsibility.
Community.
It's pretty safe to argue along the lines of the honourable Lady herself, Margaret Thatcher, that there is no such thing as the community or indeed society. Leastwise not one that acts out of common interest and certainly not in an effective manner. We face pretty similar concerns at a basic level yet choose to ignore them and hope the bad stuff 'goes away', or better still never happened in the first place. This is 'not in my backyard', 'not in my name', 'I'm alright, Jack' thinking - a fairy story and we must take the blinkers off.
If we are ever to build a community or greater society then we must stop avoiding the issues and get a grip of events.
**************************************************************************************
Friday, January 14, 2005
www.Spiked-online.com: chemical reactions debate posting
Paula Baillie-Hamilton barks up the wrong tree. I must ask where the time is found to root around for problems within problems when they need solving and people can be made better.
A most simple measure of our success is that we are able to measure illness to a finer degree (as with our ability to measure chemical levels in ever smaller quantities) and employ Doctors to cure them. Broadly speaking the world's populations are living longer and more prosperous lives (even in what was once known as The Third World) and this because of our ability to develop it to suit us.
Dr. Baillie-Hamilton - j'accuse - of time-wasting and to some extent panicking. In this case I would recommend you calm your nerves in which ever way suits you best and have a reappraisal. You are merely succumbing to the prevailing climate of doom but that is not your fault and I'm not a Doctor.
As John Travolta once said 'I've got chiiiills, they're multiplying . . etc.' but he was at least looking on the bright side. Consider that we do get chills; what was once known as ' a cold' can now be broken down into different categories, analysed and cured. We should actually take good care of ourselves as well but everything we do 'hurts' if we let it - football, dancing, work, reading a book, but all things in moderation, eh?
Dr Baille- Hamilton lists quite a caseload of illnesses that need attending to -'(t)hese disorders include diabetes, allergies, asthma, eczema, cancer, attention deficit disorder, autism, learning difficulties, infertility, depression, chronic fatigue, chemical sensitivities, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, thyroid disease, inflammatory bowel disease amoungst many others.'
"..(R)esearch involving human pluripotent stem cells...promises new treatments and possible cures for many debilitating diseases and injuries, including Parkinson's disease, diabetes, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, burns and spinal cord injuries. The NIH believes the potential medical benefits of human pluripotent stem cell technology are compelling and worthy of pursuit in accordance with appropriate ethical standards." National Institutes of Health news release.(posted at http://www.religioustolerance.org/).
Some illnesses are alledged to be stress related or have a panic element - eczema, asthma, depression etc. Olive oil is reputedly good in breast-cancer treatment. http://www.autism-resources.com/ gives online information regards autism and also reminds me of what a Nursing Instructor once told me - mental illness is extended normal behavior - just some have it extended more than others.
As a one-time trainee Psychiatric Nurse I came to the conclusion that quite a lot of the inmates/patients/clients didn't really suffer from much other than 'civilised' society not making sense. Of course there are clinical cases but here there are human points of reference. For instance I recall a young woman who suffered from schizophrenia who was way off the beaten track many a time but even so one could have a conversation with her and get somewhere.
Our aversion to chemicals is a real problem; Acid deams (Lee and Shlain) point out the early use of psychedelic drugs and the promise they showed in clinical trials and as treatment for many an ailment/illness. This until they were deemed unsuitable by a crowd with a vested interest and some dodgy habits of their own.
The criminal aspect of 'hard' drugs (in recreational use) is very hypocritical given the uses to which the same Authorities that ban them have put them to - Oliver North and the arms to Iran 'scandal', the CIA, for instance.
Because 'drugs' are illegal they come at a high price, have a 'warped' appeal and and are subject to shady dealings. And for what? There are many people that take all manner of drugs to get them through their day, and these whether your common or garden lemsip or something more 'exotic'.
Many is the time I've worked with people that used so-called 'dodgy' drugs as an aid to their work. Hey, and I have been known to have inhaled in the past; that neither stopped myself or others from doing a good job. Although just as I wouldn't wish to work with someone who was 'off their head', neither would I wish to work with someone who was depressed to the point of not being up to doing the job.
A most simple measure of our success is that we are able to measure illness to a finer degree (as with our ability to measure chemical levels in ever smaller quantities) and employ Doctors to cure them. Broadly speaking the world's populations are living longer and more prosperous lives (even in what was once known as The Third World) and this because of our ability to develop it to suit us.
Dr. Baillie-Hamilton - j'accuse - of time-wasting and to some extent panicking. In this case I would recommend you calm your nerves in which ever way suits you best and have a reappraisal. You are merely succumbing to the prevailing climate of doom but that is not your fault and I'm not a Doctor.
As John Travolta once said 'I've got chiiiills, they're multiplying . . etc.' but he was at least looking on the bright side. Consider that we do get chills; what was once known as ' a cold' can now be broken down into different categories, analysed and cured. We should actually take good care of ourselves as well but everything we do 'hurts' if we let it - football, dancing, work, reading a book, but all things in moderation, eh?
Dr Baille- Hamilton lists quite a caseload of illnesses that need attending to -'(t)hese disorders include diabetes, allergies, asthma, eczema, cancer, attention deficit disorder, autism, learning difficulties, infertility, depression, chronic fatigue, chemical sensitivities, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, thyroid disease, inflammatory bowel disease amoungst many others.'
"..(R)esearch involving human pluripotent stem cells...promises new treatments and possible cures for many debilitating diseases and injuries, including Parkinson's disease, diabetes, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, burns and spinal cord injuries. The NIH believes the potential medical benefits of human pluripotent stem cell technology are compelling and worthy of pursuit in accordance with appropriate ethical standards." National Institutes of Health news release.(posted at http://www.religioustolerance.org/).
Some illnesses are alledged to be stress related or have a panic element - eczema, asthma, depression etc. Olive oil is reputedly good in breast-cancer treatment. http://www.autism-resources.com/ gives online information regards autism and also reminds me of what a Nursing Instructor once told me - mental illness is extended normal behavior - just some have it extended more than others.
As a one-time trainee Psychiatric Nurse I came to the conclusion that quite a lot of the inmates/patients/clients didn't really suffer from much other than 'civilised' society not making sense. Of course there are clinical cases but here there are human points of reference. For instance I recall a young woman who suffered from schizophrenia who was way off the beaten track many a time but even so one could have a conversation with her and get somewhere.
Our aversion to chemicals is a real problem; Acid deams (Lee and Shlain) point out the early use of psychedelic drugs and the promise they showed in clinical trials and as treatment for many an ailment/illness. This until they were deemed unsuitable by a crowd with a vested interest and some dodgy habits of their own.
The criminal aspect of 'hard' drugs (in recreational use) is very hypocritical given the uses to which the same Authorities that ban them have put them to - Oliver North and the arms to Iran 'scandal', the CIA, for instance.
Because 'drugs' are illegal they come at a high price, have a 'warped' appeal and and are subject to shady dealings. And for what? There are many people that take all manner of drugs to get them through their day, and these whether your common or garden lemsip or something more 'exotic'.
Many is the time I've worked with people that used so-called 'dodgy' drugs as an aid to their work. Hey, and I have been known to have inhaled in the past; that neither stopped myself or others from doing a good job. Although just as I wouldn't wish to work with someone who was 'off their head', neither would I wish to work with someone who was depressed to the point of not being up to doing the job.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Old, new, borrowed and, occasionally, blue. (intro and disclaimers)*
Hmm, where to start?
Much of the work on this blog is work in progress, experimental or thinking out aloud if you like. As such it has the odd flaw and can be fragmentary. It is something of an adventure and perhaps self indulgent but that is down to an individual's perception. It is based on an attempt to understand the world and play a part in putting it right. After all, isn't that what politics ought to be about?
This blog was going to be named allsorts of things - Frontline, Mainline, Streamline (unlikely), Work in progress (1), oh,woe is me!, passtheviolin, thekidsallneedbrandnewmobiles, Man o' letters, Go fuck yourselves, it could all bellyflop . . . but then what's in a name? (2).
'Frontline' was an original theme for reasons that may become apparent. Maybe it reflects something of the boy who never quite grew up - still playing at 'japs and commandoes', perhaps. It was specifically chosen as despite the obvious capacity for destruction, much can be learnt from war. More than diplomacy by other means it reveals plenty. In this case the 'war' being fought is a Battle of Ideas.
If nothing else the aim is to prick, spike or bloodily impale a degree of consciousness (perhaps if only for myself). Nothing is claimed for expertise, excellence or originality; ideas are picked up, modified, ran with, attacked and shelved. If you see anything you feel struck by then feel free to use/abuse as you see fit.
This blog takes over from the long-time defunkt ww.frontline-online.org website. Originally set up to make something of a stand for the ordinary, long-suffering Joe public and named 'Frontline' as it is us that bears the brunt of Government policy and the interests of capital, be it in industry or at time of war, always expected to follow orders without question and to make up the shortfall of a decrepit system.
I've left it a bit late in the evening to start proper so this guff will have to do.
On a more serious note I highly recommend a visit to www.spiked-online.com, www.WORLDwrite.org.uk and www.audacity.org, in an uncertain world these people have some serious comments to make.
Regards, Mark.
Disclaimers
(1) On a return to Kenan Malik's website I found his 'Work in progress' blog which likely played some subliminal role in these ramblings. Other elements of 'my' work seem to indicate a direct borrowing of ideas which was not intentional in this case even though there are no qualms in doing so.
I even shelved his book 'Man, Beast and Zombie' part read as too many phrases occured that I'd been using. Although I'm sure he doesn't lay claim to originating phrases or words the regular coincidences became startling.
As much as it would be nice to claim great minds thinking alike Kenan Malik is in an entirely different league to myself. And this is a poor excuse for not finishing his book, although l think some of it did rub off. Amongst many other things it was Malik's Channel 4 documentary (3) re boundaries that inspired me to stand in the elections. l never got around to addressing Phil Mullan's work regarding pensions and the gearing to productivity (amongst too many other things) but that was also a prime mover (4). Though neither are responsible for my mistakes or whether any of it was the right thing to do.
See http://www.kenanmalik.com/work_in_progress/index.html
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0753812959/qid=1126777180/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-2821967-4595869
(2) Turns out that the good old family name of 'Harrop' has its origins in the Danish 'Arup'* as in Ove Arup, the Engineer. As much as I'd like to lay claim to something of the spirit of this fascinating man any traits are entirely superficial. Although some comfort comes from the fact that he was apt to wander off mid sentence . . . . .
http://www.arup.com/DOWNLOADBANK/download5.pdf
(*Somehow, in Yorkshire, an 'aitch' 'as been added).
Genetics, huh? Not really - I'm as much influenced by the tale of distant relatives on my mother's side who walked from Scotland to Yorkshire to find work and a home.
Grapes of wrath?
cut and paste
(3)Let 'em all inhttp://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/immigration_times.html
(4)http://www.spiked-online.com/Search/Search-HTML.asp?q1=pensions&c1=%40all&c2=%40epx_section_contentspage&SortBy=nitf_daterelease%5Bd%5D&q2=
*and occasionally puerile. However, if it was good enough for Charles Levi then it'll do for me . . . sometimes. Humanising idols - See/read Karl Marx by Francis Wheen
Much of the work on this blog is work in progress, experimental or thinking out aloud if you like. As such it has the odd flaw and can be fragmentary. It is something of an adventure and perhaps self indulgent but that is down to an individual's perception. It is based on an attempt to understand the world and play a part in putting it right. After all, isn't that what politics ought to be about?
This blog was going to be named allsorts of things - Frontline, Mainline, Streamline (unlikely), Work in progress (1), oh,woe is me!, passtheviolin, thekidsallneedbrandnewmobiles, Man o' letters, Go fuck yourselves, it could all bellyflop . . . but then what's in a name? (2).
'Frontline' was an original theme for reasons that may become apparent. Maybe it reflects something of the boy who never quite grew up - still playing at 'japs and commandoes', perhaps. It was specifically chosen as despite the obvious capacity for destruction, much can be learnt from war. More than diplomacy by other means it reveals plenty. In this case the 'war' being fought is a Battle of Ideas.
If nothing else the aim is to prick, spike or bloodily impale a degree of consciousness (perhaps if only for myself). Nothing is claimed for expertise, excellence or originality; ideas are picked up, modified, ran with, attacked and shelved. If you see anything you feel struck by then feel free to use/abuse as you see fit.
This blog takes over from the long-time defunkt ww.frontline-online.org website. Originally set up to make something of a stand for the ordinary, long-suffering Joe public and named 'Frontline' as it is us that bears the brunt of Government policy and the interests of capital, be it in industry or at time of war, always expected to follow orders without question and to make up the shortfall of a decrepit system.
I've left it a bit late in the evening to start proper so this guff will have to do.
On a more serious note I highly recommend a visit to www.spiked-online.com, www.WORLDwrite.org.uk and www.audacity.org, in an uncertain world these people have some serious comments to make.
Regards, Mark.
Disclaimers
(1) On a return to Kenan Malik's website I found his 'Work in progress' blog which likely played some subliminal role in these ramblings. Other elements of 'my' work seem to indicate a direct borrowing of ideas which was not intentional in this case even though there are no qualms in doing so.
I even shelved his book 'Man, Beast and Zombie' part read as too many phrases occured that I'd been using. Although I'm sure he doesn't lay claim to originating phrases or words the regular coincidences became startling.
As much as it would be nice to claim great minds thinking alike Kenan Malik is in an entirely different league to myself. And this is a poor excuse for not finishing his book, although l think some of it did rub off. Amongst many other things it was Malik's Channel 4 documentary (3) re boundaries that inspired me to stand in the elections. l never got around to addressing Phil Mullan's work regarding pensions and the gearing to productivity (amongst too many other things) but that was also a prime mover (4). Though neither are responsible for my mistakes or whether any of it was the right thing to do.
See http://www.kenanmalik.com/work_in_progress/index.html
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0753812959/qid=1126777180/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-2821967-4595869
(2) Turns out that the good old family name of 'Harrop' has its origins in the Danish 'Arup'* as in Ove Arup, the Engineer. As much as I'd like to lay claim to something of the spirit of this fascinating man any traits are entirely superficial. Although some comfort comes from the fact that he was apt to wander off mid sentence . . . . .
http://www.arup.com/DOWNLOADBANK/download5.pdf
(*Somehow, in Yorkshire, an 'aitch' 'as been added).
Genetics, huh? Not really - I'm as much influenced by the tale of distant relatives on my mother's side who walked from Scotland to Yorkshire to find work and a home.
Grapes of wrath?
cut and paste
(3)Let 'em all inhttp://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/immigration_times.html
(4)http://www.spiked-online.com/Search/Search-HTML.asp?q1=pensions&c1=%40all&c2=%40epx_section_contentspage&SortBy=nitf_daterelease%5Bd%5D&q2=
*and occasionally puerile. However, if it was good enough for Charles Levi then it'll do for me . . . sometimes. Humanising idols - See/read Karl Marx by Francis Wheen
Jerry Springer, The opera and religion.
Quick one this (wage-labour calls).
BBC2 (UK) screened this recently and I must say I laughed all the way thru (the child in me found some of the swearing and concepts most amusing.). However, the portrayal of religious figures - God, Jesus and El Diablo tends to rub some people up the wrong way. Hmm, just as I choose not to go to church, then surely they don't have to watch it? But then there is the matter of taking the lord's name in vain?
And so be it. Religion is nothing more than a crutch. It gives people hope that despite the hardships of Life on Earth and all the things we don't yet understand then things will all be ok up in the heavens/valhalla or whatever your particular brand happens to call the 'afterlife'.
Heaven conjures up fantasy images of a peaceful environment where everyone is happy and gets on . . . . . oops! gotta go earn my boss some money (He loves me)
. . . . . suffice to say that religion is a lottery ticket that I ain't buying. Surely we would be better spending our time attempting to make sense of the world we actually inhabit and dispense with outmoded fairytales?
BBC2 (UK) screened this recently and I must say I laughed all the way thru (the child in me found some of the swearing and concepts most amusing.). However, the portrayal of religious figures - God, Jesus and El Diablo tends to rub some people up the wrong way. Hmm, just as I choose not to go to church, then surely they don't have to watch it? But then there is the matter of taking the lord's name in vain?
And so be it. Religion is nothing more than a crutch. It gives people hope that despite the hardships of Life on Earth and all the things we don't yet understand then things will all be ok up in the heavens/valhalla or whatever your particular brand happens to call the 'afterlife'.
Heaven conjures up fantasy images of a peaceful environment where everyone is happy and gets on . . . . . oops! gotta go earn my boss some money (He loves me)
. . . . . suffice to say that religion is a lottery ticket that I ain't buying. Surely we would be better spending our time attempting to make sense of the world we actually inhabit and dispense with outmoded fairytales?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
