Modern day dilemma. Which one gets to live?
Scarcity of resources, encroachment upon each others habitats, lack of meaningful blue-collar work. It might seem an appropriate moment to ask which of the characters below adds "value" to the world and which, one might dare to suggest, deserve the metaphorical lethal injection.
Responses to Telegraph Articles.
Queen's Speech: 'Surveillance of the entire nation'
If such measures are justified because we are apparently in a state of
war then it might be useful to understand why such a state exists.
Explanations might include criminally incompetent and cynical immigration policies that coincided with a dismantling of manufacturing and industry which left the new arrivals resented and underemployed other than in the public sector. Blair's toxic foreign policy. The logical culmination of welfarism and dependency that has blighted every developed country and created a generation of goat-people that need to be legislated and surveyed as well as fed and watered. The worshiping and enslavement to gadgets and technology, all of which we are seduced into believing will improve our lives. As Miranda ironically laments "How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, that has such people in it". Sadly we are the authors of this brave new world and must live with its consequences.
Explanations might include criminally incompetent and cynical immigration policies that coincided with a dismantling of manufacturing and industry which left the new arrivals resented and underemployed other than in the public sector. Blair's toxic foreign policy. The logical culmination of welfarism and dependency that has blighted every developed country and created a generation of goat-people that need to be legislated and surveyed as well as fed and watered. The worshiping and enslavement to gadgets and technology, all of which we are seduced into believing will improve our lives. As Miranda ironically laments "How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, that has such people in it". Sadly we are the authors of this brave new world and must live with its consequences.
Notions of 'Right' and 'Left' seem naive, even superfluous in the present climate. The reality is that we live in a corporcracy, a ghastly dystopia prophesied by Galbraith, where the reality of our lives is dictated by the needs of such entities. For it is true that the only bodies that can afford the larcenous rents are corporations. The only bodies that can circumvent government regulatory malice are corporations. The only bodies that have the advertising budgets to remain visible in our sensationalist, miasmic culture are corporations. They are the only bodies that can reduce to some extent the debilitating risk of unemployment as they manipulate the working environment. The requirements of corporations is driving the educational standards of our young people, as narrow skills are preferred to broader humanist qualities. Our moral parameters are those of the culture that the corporations feed and drive. The products that they sell are becoming the ontological framework in which we live. Obama, Romney, Blair, Brown, Cameron, none of them seem to offer any meaningful alternative to the reality that we live beneath a leviathan that is indifferent to the individual needs of its people.
Sadly true, though with the caveat that modern life is conducted in the face of a constant and merciless barrage of advertising that promotes the new orthodoxy that possession IS being. There has been a total rejection of former absolutes, of the belief that a simple life is not only agreeable but even realistic. The new mantra is possession, celebrity, self-indulgence and urgency. All of the above are only momentarily achieved by ever greater fixes of purchasing something. As educational and cultural standards deteriorate, the possession dealers -governments, corporations, interested media, in fact everyone who makes money by volume- sell their often worthless products to an increasingly addicted and witless community. In fact, it would be interesting to find out what percentage of corporate profits are generated by people with IQ's below, say, seventy. I read earlier that the vile brazen slut from Jersey Shore is to be awarded her own show? She will probably make gazillions. This money is not created ex nihilo but is paid for by a bovine audience who continue to keep spending regardless of how it is found. Hahahahaha, we actually need leaders of governments and corporations to intervene and stop such profligacy, which is about as likely to happen as asking a dog to stop licking its testicles.
Though I would describe myself as an atheist, I remain grateful for my Christian upbringing. One that includes services in church, Bible reading on Sundays and immersion in the Christian story at school. Of course maths, science and languages are important, but what you appreciate later in life is the importance of learning that has no practical or utilitarian purpose other than to enrich ones life. Religion falls within that category and its general themes might actually be beneficial in today's world that seems to devoid of empathy and consideration of others.
To which Veronica replied;
"Religion falls within that category and its general themes might actually be beneficial in today's world that seems to devoid of empathy and consideration of others."Really?? Up until now, of course, religion has been shown itself in all its multifarious forms to be oh! so very socially beneficial in any day's world hasn't it?I mean we can see if we look back through history that yesterday's lack of empathy and consideration that is actually no different from today's lack of empathy and consideration (if that is how you actually want to view history).
I am ever grateful I was subject to no religious upbringing at all. I can look much more clearly, I think, at the various historical variations on religious themes that abound and have abounded for millennia. I have no rose coloured glasses, you see.
The importance of an education that enhances one's appreciation of life apart from the merely 'practical and utilitarian purposes (one of which allows this incessant tapping on keyboards) encompasses a damned sight more than religious dogma.
I would rather take my appreciation from Shakespeare who wrote much better than our bearded desert friends and espoused a far more comprehensive understanding of human beings and their funny little peccadilloes.
The point I was trying to make is that, whether you like it not, the Judeo-Christian moral framework is the one we actually live in, so it seems essential that we are familiar with its tenets, if only that we can understand other people's moral demands and expectations. Nietzsche wrote in Twilight of the Idols that the hegemony of transcendental ideas was over as the Materialists and Pragmatists had undermined its validity, though he added that they had neglected to implement an alternative moral structure. That is where we are today. The last time I looked, Consumerism wasn't leading the way in ethical behaviour, whilst Diana-esque compassion is simply nauseating. You and the rapid religious-haters are doing people a disservice. I've lived in some poor developing parts of the world and I would pray that if I was poor and unskilled, that I would have faith. It would be the only solace and glimpse of beauty I would be likely to experience in life. The Catholic Church has a justifiably mixed record, though while the religious-haters concentrate on the oppression and dogma they forget the faith inspired art and architecture. They forget that much of the best of Greek thought from antiquity is found buried in the Scriptures. That Church organization after the Lay Investiture Crisis was the model by which nation states developed in the fifteenth centuries. That Christianity gave the moral basis for democracy, of which it is merely its secularized version. I vainly cling to the idea of agency, but am clearly aware that we are the products of our historical circumstances. The Church is part of these circumstances and there is nothing you can do to change that.
To which Veronica replied;
Your point is lost on me. I live in a post industrial western democratic country that pretends to adhere to some sort of Judeo-Christian religious precepts that encompassed some moral framework that existed long before Judaism or Christianity. This society to which you and I belong does not adhere to that moral framework any more (even if it ever did). Recent past events should have cemented that understanding in you.
I look on this supposed moral framework and see an evolutionary basis for the so-called Golden Rule that actually kept us all together in our smallish tribal groups. Outsiders were slaughtered. Insiders were protected, viciously if need be. Most predators seem to do the same.
I really can't be bothered with your capitalised conjectures but will say in response to this: 'You and the rapid (sic - I presume you mean rabid:-) religious-haters are doing people a disservice'.
What disservice can be done to a people who have been fed hypocrisy, lies and a sugar coated pill as a sop to social and financial dissatisfaction.
If you really and seriously want to discuss the Greeks - why not start with Lucretius? Smart fellow - he was able to see a lot further than the silly Christianity that came on his heels. I wouldn't have been impressed either with the early (or current) Christians.
You will have to do better than that. Did you ever read Hermann Hesse?
The Unapologetic Misanthropes response;
I can see that you are uncomfortable with any form of contradiction, though after reading your profile which says you are a retired teacher (was it PE?), "utterly intolerant of religious privilege" I can understand, though might hasten to add that your intolerance doesn't stop there. I guess you are of an age when you were a young storm-trooper as schools in the UK implemented the most egregious experiments in teaching methods. In that case, I suppose from a sense of solidarity, or guilt, you have to support the whole secularist venture and the dismantling of any responsibility to teach students a rounded syllabus.
In addition, Anglicanism in this country didn't manage to pile up a bodies as efficiently as Catholicism and seems altogether more harmless, if less inspirational, though your probable "rabid" (thank you for pointing out the slip of my finger on the keyboard, I'm sure that gave someone as spiteful as yourself, a great deal of pleasure) hatred of any institution you are lost to any benefits they might provide.
And yes dear, I have read all of Hesse's works, as well as some other really grown up authors. I particularly like Hardy whose character Jude has such a rich and profound existence because of his religiosity. I can't get enough of Dostoyevsky, whose Aloysha in The Brothers Karamazov remains one of the greatest fictional characters ever invented, due mainly to the intensity of his faith. Milton's Paradise Lost remains one of the greatest works of the English language though I suppose you imagine the storyline could have been improved if it was about Medecin sans Frontieres workers distributing anti-malaria drugs to orphaned children in Africa before being expelled by white directors of multi-national companies. And for richness of language, could you point to anything in the arid scientific community that has given people as much pleasure as the King James Bible. I didn't think so.
In more news, a local canary expressed his satisfaction with the assurances of the next door neighbours cat, who expressly renounced predation and and instead endorsed a policy of solidarity and vegetarianism. Hollande and Cameron are two members of an international organized crime syndicate called "The Parliamentarians", and asking them to stop stealing money would be like asking BBC executives to stop filling our screens with sanctimonious "For the People" crap. The real problem is that there are not enough low-skilled jobs for the progeny of the Chav-scum who seem intent on vomiting out more and more babies. We have a permanent population of 10% unemployed, more if you include Mac-jobs. Most of these people are simply unemployable and they add huge transaction costs to society. The only people whose interests this burgeoning under-class serve is corporations who sell them garbage, and politicians who have a permanent constituency of people to look after. THIS is the real problem that we face.I look on this supposed moral framework and see an evolutionary basis for the so-called Golden Rule that actually kept us all together in our smallish tribal groups. Outsiders were slaughtered. Insiders were protected, viciously if need be. Most predators seem to do the same.
I really can't be bothered with your capitalised conjectures but will say in response to this: 'You and the rapid (sic - I presume you mean rabid:-) religious-haters are doing people a disservice'.
What disservice can be done to a people who have been fed hypocrisy, lies and a sugar coated pill as a sop to social and financial dissatisfaction.
If you really and seriously want to discuss the Greeks - why not start with Lucretius? Smart fellow - he was able to see a lot further than the silly Christianity that came on his heels. I wouldn't have been impressed either with the early (or current) Christians.
You will have to do better than that. Did you ever read Hermann Hesse?
The Unapologetic Misanthropes response;
I can see that you are uncomfortable with any form of contradiction, though after reading your profile which says you are a retired teacher (was it PE?), "utterly intolerant of religious privilege" I can understand, though might hasten to add that your intolerance doesn't stop there. I guess you are of an age when you were a young storm-trooper as schools in the UK implemented the most egregious experiments in teaching methods. In that case, I suppose from a sense of solidarity, or guilt, you have to support the whole secularist venture and the dismantling of any responsibility to teach students a rounded syllabus.
In addition, Anglicanism in this country didn't manage to pile up a bodies as efficiently as Catholicism and seems altogether more harmless, if less inspirational, though your probable "rabid" (thank you for pointing out the slip of my finger on the keyboard, I'm sure that gave someone as spiteful as yourself, a great deal of pleasure) hatred of any institution you are lost to any benefits they might provide.
And yes dear, I have read all of Hesse's works, as well as some other really grown up authors. I particularly like Hardy whose character Jude has such a rich and profound existence because of his religiosity. I can't get enough of Dostoyevsky, whose Aloysha in The Brothers Karamazov remains one of the greatest fictional characters ever invented, due mainly to the intensity of his faith. Milton's Paradise Lost remains one of the greatest works of the English language though I suppose you imagine the storyline could have been improved if it was about Medecin sans Frontieres workers distributing anti-malaria drugs to orphaned children in Africa before being expelled by white directors of multi-national companies. And for richness of language, could you point to anything in the arid scientific community that has given people as much pleasure as the King James Bible. I didn't think so.
Cameron speaks with such eloquence and authority. His devastating philippic against the immoral greed and criminally incompetence of Bob Diamond was almost Churchillian in its grandeur. I immediately thought of William Lenthall's "May it please Your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here," or Leo Amery's "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!" Tears filled my eyes as Cameron added another memorable and crushing speech in the House when he forcefully declared "it would be completely wrong" to accept the unearned and indefensible bonus. Under the weight of such a withering denouncement I can't see the banking industry continuing with their nefarious practices. Dave's firm and principled stand on issues such as this is why he will be remembered as one of our greatest leaders.
Hahahaha, only joking. Cameron is a coward and a moral neophyte.
Even if we acknowledge that modern sports is irredeemably contaminated by advertising and corporate greed, there is still something admirable about an individual athlete dedicating his, or her life to being the best in their particular field. I suppose this kind of aspiration still exists in our egalitarian dystopia. This cannot be said for the Fatterati who through their indolence and lack of self-discipline are a blight upon the body politic. Corporations love fatties, selling them dreadful food, clothing and daytime TV programmes. For that reason, I would imagine the rest of the Nature's inhabitants hate them. Many of them are also an offense to any aesthetic sensibilities. But, hey, we live in an era when aspiration is frowned upon, mediocrity is worshiped and every policy and utterance from our "leaders" is carefully calibrated to cause the minimum offense. Re-introduce the notion of shame and stop drawing attention to the hideousness of people who aspire towards nothing beautiful in life.
Lord Prescott's office billed taxpayer for lavish visits to world's best hotels and restaurants
Utter criminal. Arrest and charge him for theft. There is no qualitative difference between Prescott (amongst others) stealing and the looters of last summer. At least the looters could be partially excused because of the hideousness and hopelessness of their lives. Prescott can make no such plea. He is just another hypocritical leftist, one who utters platitudes about "the people" yet wallows in luxuries that those aforementioned people will never experience, especially after the larcenous taxes that government imposes to pay for their own lavish lifestyles. Prescott, you ruined lives with terrible policies and I genuinely hope you discover a conscience. But you won't.
Fearne, dear, I doubt you have worked "really hard" to extricate yourself from the horrors of war torn Congo, the filth and degradation of Calcutta, oh no, just a normal working-class upbringing. You are just an agreeable face, a token example of a demographic that your producers, after consulting with some moronic focus groups, decided they would like to be represented to increase revenue and interest in their horrible shows. In a world where genuine people go out and and struggle whilst performing heroic, yet unglamorous lives, you are simply dreadful at what you do and don't have the decency to admit it, or preferably resign.
Clinton was probably the most unfit person to hold office since Caligula made his horse a senator. He went some way to debasing the institutions of government which are now held in such low esteem as to make any social interaction or governance virtually impossible. His presidency fortuitously coincided with the nascent technology booms for which he could reap undeserved praise and be later indulged as some kind of economic sage.
The truth is, that politicians of the left, such as Clinton and our own Bliar have -if it is possible- been even more calamitous for developed countries than the economic neophytes of the right. History will rightly malign these people with a single phrase; Dependency Culture. It is this disaster, more than anything else, that has left developed countries tottering on the edge of an abyss. A horde of ill, or un- educated people who are a continuous burden upon society -whether as unemployed, permanently sick, or criminals that have to be chased and incarcerated- who have been allowed to blight the societies of the West. However, this under-class are a blessing to a nexus of breath-takingly cynical people; corporations who sell them junk, entertainment bodies that churn out infantile and brutal distractions for them and politicians who use them for anything from populist policies to increasing budgets as these brutes can hardly dress themselves. Clinton and other leftists sit at the apex of this Augean squalor. Shame on you.
Horribly flaccid article that is utterly bereft of any idea as to why the brutal atrocities seen in West Africa are sadly inevitable in our present Geo-political system. Similar dystopian scenes are already being played out in other parts of the world. The problems are myriad and complex and putting on expensive and self-laudatory trials to incarcerate the pantomime "baddie cast" of Taylor, Al-Assad and Mugabe may make great television and appease our consciences, but will do little to genuinely improve the lives and futures of the people who live amongst these troubles.
Without any particular order, the sources of these problems might include; the youth bulge theory articulated by Gunnar Heinsohn, one that correlates a large population of unemployed/under-employed males of the traditional warrior age of 18-30 who have realistically nothing to look forward to in life -we must not forget that we have similar communities in the developed world since the collapse of blue collar industries- and are susceptible to the clarion calls of irrationality. In such a light the medical industry should take a look at its own conscience, as there shouldn't be these huge population increases without a concomitant increase in our ability to govern ourselves and provide meaningful lives, rather than just lives.
Secondly, the constant bombardment by advertising for "things" and the successful correlation between possession and status. This allows people to behave and conduct their lives in a morally ambivalent manner as they pursue a never-to-be-satisfied litany of products that they are "told" to desire.
Thirdly, a breakdown and rejection of all former absolutes. In earlier times, claustrophobic and occasionally repressive institutions provided a framework in which communities could live beneath, even offering moral rules of conduct that transcended positive law. Our present leaders are merely opportunist liars who have one eye on the fantastical rewards they will make "a la Blair" once they have made a name for themselves spouting sanctimonious nonsense whilst in office.
Fourthly, the enormous incentivization for conflict. It simply cannot be denied that many Western businessmen have profited fantastically from sales to people who would be condemned and sentenced by Rhadamanthys quicker than Simon Cowell could send a bleating contestant home. Personally I would include CNN's Christine Annapour and other similar sensationalists in this category; people who seem to wallow in other people's misery as they increase their own notoriety. Lastly, the brutalization of all cultures; movies where guns are seen as a panacea for all problems, song lyrics that are not only banal but often violent. Video games that cannot fail to desensitize players as they decapitate their enemies. Simply, a commoditization of everything and everybody that makes us all guilty.
There should be a genuine move to arrest and indict many of the political elites of the last two decades. The mismanagement has gone far beyond a degree of incompetence that might be expected from people who simply couldn't make it in honest, useful work, it has been, simply criminal. Tony Blair must qualify as possibly the most dishonest public servant -look at his behaviour since leaving office- since Nixon, whilst his Chancellor must have skipped the day they taught mathematics at school. Immigration, an education system that wouldn't pass muster in a colony of lower primates, collaboration with financial gangsters and a narcissistic foreign policy have bankrupted the country, both economically and morally.
Well done everyone.
What bothers me most is the total inability of people to own up to their misdemeanors. Was there a time, when a guilty party threw out his chest and said "I did it, it's my fault alone, now punish me?" Everybody nowadays has a repertoire of "dog-ate-my-homework" excuses which simply undermines any confidence we might have had towards others, especially people in positions of authority (If you are ever actually caught, you can always go on Oprah and make a tearful mea culpa and blame the fact that you were molested as a child)
That Shakespearean adage that "Though I am not naturally honest, I am so sometimes by chance" would be a vast improvement upon our current climate where people struggle to tell the truth at all.
I find the spitefulness of some of the mails below quite remarkable. As though the value of anything is simply a bookkeeping entry or how it fits in with the modernity 'narrative'. The monarchy is simply something other, something that the British should be grateful to still live beneath as the histories of most of the alternatives are less than stellar. It hardly seems worth illustrating the undeniable truth that we have been poorly served by the political classes for the last fifty years. From the catastrophic social experiments of the sixties, through the disastrous ideological flirtation with communism of the seventies. The pendulum swung the opposite direction as manufacturing was dismantled in the eighties as we adopted the new mantra of cheaper, cheaper, cheaper. Self-absorption, greed, and excess of the nineties were a nasty prelude to the PC sanctimoniousness of this decade. Politicians have been the witless cheerleaders of most of what has gone wrong.
In comparison, the monarch has been the embodiment of the most admirable, timeless qualities and characteristics of the British (at least until the multiculturalist fascists told us there were others we should embrace)
Compared with the wastefulness of successive governments, their incontinence and ruination of our culture, economy, education system and global good name the monarchy's upkeep seems in such a light as a bargain.
An utterly tragic and futile charade begun at the behest of the criminally stupid Tony Blair. Absolutely nothing was achieved by such an invasion apart from the unnecessary loss of military life and the further impoverishment of the British taxpayer. There never was a threat to British interests or life other than that created by a noxious foreign policy. This was a new category of war; a war of interconnectedness. It could have been avoided by disengagement and quarantining of Afghanistan and any other country for that matter that wishes us harm. Trade could be conducted with hostile nations by simply leaving whatever it was they had at the doorstep without any need of their nationals living amongst us. Afghanistan, as well as many other countries around the world, is simply following its own historical trajectory. Some day, Afghan people and British people may be able to live harmoniously together, but that day is not yet. In the meantime, we have absolutely no obligation to install our institutions into their culture, one which does not have the historical context to support our expectations from life. Bring the troops home immediately with our sincerest apologies, confiscate the profits of the arms companies and arrest Tony Blair.
Jesus Christ, can anyone tell me why it is necessary to resurrect what must be one of the most shameful episodes in recent British history. A moment when we discovered that our Prime Minister was a moral neophyte who would utter any inanity, bleat any platitude to ingratiate himself with the tabloids. The Spice Sluts were possibly the worst "band" -I use the word with the greatest elasticity- to soil the notion of British culture. These witless dogs were largely responsible for the growth of the laddette culture of chippy, drunken, low-class girls believing their abominable behaviour was somehow an expression of a liberated person. The loathsome publicist who dreamt up this stunt should be whipped and beaten. .......... deep breath, gulp of alcohol.
Maybe one of the reasons that living in the countryside is so enjoyable is that rural people have been "neglected" by central government. It's like saying that the chickens in the roost are plump and healthy because they have been ignored by the foxes. Message to Caroline Spelman; government intervention in people's lives DOES NOT WORK. Civil society is more likely in communities of shared, organic ideals rather than artificial values (multi-culturalism for example) being imposed from outside. Your unprincipled, narcissistic and profligate ideas have no place in the countryside.
The British electorate must stop this nonsense now. If it means voting UKIP, or even BNP then so be it. Life is not just about economics and growth charts, it is about immersion within a culture that is both recognizable and admirable. It is about being comfortable with your neighbours. It is about being part of a history and heritage that has a resonance in your life -Shakespeare or The Koran? I think that the institutions that we have in this country -church, parliament, armed forces and monarchy- before their erosion and derision, gave us a great start and valuable framework from which to grow as individuals. What do contemporary politicians offer us? A burgeoning State that because it includes so many "vulnerable types" is intrusive and expensive. Social tension that necessitates more regulation and costs. A State sponsored requirement that we should be embarrassed about our past. It is all so wrong. Something must be done quickly before this is irreversible.
It really boils down to what obligation we (feel we) should have towards other members of society. When a country is homogeneous and there is a sense of shared values, heritage, culture et cetera, then most people will concede that governments might appropriate a reasonable percentage of their wealth and use it to alleviate the imbalances in society. This is no longer the case. We have a sizable amount of people in our mist who have allowed themselves to acquire insufficient skills for the workplace (bad Education policies too) we have a culture where hard work and studiousness are held in derision as many people want to get rich easily and quickly. We have a growing community of foreigners who despite us being told "they are good for diversity and the economy" actually seem to be drag on resources as we now live in a police state due to the breakdown of social cohesion, and have a hugely bloated public sector that is usually stuffed with members of the ethic community. The disgustingly obese woman falls into the category of celebrity worshiping as any notoriety is considered good, as well as the alienation that people feel today as they have been unable to find a role, or place for themselves. This is individualism/subjectivism gone stark raving mad and in such circumstances I feel I owe nothing to any other member of society that doesn't belong to my "tribe"
Just another example of the British taxpayer being exploited by people intoxicated with their own pomposity. Think of the legions of non-workers who have been recruited by local government to push papers around a desk to justify their questionable positions as they make the lives of regular people a misery by imposing new hoops for them to jump through. Think of the Quangoists, consultants and MEP's who live parasitically upon the body politic by way of no discernible merit other than government implementing the spurious idea of employment for employments sake. All this in the hope that it can be paid for somehow –usually by allowing the City and corporations a free hand to generate monies through any manner of unethical practices.
This was wonderfully illustrated by the French civil servant Aurélie Boullet, who exposed the system with remarkable candour.
"Her first task took her an hour, but she was told it was a week's work.”
It was a sheer waste of time. There are plenty of people and not enough work.
So there are a lot of people who have nothing to do," she says. "
It has been several decades since the BBC was a genuinely productive and valuable institution. In recent years it has become swamped with puerile reality shows and half-baked reporting on current events. Think of its treatment of the Islamofascists who despite their palpable hatred of the UK are ennobled as dissidents rather than murdering thugs. Or my personal favourite, a documentary most elastic use of the word- in India where the lachrymose reporter interviewed Sunil or whatever his name was, about the misery of his life as a street cleaner and how difficult it was to support his wife and seven children who all lived in one room. THEY DID NOT THINK OF POSING THE QUESTION AS TO WHY HE HAD SEVEN CHILDREN IN HIS WRETCHED CIRCUMSTANCES. Everything is about eliciting the maximum degree of emotion as though this is a substitute for insightful reporting.
Apparently the BBC had 4,500 separate job titles, nearly
2,000 people classified as managers and almost 200 advisers. It has become nothing more than a cabal, a comfy position to pilfer the public coffers whilst simultaneously being complicit in the debasement of culture in our country. I think these poor luvvies were not suffering from stress; they had instead discovered a conscience and hate themselves.
Even in an era when politicians are as popular as child-molesters and as trustworthy as used-car salesmen, NuLabour were spectacularly bad. Blair was the most dishonest public person since Iago and Brown was treasonably incompetent. I would rather live five years under the rule of the neophyte Kim Jung Un than a return of the Celebrity-worshiping, welfare creating, financially illiterate, corporate-stooges of NuLabour. Amen.
Just what statement is the government intending to make at the Olympics? That we remain well and truly in the pockets of corporations who are making a killing from the event and are able to cajole government ministers into continuing to throw more money at the corp-fest with the tantalizing prospect -al a Blair- of well paid directorships in the companies once the ministers leave office.
Bill Clinton has "earned" in excess of $100 million since leaving office. Blair cannot be far behind. Strauss-Kahn was staying in a $3,000 a night hotel room before he had his wardrobe malfunction. All of them, laughably, were representatives of the Left, of the under-privileged. All of them then did fantastically well from representing the poor. How do you think corporations achieve fantastical profits from which to pay the above and people like them? In the speculative, lottery-style economics that have led to the mess we are in. Misery is exported around the world as we remain addicted to cheap products and don't care as to how they are sourced, mined or assembled. Anne, dear, wake up and fire-off a few rounds at the real misery-peddlars in the global structure rather than the buffoons you allude to.
Breathtakingly poor article. Lazy plea for empathy as he bleats mindlessly about the maudlin trinity of nurses, the homeless and the sick as though the mere mention of any of those words should be uttered in reverential tones. Some nurses are actually very mediocre and disinterested. It can happen. Same with the homeless, many sadly suffer from mental illness, though there are a percentage who are degenerate drug addicts who lost in the "I-want-everything-now-and-won't-bare-the-consequences" game of life. And lastly the hallowed "sick." In a country where there are two million people on incapacity benefits, as well as morbidly obese, excessive drinkers and other self-destructive types, the notion of sickness is in danger of becoming hackneyed. Alternatively, what about having genuine empathy and warmth towards people who have "earned" it by their good character? Radical, but might help us return to an era when we were judged by our deeds rather than how our wretchedness is useful to anyone who wants to promote themselves with faux- compassion.
Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad ....enough to invest in the shares of a US tech company. If the last four yeas have taught us anything it is that the Americans are economic bunglers. Utility maximization is a vile term but has been the foundation upon which their ostensibly fantastic growth has been achieved. Americans were first to understand the power of deceptive marketing. Think anything from their stranglehold on popular culture to their "victory" in the Cold War. They know how to industrialize anything. Look at crime in the US, it is an entire industry of its own with myriad law enforcement agencies, trial lawyers and millions of people reliant upon their fellow citizens breaking the law. Reality shows create billions by selling a continuous dream to the same idiots who bought the Facebook shares. A housing bust that should have introduced some humility into the minds of the US business community. It never did and they will continue to create speculative bubbles selling nothing other than the "extra" value that interested parties have added to the product.
Typical display of bureaucratic arrogance. The notion that they might exist for the convenience and at the pleasure of their voters would be beyond them. Same really for the entire political class who believe that money is generated ex nihilo and can therefore be wasted on indulging their over-inflated egos. Ironic really, when you think of the spectacularly bad political leadership we have received (voted for??) over the past four decades; think welfare dependency, immigration, financial incontinence, toxic foreign policy, education ad infinitum.......... You would think that that level of ineptitude would promote a sense of humility rather than a degree of extravagance that would have made an attendee at the court of Louis XIV blush.
Yes, yes Ed, and the thirteen year Blair/Brown tyranny was a paragon of good governance. The British public must have attention spans similar to that of King Charles Spaniels if they ever take New Labour seriously ever again. It is the political classes that are responsible for all the ills that now confront us. Bribing the gluttonous electorate with shorter working weeks, unaffordable pensions, welfare dependency, unrestrained immigration, multiculturalism at the end of, if not a barrel, then by social opprobrium. Debasement of education. Unregulated markets that created monstrous edifices of greed as vapid consumerism was promoted as a civic duty and the only thing that might mitigate the horribleness of peoples lives after morally satisfying manufacturing and artisan industries were eviscerated. I don't know how the political classes can live with themselves. They have genuinely ruined peoples ability to enjoy a simple uncomplicated, relatively modest life. The sight of that malicious, ostentatious dwarf, Sarkozy strutting around made my blood boil. He is mediocre and unprincipled, so narcissistic and a completely gluttonous for power. Message to politicians; read the Wisdom of Silenus.
In England we have had since the death of Diana, a new 'sensibility' horribly apparent when the death of any celebrity/public figure provokes a well-rehearsed, yet unedifying and hackneyed ritual. First there is the gushing eulogies from people who hardly knew him, then the florists are stripped clean of their stock before the usual cast of empty dullards are photographed in front any relic or locality that the deceased had graced in his or her lifetime (think of the extremely mediocre Amy Whinehouse's dress, a month after she cancelled her tour in the Balkans -hahahahaha the Balkans- to much ridicule) all this to fill the void in people's lives where duty, obligation, genuine dedication to a life's dream once occupied.
This was wonderfully illustrated by the French civil servant Aurélie Boullet, who exposed the system with remarkable candour.
"Her first task took her an hour, but she was told it was a week's work.”
It was a sheer waste of time. There are plenty of people and not enough work.
So there are a lot of people who have nothing to do," she says. "
It has been several decades since the BBC was a genuinely productive and valuable institution. In recent years it has become swamped with puerile reality shows and half-baked reporting on current events. Think of its treatment of the Islamofascists who despite their palpable hatred of the UK are ennobled as dissidents rather than murdering thugs. Or my personal favourite, a documentary most elastic use of the word- in India where the lachrymose reporter interviewed Sunil or whatever his name was, about the misery of his life as a street cleaner and how difficult it was to support his wife and seven children who all lived in one room. THEY DID NOT THINK OF POSING THE QUESTION AS TO WHY HE HAD SEVEN CHILDREN IN HIS WRETCHED CIRCUMSTANCES. Everything is about eliciting the maximum degree of emotion as though this is a substitute for insightful reporting.
Apparently the BBC had 4,500 separate job titles, nearly
2,000 people classified as managers and almost 200 advisers. It has become nothing more than a cabal, a comfy position to pilfer the public coffers whilst simultaneously being complicit in the debasement of culture in our country. I think these poor luvvies were not suffering from stress; they had instead discovered a conscience and hate themselves.
The conversation that we need to have as a nation is what to do with the sizable percentage of the population, who for various reasons, are economically inactive.
As we are addicted to cheap products, it won't be anytime soon that manufacturing and industry return to our shores, so it begs the question, what is to be done with the low, or no, skilled members in society.
It isn't simply an issue of the un-affordability of the system, or the aesthetics of the blighted neighborhoods and their crappy culture. Nor is it the fact that dependent people have the habit of spawning horrible creatures such as Tony Blair or Diane Abbott.
It is actually a moral question, whether to allow a fellow human being to exist without the dignifying prospect of providing for himself. He, or she, cannot do this without a genuine chance in life, one that entails a rounded eduction, a culture that recognizes and rewards an honest days work rather than venerating celebrity, greed and sensationalist self-promotion. And dare I say it, a re-introduction of some British virtues of duty, obligation and self-restraint in one's behaviour.
The conversation shouldn't be about how vulnerable the vulnerable will remain, but how to change a system that perversely creates such wretched people.
Excellent article upon a very important topic. As Marx so incisively noted, it is the economic system that we live beneath that molds the form of society with live amongst. And most people would agree that our present one is rather dystopian.
Though Cameron is right to remind people that capitalism is the system that allows those who work the greatest opportunity to retain the rewards of their labour, it is obvious that the present capitalist framework is unrecognizable from the system that once offered something so straight forward and ........noble; to put food upon one's table and a roof over your head without entreating an intermediary, whether priest, prince or populist.
As professional pundits huff and puff about what is fair, it would be ironic if the definition of wealth creation ascribed to by the Catholic Church, especially Aquinas, would enjoy a reexamination. That there are certain forms of earning a living, some or which are to be condemned. The maker of shoes for example was good, though the retailer of shoes -he who profited from another person's work- was bad. By that standard, JK Rowling is good, whilst those who work in the advertising of the Harry Potter brand and thinking up ways of tying useless Potter products in with fast food chains that sell the worthless stuff to the already overweight and financially insolvent, are not only pathetic, but evil as well.
If we returned to this earlier idea of work and wealth creation it would eliminate at a stroke the three evils of capitalism; politicians who are stooges of the corporations such as Blair and Clinton, the immoral super-rich and the feckless Welfarists (the vast and most obscene profits are to be made by corporations who sell almost exclusively to sub-intelligent people; think Nike, Coca Cola, the whole inane-communications industry, anything cheap "popular" and necessary to throw away and replace as soon as possible, in fact everything that adds no value to people's lives)
At the very least the environment and the rest of the animal kingdom would be happy!
As Herder wrote, “Every nation speaks in the manner it thinks and thinks in the manner it speaks”.
Multiculturalism has been an unmitigated disaster, a monstrous idea that has left mutually antagonistic groups glaring at each other from their ghettoized homes. Congratulations to the political classes circa 1960s to present.
As we are addicted to cheap products, it won't be anytime soon that manufacturing and industry return to our shores, so it begs the question, what is to be done with the low, or no, skilled members in society.
It isn't simply an issue of the un-affordability of the system, or the aesthetics of the blighted neighborhoods and their crappy culture. Nor is it the fact that dependent people have the habit of spawning horrible creatures such as Tony Blair or Diane Abbott.
It is actually a moral question, whether to allow a fellow human being to exist without the dignifying prospect of providing for himself. He, or she, cannot do this without a genuine chance in life, one that entails a rounded eduction, a culture that recognizes and rewards an honest days work rather than venerating celebrity, greed and sensationalist self-promotion. And dare I say it, a re-introduction of some British virtues of duty, obligation and self-restraint in one's behaviour.
The conversation shouldn't be about how vulnerable the vulnerable will remain, but how to change a system that perversely creates such wretched people.
Excellent article upon a very important topic. As Marx so incisively noted, it is the economic system that we live beneath that molds the form of society with live amongst. And most people would agree that our present one is rather dystopian.
Though Cameron is right to remind people that capitalism is the system that allows those who work the greatest opportunity to retain the rewards of their labour, it is obvious that the present capitalist framework is unrecognizable from the system that once offered something so straight forward and ........noble; to put food upon one's table and a roof over your head without entreating an intermediary, whether priest, prince or populist.
As professional pundits huff and puff about what is fair, it would be ironic if the definition of wealth creation ascribed to by the Catholic Church, especially Aquinas, would enjoy a reexamination. That there are certain forms of earning a living, some or which are to be condemned. The maker of shoes for example was good, though the retailer of shoes -he who profited from another person's work- was bad. By that standard, JK Rowling is good, whilst those who work in the advertising of the Harry Potter brand and thinking up ways of tying useless Potter products in with fast food chains that sell the worthless stuff to the already overweight and financially insolvent, are not only pathetic, but evil as well.
If we returned to this earlier idea of work and wealth creation it would eliminate at a stroke the three evils of capitalism; politicians who are stooges of the corporations such as Blair and Clinton, the immoral super-rich and the feckless Welfarists (the vast and most obscene profits are to be made by corporations who sell almost exclusively to sub-intelligent people; think Nike, Coca Cola, the whole inane-communications industry, anything cheap "popular" and necessary to throw away and replace as soon as possible, in fact everything that adds no value to people's lives)
At the very least the environment and the rest of the animal kingdom would be happy!
As Herder wrote, “Every nation speaks in the manner it thinks and thinks in the manner it speaks”.
Multiculturalism has been an unmitigated disaster, a monstrous idea that has left mutually antagonistic groups glaring at each other from their ghettoized homes. Congratulations to the political classes circa 1960s to present.
Even in an era when politicians are as popular as child-molesters and as trustworthy as used-car salesmen, NuLabour were spectacularly bad. Blair was the most dishonest public person since Iago and Brown was treasonably incompetent. I would rather live five years under the rule of the neophyte Kim Jung Un than a return of the Celebrity-worshiping, welfare creating, financially illiterate, corporate-stooges of NuLabour. Amen.
Just what statement is the government intending to make at the Olympics? That we remain well and truly in the pockets of corporations who are making a killing from the event and are able to cajole government ministers into continuing to throw more money at the corp-fest with the tantalizing prospect -al a Blair- of well paid directorships in the companies once the ministers leave office.
Bill Clinton has "earned" in excess of $100 million since leaving office. Blair cannot be far behind. Strauss-Kahn was staying in a $3,000 a night hotel room before he had his wardrobe malfunction. All of them, laughably, were representatives of the Left, of the under-privileged. All of them then did fantastically well from representing the poor. How do you think corporations achieve fantastical profits from which to pay the above and people like them? In the speculative, lottery-style economics that have led to the mess we are in. Misery is exported around the world as we remain addicted to cheap products and don't care as to how they are sourced, mined or assembled. Anne, dear, wake up and fire-off a few rounds at the real misery-peddlars in the global structure rather than the buffoons you allude to.
Breathtakingly poor article. Lazy plea for empathy as he bleats mindlessly about the maudlin trinity of nurses, the homeless and the sick as though the mere mention of any of those words should be uttered in reverential tones. Some nurses are actually very mediocre and disinterested. It can happen. Same with the homeless, many sadly suffer from mental illness, though there are a percentage who are degenerate drug addicts who lost in the "I-want-everything-now-and-won't-bare-the-consequences" game of life. And lastly the hallowed "sick." In a country where there are two million people on incapacity benefits, as well as morbidly obese, excessive drinkers and other self-destructive types, the notion of sickness is in danger of becoming hackneyed. Alternatively, what about having genuine empathy and warmth towards people who have "earned" it by their good character? Radical, but might help us return to an era when we were judged by our deeds rather than how our wretchedness is useful to anyone who wants to promote themselves with faux- compassion.
Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad ....enough to invest in the shares of a US tech company. If the last four yeas have taught us anything it is that the Americans are economic bunglers. Utility maximization is a vile term but has been the foundation upon which their ostensibly fantastic growth has been achieved. Americans were first to understand the power of deceptive marketing. Think anything from their stranglehold on popular culture to their "victory" in the Cold War. They know how to industrialize anything. Look at crime in the US, it is an entire industry of its own with myriad law enforcement agencies, trial lawyers and millions of people reliant upon their fellow citizens breaking the law. Reality shows create billions by selling a continuous dream to the same idiots who bought the Facebook shares. A housing bust that should have introduced some humility into the minds of the US business community. It never did and they will continue to create speculative bubbles selling nothing other than the "extra" value that interested parties have added to the product.
Typical display of bureaucratic arrogance. The notion that they might exist for the convenience and at the pleasure of their voters would be beyond them. Same really for the entire political class who believe that money is generated ex nihilo and can therefore be wasted on indulging their over-inflated egos. Ironic really, when you think of the spectacularly bad political leadership we have received (voted for??) over the past four decades; think welfare dependency, immigration, financial incontinence, toxic foreign policy, education ad infinitum.......... You would think that that level of ineptitude would promote a sense of humility rather than a degree of extravagance that would have made an attendee at the court of Louis XIV blush.
Yes, yes Ed, and the thirteen year Blair/Brown tyranny was a paragon of good governance. The British public must have attention spans similar to that of King Charles Spaniels if they ever take New Labour seriously ever again. It is the political classes that are responsible for all the ills that now confront us. Bribing the gluttonous electorate with shorter working weeks, unaffordable pensions, welfare dependency, unrestrained immigration, multiculturalism at the end of, if not a barrel, then by social opprobrium. Debasement of education. Unregulated markets that created monstrous edifices of greed as vapid consumerism was promoted as a civic duty and the only thing that might mitigate the horribleness of peoples lives after morally satisfying manufacturing and artisan industries were eviscerated. I don't know how the political classes can live with themselves. They have genuinely ruined peoples ability to enjoy a simple uncomplicated, relatively modest life. The sight of that malicious, ostentatious dwarf, Sarkozy strutting around made my blood boil. He is mediocre and unprincipled, so narcissistic and a completely gluttonous for power. Message to politicians; read the Wisdom of Silenus.
In England we have had since the death of Diana, a new 'sensibility' horribly apparent when the death of any celebrity/public figure provokes a well-rehearsed, yet unedifying and hackneyed ritual. First there is the gushing eulogies from people who hardly knew him, then the florists are stripped clean of their stock before the usual cast of empty dullards are photographed in front any relic or locality that the deceased had graced in his or her lifetime (think of the extremely mediocre Amy Whinehouse's dress, a month after she cancelled her tour in the Balkans -hahahahaha the Balkans- to much ridicule) all this to fill the void in people's lives where duty, obligation, genuine dedication to a life's dream once occupied.
This is it? This is what all those wars were for, all the treasure we expended. The lofty ideas of emancipation and equality. The end result of centuries of struggle are these horrible programmmes? This is why it is difficult to have any sympathy for the witless poor in this country, as so many of them have allowed themselves to be recruited as unquestioning consumers for evil corporations selling crap. Does anyone else feel a sense of betrayal that a redistributive tax system creates a community of people who desire nothing more than to participate in a series celebrating everything that is cheap, banal and exploitative in our woeful culture. This has got nothing to do with "having a laugh" or a bit of "harmless fun" it is simply the grubby willingness to do anything for a little bit of money and five minutes of attention to alleviate the dreadful anonymity of their horrible lives. Can't we do better?
The notion of "giving someone a second chance" is certainly laudable with regard to some types of misdemeanor. Say for example, someone born into a dysfunctional family, living on a sink estate and receiving only the most egregious, rudimentary education, who then falls -inevitably??- into
petty crime. As a deterministic explanation of behaviour, this might be worthy of sympathy.
But Coulson's crime does not fall into this category. He is simply an Iago type figure, vain, unscrupulous and utterly bereft of any moral constraint upon his ambitious nature. You would not buy a second hand car from this man, let alone use him as an advisor. In fact, what could Cameron possibly
have been seeking enlightenment upon? Arts of duplicity, mendacity and burying of bodies?
Sadly though, this appears to be the modus operandi of so many people in public life; exploit your position, humiliatingly crush your opponents, ignore all laws and conventions in the sure knowledge that a faux-contrite apology and an oleaginous public relations spinner will extricate you from any mess. I suppose amongst themselves they applaud each others Machiavellian prowess, but these idiots should remember that they have to live in the unhappy society that they have helped to create, one damaged by the incremental erosion of trust and confidence in the institutions that they are meant to be servants of.
The painfully long peroration of the Blair/Brown Kleptocracy will cast a shadow across the landscape of Britain for a long time to come.
This regime were not only spectacularly incompetent when crafting legislation
(think Education policy, where exams were simplified to such an extent that
diplomas are now given away with a gallon of petrol, think Macro-economic
naivety that meant NuLabour were the witless, yet vocal cheer-leaders at
the City greed-fest that helped to impoverish the country. Welfare policies
that stigmatized notions of industry and self-reliance and foist upon the
country a horde of faux-Burberry clad parasites that will not and cannot
participate in normal social interaction)……..NuLabour were also plain
criminals.
Their Immigration policy, was a grotesque sleight of hand, an
attempt to create a Labour majority in perpetuity regardless of the cultural
implications for this once great island, their Foreign policy should have led
to Blair being imprisoned rather than his present exalted position, enjoying
fantastically profitable speaking and consultancy contracts paid for by
corporate criminals he spent his time in office cultivating. And now there is documentary evidence
that a financially incontinent Brown used taxpayer revenues for the grubby
aggrandizement of his vile Party with utter disregard as to ramification.
In an ideal world, one where politicians are the humble
employees of an enlightened electorate, who engaged them simply as a
convenience to ensure the street lights were maintained and the roads were
swept, people would not have unrealistic expectations of the State,
expectations that to a great extent are being encouraged by these same
politicians. That these people do not possess the magnanimity to apologize
simply illustrates their arrogance, even if the value of an apology in our
hideous Oprah-era is quite worthless, so our only consolation will be to leave
them to the ignominy of their lives and the damnation of their consciences.
The symbolism is so rich. He, as every politician of recent times, tried to do to this lady what his collective class has been doing to us for years. Just demonstrates the arrogance of power. The notion that these people are supposedly "in service to the people" is risible. And what by the way, was a Socialist doing staying in a $3,000 a night hotel room? Shouldn't he have stayed in a cheaper place and spent the difference on crayons for African children? :)
This article is utter tosh. The West continues to construct an egregious and hideously unfair system that many other cultures and people rightly despise. The vast majority of people around the globe are being recruited as simple consumers to buy low-grade popular culture for the benefit of Western corporations. For this privilege, they work as serfs to produce our products in sweat shops, or serve us cocktails when we deign to holiday in their countries (expropriating the majority of the profits) earning just enough so that they may accumulate the funds to buy baseball caps and cheap phones. It is not pleasant to see. Our economic and political system is the result of centuries of conflicts and questionable progress (As Disraeli said, "Enlightened Europe is not happy. Its existence is a fever, which it calls progress. Progress to what?". Obviously add the US)
As long as we export programmes like Pop Idol, Sweat Sixteen, South Park, et al, or award millions (I cannot bring my self to say earn) to sports and entertainment people, Wall Street pirates who create nothing but chaos, narcissistic and dishonest politicians who have been responsible for the worst decision making imaginable, we will attract the opprobrium of many. We have built a system that venerates and rewards mediocrity, so is not even inspirational. I suspect there will probably be no shortage of people who wish us ill for a long time to come.
The notion of "giving someone a second chance" is certainly laudable with regard to some types of misdemeanor. Say for example, someone born into a dysfunctional family, living on a sink estate and receiving only the most egregious, rudimentary education, who then falls -inevitably??- into
petty crime. As a deterministic explanation of behaviour, this might be worthy of sympathy.
But Coulson's crime does not fall into this category. He is simply an Iago type figure, vain, unscrupulous and utterly bereft of any moral constraint upon his ambitious nature. You would not buy a second hand car from this man, let alone use him as an advisor. In fact, what could Cameron possibly
have been seeking enlightenment upon? Arts of duplicity, mendacity and burying of bodies?
Sadly though, this appears to be the modus operandi of so many people in public life; exploit your position, humiliatingly crush your opponents, ignore all laws and conventions in the sure knowledge that a faux-contrite apology and an oleaginous public relations spinner will extricate you from any mess. I suppose amongst themselves they applaud each others Machiavellian prowess, but these idiots should remember that they have to live in the unhappy society that they have helped to create, one damaged by the incremental erosion of trust and confidence in the institutions that they are meant to be servants of.
The painfully long peroration of the Blair/Brown Kleptocracy will cast a shadow across the landscape of Britain for a long time to come.
This regime were not only spectacularly incompetent when crafting legislation
(think Education policy, where exams were simplified to such an extent that
diplomas are now given away with a gallon of petrol, think Macro-economic
naivety that meant NuLabour were the witless, yet vocal cheer-leaders at
the City greed-fest that helped to impoverish the country. Welfare policies
that stigmatized notions of industry and self-reliance and foist upon the
country a horde of faux-Burberry clad parasites that will not and cannot
participate in normal social interaction)……..NuLabour were also plain
criminals.
Their Immigration policy, was a grotesque sleight of hand, an
attempt to create a Labour majority in perpetuity regardless of the cultural
implications for this once great island, their Foreign policy should have led
to Blair being imprisoned rather than his present exalted position, enjoying
fantastically profitable speaking and consultancy contracts paid for by
corporate criminals he spent his time in office cultivating. And now there is documentary evidence
that a financially incontinent Brown used taxpayer revenues for the grubby
aggrandizement of his vile Party with utter disregard as to ramification.
In an ideal world, one where politicians are the humble
employees of an enlightened electorate, who engaged them simply as a
convenience to ensure the street lights were maintained and the roads were
swept, people would not have unrealistic expectations of the State,
expectations that to a great extent are being encouraged by these same
politicians. That these people do not possess the magnanimity to apologize
simply illustrates their arrogance, even if the value of an apology in our
hideous Oprah-era is quite worthless, so our only consolation will be to leave
them to the ignominy of their lives and the damnation of their consciences.
The symbolism is so rich. He, as every politician of recent times, tried to do to this lady what his collective class has been doing to us for years. Just demonstrates the arrogance of power. The notion that these people are supposedly "in service to the people" is risible. And what by the way, was a Socialist doing staying in a $3,000 a night hotel room? Shouldn't he have stayed in a cheaper place and spent the difference on crayons for African children? :)
This article is utter tosh. The West continues to construct an egregious and hideously unfair system that many other cultures and people rightly despise. The vast majority of people around the globe are being recruited as simple consumers to buy low-grade popular culture for the benefit of Western corporations. For this privilege, they work as serfs to produce our products in sweat shops, or serve us cocktails when we deign to holiday in their countries (expropriating the majority of the profits) earning just enough so that they may accumulate the funds to buy baseball caps and cheap phones. It is not pleasant to see. Our economic and political system is the result of centuries of conflicts and questionable progress (As Disraeli said, "Enlightened Europe is not happy. Its existence is a fever, which it calls progress. Progress to what?". Obviously add the US)
As long as we export programmes like Pop Idol, Sweat Sixteen, South Park, et al, or award millions (I cannot bring my self to say earn) to sports and entertainment people, Wall Street pirates who create nothing but chaos, narcissistic and dishonest politicians who have been responsible for the worst decision making imaginable, we will attract the opprobrium of many. We have built a system that venerates and rewards mediocrity, so is not even inspirational. I suspect there will probably be no shortage of people who wish us ill for a long time to come.
In Gilligan's other piece, "Why banning the veil..." he interviews two veil wearers whom I think he believes corroborate his line that they are wearing it voluntarily. I assume he quotes them verbatim.
Ms Jama, who is 28 and from Barking. "But I just got thinking it wasn't right. I had lots of men and I never got anything out of it. They would use me and then leave me. They would look at me like a piece of meat, and this [the niqab] stops all that." "There's a lot of things [Islamic obligations] we're not capable of doing but we can do this."
They sound spectacularly ignorant, which by itself refutes the idea that they can 'chose' anything? Maybe at that hallowed seat of learning, "the private Madani Girls' School, just off the Whitechapel Road, (where) all the children are forced to wear the niqab" they could introduce a new syllabus that focuses more on humanist teachings, not to mention English classes.
Ms Jama, who is 28 and from Barking. "But I just got thinking it wasn't right. I had lots of men and I never got anything out of it. They would use me and then leave me. They would look at me like a piece of meat, and this [the niqab] stops all that." "There's a lot of things [Islamic obligations] we're not capable of doing but we can do this."
They sound spectacularly ignorant, which by itself refutes the idea that they can 'chose' anything? Maybe at that hallowed seat of learning, "the private Madani Girls' School, just off the Whitechapel Road, (where) all the children are forced to wear the niqab" they could introduce a new syllabus that focuses more on humanist teachings, not to mention English classes.
