I invited John Kapp to respond to the blog regarding his rather imaginative claims of being able to cure all ills through the power of meditation. No response as yet and given his past chattiness I would be surprised if that changed...
The Guardian did however get back to me saying why the post recommending people read Newspeak by David Edwards...
CiF Moderator: Your comment was removed for being off-topic.
Well, I'll give them that one because I did forget to illustrate the relevance to the thread within the post itself, adding it immediately afterwards. That lesson has already been learned so we'll see how it goes from here.
Saturday, 27 February 2010
Thursday, 18 February 2010
Guardian not answering...
Having had the first post regarding 'Newspeak' deleted from the Guardian comments board, the replacement and two others on separate articles have, at last looking, been left in place. I had eliminated the possibility that they could interpret it as commercial by simply referencing the book rather than telling people to read it. I also make sure the post is relevant to the article.
This leaves the only excuse for deletion as being if the Guardian interpret the book as misrepresentation of their journalists, and by extension the reference of it. This however would represent a massive loophole for the Guardian, one that would have to be brought to light.
I am glad that the others have stayed up. Judging by this email exchange I doubt i'll be getting a response regarding the first post:
Dear Sir/Madam
On this comment thread, I had a message deleted at 4:33pm, under the name usualsuspect83. I would very much like to know for what reason it was deleted.
Yours,
Ben King
============================
Ben,
If you let us know your user name we can look into this for you.
This leaves the only excuse for deletion as being if the Guardian interpret the book as misrepresentation of their journalists, and by extension the reference of it. This however would represent a massive loophole for the Guardian, one that would have to be brought to light.
I am glad that the others have stayed up. Judging by this email exchange I doubt i'll be getting a response regarding the first post:
Dear Sir/Madam
On this comment thread, I had a message deleted at 4:33pm, under the name usualsuspect83. I would very much like to know for what reason it was deleted.
Yours,
Ben King
============================
show details Feb 15 (3 days ago) |
Ben,
If you let us know your user name we can look into this for you.
===============================
show details Feb 15 (3 days ago) |
Hi. Thanks for the reply. As noted in the previous email my user name is usualsuspect83.
Yours, Ben.
Yours, Ben.
Tuesday, 16 February 2010
This one stays... though no answer as to why the first was deleted yet
Another day another example straight from the pages of 'Newspeak'. This time it is an article letting us, the reader, in on what the people of Afghanistan really think about this latest offensive. Turns out, they are buying into Taliban 'conspiracy theories', tacitly implying a contrast with the 'reality' that is the Wests pursuit of peace:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/16/afghanistan-moshtarak-conspiracy
The conspiracy theories the Taliban were suggesting? Well, they are nicely summarized by this poster...
So I put this up:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/16/afghanistan-moshtarak-conspiracy
The conspiracy theories the Taliban were suggesting? Well, they are nicely summarized by this poster...
Neoconned 16 Feb 2010, 4:05PMConspiracy Theory No.1 ---
Karzai - "Afghan geological reserves worth $US1 trillion"
Conspiracy Theory No.2 ---
U.S. to open consulate in Herat (right next to the Iranian border)
Conspiracy Theory No.3 ---
Karzai election team included former Helmand Governor caught with nine tonnes of opium in his basement.
++++++++++++
Clearly mineral resources, Iran, and drugs, have nothing whatsoever to do with anything at all.
So I put this up:
- usualsuspect83 16 Feb 2010, 3:52PMThe book 'Newspeak in the 21st Century' gives vital context for when reading articles such as this in mainstream media. After reading their detailed and much researched arguments, one can really start reading 'between the lines' so to speak... it's incredible just how one sided arguments can be whilst seeming to be balanced. This is relevent here because:
Case in point: The framing of Taliban ideas as conspiracy theories is presented simply as fact in a tacit acceptence of hte 'real' motives of benevolent security. Yet does recent History not warn us (in particular journalists who succumbed to it, and transmitted it to the masses on their behalf) to be extremely critical of the 'official' line?
I have absolutely no problem with macro-geo-political explanations for our tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan... no historian would since it is what has been the dominating force behind foreign policy for, well, forever.
That book is amazing. The last time I mentioned it my comment was deleted by the moderator. I would like to point out that I have done my research and this cannot be regarding as off-topic or commercial in nature. The one recourse left to the Guardian in its guidlines would be to decide the book itself mis-represnts its journalists and so by extension a reference to the book does also.
If this comment is deleted for that reason then it highlights a dangerous loophole through which the Guardian can delete anything it regards as damaging to itself. If that were the case, it strongly needs addressing and bringing to light.
It's still up so I guess that's the green light. I wonder if they'll put up with it constantly happening?
We shall see!
Saturday, 13 February 2010
A new campaign... and my, it's off to a flyer.
Having read 'Newspeak in the 21st Century' by MediaLens duo David Edwards and David Cromwell and having become aware of just how much all mainstream media is subservient to those in power, I thought that I would recommend this book on the Guardian comments section after an article on iran (something covered in the book). I thought that perhaps it was something I could do each time a relevant article and see how many messages it would take before they started taking them down. Well, the answer is one.
Even though I said at the end of the comment, "Don't be surprised if this comment is deleted by the moderators". You couldn't make it up.
I'd like to point out that it is entirely relevant to the piece in question, illustrated by the fact that they devote an entire chapter to the media portrayal of Iran. Let's see what excuse they have for me... and how long they will put up with me recommending the book on their comments page.
I have sent this email:
Dear Sir/Madam
On this comment thread, I had a message deleted at 4:33pm, under the name usualsuspect83. I would very much like to know for what reason it was deleted.
Yours,
Ben King
Lets see what they say.
usualsuspect83
13 Feb 2010, 4:33PM
Your comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
Even though I said at the end of the comment, "Don't be surprised if this comment is deleted by the moderators". You couldn't make it up.
I'd like to point out that it is entirely relevant to the piece in question, illustrated by the fact that they devote an entire chapter to the media portrayal of Iran. Let's see what excuse they have for me... and how long they will put up with me recommending the book on their comments page.
I have sent this email:
Dear Sir/Madam
On this comment thread, I had a message deleted at 4:33pm, under the name usualsuspect83. I would very much like to know for what reason it was deleted.
Yours,
Ben King
Lets see what they say.
Well, this isn't going well...
|
Apologies for the pseudonym. My regular email account name would instantly give away my skeptical nature and I find it only serves to stifle debate before it begins. I wished to determine whether your claim on the flyer was intentional or an unfortunate mistake before I proceeded.
Let me start by countering some common reactions to the following comments so that you can read what I have to say knowing the context in which it is said. If pressed, I would have no problem identifying myself as Buddhist. I have never been religious: even to my very young mind religion did not have satisfactory answers to my questions. My learning has been in History and Philosophy, including philosophy of cognitive science. It is through these influences that I determined a world view which I realised was inherently Buddhist in it's philosophy, acknowledging as it did our connected nature (through memetics (culture), or at a more fundamental level the smallest denominator of energy, perhaps strings, perhaps not) and the rejection of a distinct entity of 'self', or 'soul'. I am also an avid follower of science and yet I am the first to point to it's flaws and the effects that political/corporate power is having on some sectors of research. I marvel at the wonders of western medicine whilst also bemoaning the lack of humanity that allows for such a contrast in juxtaposition with the placebo effect of alternative medicine. I am of the opinion that it should simply be re-labelled the compassion effect, a more apt title and one that would allow alternative medicine to continue without the need for false claims.
With this in mind, I regret to say I have to express my utmost objection to your advertisement. Your reply indicated to me the conceptual flaw under-pinning everything you claim. Whilst the software can have a mitigating or aggravating effect on illness and disease (in some cases, it is true, being the cause as well, opening up the opportunity for it to also be the cure), this is simply not the case for disease!
What about germs? What about immune systems? The software resides in the Brain. What about the rest of the body? The gangrene in one's arm is not a product of the mind, it's causes are well understood. What about HIV/AIDS? How is that a software problem? It is a biological entity.
The only way disease could be a software problem is if there existed a grand conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of physicians, stretching thousands of years back, simply making stuff up and hiding 'the truth'. This is clearly not the case. The body is hardware and disease is a hardware problem.
You simply cannot advertise that meditation can cure all illness. You are potentially appealing to the most vulnerable subset of society, those desperate for anything that might claim to help. Having looked at your website, I am in no doubt that you believe what you say. Buddhism should teach you that we are products of our environment, products of cause and effect. Looking at our world and it's history, it is clear that more people have truely believed in falsehoods than have been lucky enough to experience objective truth. I believe firmly in our capacity to be good to one another, but key to that transition is in recognising our own flaws and biases and inherent susceptibility to logical fallacy. I hope you take this in the spirit it was intended, as a concerned fellow human, and not as an ignorant witch-hunt. Unfortunately, it does not change the fact that it is morally reprehensible that you advertise this claim.
I know of no Buddhist teaching, certainly not from his holiness the Dalai Lama, who would claim such a thing. Why do Buddhist monks still get illness and die of disease? Your claims would have been denounced as heretical in times gone by for blaspheme, such are the divine implications! The Dalai Lama is a fierce advocate of science, revelling in it's capacity to teach us about our universe. Your false claims are counter to the very tradition (meditation) that you use in its application.
I am sorry to have had to say all this.
Yours sincerely (this time..)
Ben
Let me start by countering some common reactions to the following comments so that you can read what I have to say knowing the context in which it is said. If pressed, I would have no problem identifying myself as Buddhist. I have never been religious: even to my very young mind religion did not have satisfactory answers to my questions. My learning has been in History and Philosophy, including philosophy of cognitive science. It is through these influences that I determined a world view which I realised was inherently Buddhist in it's philosophy, acknowledging as it did our connected nature (through memetics (culture), or at a more fundamental level the smallest denominator of energy, perhaps strings, perhaps not) and the rejection of a distinct entity of 'self', or 'soul'. I am also an avid follower of science and yet I am the first to point to it's flaws and the effects that political/corporate power is having on some sectors of research. I marvel at the wonders of western medicine whilst also bemoaning the lack of humanity that allows for such a contrast in juxtaposition with the placebo effect of alternative medicine. I am of the opinion that it should simply be re-labelled the compassion effect, a more apt title and one that would allow alternative medicine to continue without the need for false claims.
With this in mind, I regret to say I have to express my utmost objection to your advertisement. Your reply indicated to me the conceptual flaw under-pinning everything you claim. Whilst the software can have a mitigating or aggravating effect on illness and disease (in some cases, it is true, being the cause as well, opening up the opportunity for it to also be the cure), this is simply not the case for disease!
What about germs? What about immune systems? The software resides in the Brain. What about the rest of the body? The gangrene in one's arm is not a product of the mind, it's causes are well understood. What about HIV/AIDS? How is that a software problem? It is a biological entity.
The only way disease could be a software problem is if there existed a grand conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of physicians, stretching thousands of years back, simply making stuff up and hiding 'the truth'. This is clearly not the case. The body is hardware and disease is a hardware problem.
You simply cannot advertise that meditation can cure all illness. You are potentially appealing to the most vulnerable subset of society, those desperate for anything that might claim to help. Having looked at your website, I am in no doubt that you believe what you say. Buddhism should teach you that we are products of our environment, products of cause and effect. Looking at our world and it's history, it is clear that more people have truely believed in falsehoods than have been lucky enough to experience objective truth. I believe firmly in our capacity to be good to one another, but key to that transition is in recognising our own flaws and biases and inherent susceptibility to logical fallacy. I hope you take this in the spirit it was intended, as a concerned fellow human, and not as an ignorant witch-hunt. Unfortunately, it does not change the fact that it is morally reprehensible that you advertise this claim.
I know of no Buddhist teaching, certainly not from his holiness the Dalai Lama, who would claim such a thing. Why do Buddhist monks still get illness and die of disease? Your claims would have been denounced as heretical in times gone by for blaspheme, such are the divine implications! The Dalai Lama is a fierce advocate of science, revelling in it's capacity to teach us about our universe. Your false claims are counter to the very tradition (meditation) that you use in its application.
I am sorry to have had to say all this.
Yours sincerely (this time..)
Ben
P.S with regard to the anecdotal evidence you mentioned, there are many accounts in literature of psychological disablement. In one notable study, someone who had been fed all their lives by someone else was left in a room with the food just out of her reach. As she got hungrier, she reached out for the food when her mind wandered. It was an instinctive reaction bypassing the part of the brain required for intentionality. She wasn't faking, but it showed that it wasn't a hardware problem. With this knowledge, they managed to regain her motor-function skills.
Doctors are not unaware of the mind. People like Ramachandran (look him up on youtube, delightful voice) are working wonders in understanding its hold and influence on the body. Yet anecdotal evidence is dismissed for a reason. There are 6 billion people on this planet. The numbers alone dictate that many crazy things will happen to a whole lot of people. Our knowledge is nowhere near complete enough to understand the multitude of strange cases that are bound, by laws of statistics, to show up. It is a logical fallacy that we are all to susceptible too.
| show details Feb 2 (11 days ago) |
Dear Ben Thanks for this. Do you have a question? Yours John
| show details Feb 2 (11 days ago) |
I asked a few questions in the previous email. The more pertinent question though is do you intend to continue advertising this claim of being able to cure any disease?
Yours,
Ben
| show details Feb 7 (6 days ago) |
I want you to know that I have no personal gripe regarding this matter. It is simply a matter of fact. I put a lot of thought into that email out of respect and would greatly appreciate a reply of equal thought and respect.
Yours,
Ben
| show details Feb 7 (6 days ago) |
Dear Ben Yes Yours John
So, complete failure to engage, seemingly willfull childishness and evasiveness. What can I do? It is so frustrating that people can profit from false hopes and no-one seems to stand up to them. It is like a religious taboo, not being able to criticise their 'beliefs'. Im sorry, I don't agree with that.
John, if you read this, I am still waiting for a grown-up correspondence regarding the matter.
Friday, 12 February 2010
What's around the corner for this planet?
Having just had a flick through the book 'The Coming Insurresction', I can't help but be quite pleased that such memes are on the loose. If you haven't heard about it, it is a short book, a radical-left examination of the failures of capitalism and a call-to-arms manifesto outlining tactics and stratedgies for securing a post-capitalist society.
Now, I don't for one minute think it's all so easy. Getting people to unite under one banner is impossible in the very near future without considerable indoctrination through localised monopolies on memetic production. But here's the rub... it's going to happen anyway, revolution or no.
What differentiates individuals morality is the breadth of folk encompassed within it. In this way I regard someone who professes a desire for the world as a whole as more just thn those who limit their moral intent to those of the same socio-economic, race, religion or nationality. It's a matter of expanding morality to the one common denominator: humanity on a global level.
Capitalism knows this. Don't think so? Think back 100 years to when capitalism treated the majority of it's own people to the kind of exploitation now reserved for the third-world. This is not a trivial statement, nor does it condone the exploitation that exists today. It merely states that capitalism was forced to outsource exploitation (at least, the explicit kind) to where it remained hidden.
Yet, since capitalism insists on spreading communication infrastructure to all corners of the globe, what was once hidden is now being opened to the light of day. It is the latest part of the transformation of capitalism. Sure those at the top are still in a selfish bubble, but the majority of people who partake in the capitalist model don't, and they are subject to change alongside the rest of society.
Capitalism relies on consumers, consumers that are becoming more moral as their daily lives become more global in influence. There is only so far capitalism can go in claiming the monopoly on memetic forces that would be needed to stop the memetic drive toward equality. For capitalism to stop becoming more moral it would require the state to become more authoritarian.
This is why the sort of revolution spouted by 'The Coming Insurrection' is not only wrong but, if implemented, counter-productive. I say if implemented because until then, they merely represent a data-set from the far left that can be assimilated along with the other biased, radical agendas and contribute to a diverse memepool, the only thing necessary for moral progression. That revolutionary ideology is no longer needed I feel, a relic from centuries past that, through it's ongoing appeal helps show that injustice is still very much a part of the capitalist system. They need to take a leaf out of the Zapatista movement in Mexico, who laid down their arms until the people told them they were needed again. That was in the 90's and they are still true to their word.
It need not be that way. Imagine the same system but with coops instead of shareholders, with a pay ratio cap between top and bottom. Bam! You have the most moral system of commerce yet. Combine it with greater direct democracy and a devolution of power to the local level and you have a more just system of society than ever before.
It will happen of it's own accord. It is most rational. And as it becomes ever clearer, those dissenting voices in power who risk losing that power will seem ever more irrational. As much as we may dislike this corporate, sham democracy and immoral capitalism, they are not exempt from change. THAT is the key, THAT is why it'll be alright in the end.
So long as we keep the internet free.
Now, I don't for one minute think it's all so easy. Getting people to unite under one banner is impossible in the very near future without considerable indoctrination through localised monopolies on memetic production. But here's the rub... it's going to happen anyway, revolution or no.
What differentiates individuals morality is the breadth of folk encompassed within it. In this way I regard someone who professes a desire for the world as a whole as more just thn those who limit their moral intent to those of the same socio-economic, race, religion or nationality. It's a matter of expanding morality to the one common denominator: humanity on a global level.
Capitalism knows this. Don't think so? Think back 100 years to when capitalism treated the majority of it's own people to the kind of exploitation now reserved for the third-world. This is not a trivial statement, nor does it condone the exploitation that exists today. It merely states that capitalism was forced to outsource exploitation (at least, the explicit kind) to where it remained hidden.
Yet, since capitalism insists on spreading communication infrastructure to all corners of the globe, what was once hidden is now being opened to the light of day. It is the latest part of the transformation of capitalism. Sure those at the top are still in a selfish bubble, but the majority of people who partake in the capitalist model don't, and they are subject to change alongside the rest of society.
Capitalism relies on consumers, consumers that are becoming more moral as their daily lives become more global in influence. There is only so far capitalism can go in claiming the monopoly on memetic forces that would be needed to stop the memetic drive toward equality. For capitalism to stop becoming more moral it would require the state to become more authoritarian.
This is why the sort of revolution spouted by 'The Coming Insurrection' is not only wrong but, if implemented, counter-productive. I say if implemented because until then, they merely represent a data-set from the far left that can be assimilated along with the other biased, radical agendas and contribute to a diverse memepool, the only thing necessary for moral progression. That revolutionary ideology is no longer needed I feel, a relic from centuries past that, through it's ongoing appeal helps show that injustice is still very much a part of the capitalist system. They need to take a leaf out of the Zapatista movement in Mexico, who laid down their arms until the people told them they were needed again. That was in the 90's and they are still true to their word.
It need not be that way. Imagine the same system but with coops instead of shareholders, with a pay ratio cap between top and bottom. Bam! You have the most moral system of commerce yet. Combine it with greater direct democracy and a devolution of power to the local level and you have a more just system of society than ever before.
It will happen of it's own accord. It is most rational. And as it becomes ever clearer, those dissenting voices in power who risk losing that power will seem ever more irrational. As much as we may dislike this corporate, sham democracy and immoral capitalism, they are not exempt from change. THAT is the key, THAT is why it'll be alright in the end.
So long as we keep the internet free.
Saturday, 6 February 2010
I knew the U.S prison system was fucked but really...?!
Merrily watching a knowledge based comedy panel show in the U.K called QI (I highly recommend it) the mood in the studio changed from fun frivolity to tense, silent shock and disgust as the host, Stephen Fry, started reading some stats regarding the american prison system. This is off the top of my head so forgive slight inaccuracies...
1 in 99.2 Americans are in Jail... some 2.3 million people. That is a higher proportion than South Africa, Iran, China, Russia... anywhere in the world in fact! Now I knew this already... it was the following that had the place shocked...
Prison labour is responsible for the production of 100% of U.S bullets, flak jackets and helmets as well as producing other military equipment. They produce 70% of paint and 36% of household appliances. In fact, there is so much cheap labour that it allows American companies to compete with those who use cheap foreign labour in Mexico.
If they dont work, they get put in Solitary confinement.
OK, so here we have the capitalist system incentivising ever more prisoners to satisfy what is in effect a modern slave trade. That they are predominently Black does nothing to assuage that comparison... 1 in 9 young, black men are in jail.
The outrageous 3 strikes and your out rule means that someone who stole four cookies got life. The argument for three strikes rests on the assumption that that wouldn't happen. Having a system rest on nothing more than what should be rational is the most stupid, unworkable system I could think of.
That is beyond dark. That is fucking 18th century shit. How on earth is this tolerated? Surely it either means that a) America has the culture most specifically suited to create criminals in the world or b) the numbers are inflated through racism and financial incentives to imprison people for slave labour and government contracts.
Either way it's Lose/Lose.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On another note, here in the UK four of our MP's have decided that in order to worm out of the criminal charges laid at their door for expenses fraud, they should use 'parliamentary priviledge' to argue it is a matter for parliament, not the criminal courts.
'Parliamentary priviledge' dates back to the 17th century and essentially protects them from being libelled for anything they may say in parliament. It is an important rule, allowing MP's freedom to raise issues and questions in the House.
By using it to try and cover their asses on fraud is an absolute disgrace. It is as good as admitting that they think they are above the law. It is yet another nail in the coffin of public perception of MP's.
If anyone in America wants to know how you get all the public against all the government? LOOK INTO THEIR EXPENSES! Over half of our MP's have been forced to pay back more than £1.2m. I'd be very surprised if it wasn't the same in every democratic government. It's good fodder at times of recession... expecially if those expenses include 'cleaning the moat' (I shit you not...!)
1 in 99.2 Americans are in Jail... some 2.3 million people. That is a higher proportion than South Africa, Iran, China, Russia... anywhere in the world in fact! Now I knew this already... it was the following that had the place shocked...
Prison labour is responsible for the production of 100% of U.S bullets, flak jackets and helmets as well as producing other military equipment. They produce 70% of paint and 36% of household appliances. In fact, there is so much cheap labour that it allows American companies to compete with those who use cheap foreign labour in Mexico.
If they dont work, they get put in Solitary confinement.
OK, so here we have the capitalist system incentivising ever more prisoners to satisfy what is in effect a modern slave trade. That they are predominently Black does nothing to assuage that comparison... 1 in 9 young, black men are in jail.
The outrageous 3 strikes and your out rule means that someone who stole four cookies got life. The argument for three strikes rests on the assumption that that wouldn't happen. Having a system rest on nothing more than what should be rational is the most stupid, unworkable system I could think of.
That is beyond dark. That is fucking 18th century shit. How on earth is this tolerated? Surely it either means that a) America has the culture most specifically suited to create criminals in the world or b) the numbers are inflated through racism and financial incentives to imprison people for slave labour and government contracts.
Either way it's Lose/Lose.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On another note, here in the UK four of our MP's have decided that in order to worm out of the criminal charges laid at their door for expenses fraud, they should use 'parliamentary priviledge' to argue it is a matter for parliament, not the criminal courts.
'Parliamentary priviledge' dates back to the 17th century and essentially protects them from being libelled for anything they may say in parliament. It is an important rule, allowing MP's freedom to raise issues and questions in the House.
By using it to try and cover their asses on fraud is an absolute disgrace. It is as good as admitting that they think they are above the law. It is yet another nail in the coffin of public perception of MP's.
If anyone in America wants to know how you get all the public against all the government? LOOK INTO THEIR EXPENSES! Over half of our MP's have been forced to pay back more than £1.2m. I'd be very surprised if it wasn't the same in every democratic government. It's good fodder at times of recession... expecially if those expenses include 'cleaning the moat' (I shit you not...!)
Thursday, 4 February 2010
Fucking Hell, are we not in 2010 or what?
Heres the link: http://www.khurak.net/charla-nash-pictu ... ck-004711/
The website itself doesn't appear racist in the slightest (though that's only after a brief viewing), just a shitload of news stories. Yet how in the hell could that blatent, disgusting racism just slip by the editor? It's American I think... is there no regulatory group they can be reported to?
I cannot find any information beyond references to the first names of the contributors, only a straight up email form. So get on it people! Show your disgust, and if anyone has any info on how I can get a phone number for someone behind this let me know!
Update: 6/feb
It seems that the contributor name of the above mentioned post on khurak.net is 'shezab'. A bit of googling and looking back through his post history it looks like he's a kook republican fan who's posts have a distinctly racist/ignorant theme.
Unfortunately, looks like the email to the site is fucked (surprisingly they don't advertise the address itself..). More unfortunately, that ridiculous monstrosity above is still there too.
Friday, 29 January 2010
Blair at the Chilcott enquiry
I have to say I am appalled. Blair, looking nervous at the beginning, soon realised it really was going to be this easy. The cosy chat he had today with the enquiry team was an utter disgrace. See here for a break-down on the main reasons why.
I have something to say however that I have yet to read elsewhere. It requires no guesswork or questions to be answered, it merely means recognising the immorality of what he admits too already!
So, here's his argument. After 9/11, the concept of risk had grown regarding the danger of terrorism. The intelligence that was available to him showed beyond doubt that WMD's existed. Given that Iraq had been uncooperative for 10 years of sanctions, the post-9/11 environment demanded that something be done. The risk was there and had to be dealt with.
This alone in my mind is confession of guilt. Let me break it down. 9/11 and Iraq are utterly unrelated. However repugnent he may be, Saddam had shown absolutely no inclination to commit terrorist acts on our shores, as would presumably have been required to claim self-defense. 9/11 showed where the threat lay, and it wasn't state sponsered. Hell, Saudi Arabia represented a greater risk (A tyranny who citizens were directly part of 9/11) but we didn't go for them...
Yet he treats it all as part of the same narrative. In order to minimise the risk of a terrorist attack on UK soil, we must conduct a full-scale war in another country. Didn't your mama ever tell you two wrongs don't make a right? Did he think for a minute about the far more real 'risk' to the millions of Iraqis that such a war would entail?
In summary: A few thousand MIGHT die of a terrorist attack. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis WILL die or become refugees in the event of war. His whole argument rests on the notion of nationalism being a justification! Does No-one see that?!
We live in a world that we now have to share collectively. We MUST adopt thinking that regards ALL humans on an equal footing. The nationalistic concept of social-contract simply will not do if it leads to decisions such as these. Old thinking combined with modern communication technology equals very fucking bad idea!
He says the world is better without Saddam and that we are safer as a nation? Sure, if we are being hypothetical and saying that by snapping our fingers he and his sons disappeared then OK, I'd agree with you. If it is as the result of a decade long occupation with hundreds of thousands killed in the fighting, resulting in mass indignation from all corners of the world whilst simultaneously continuing to support those tyrannies and militaristic regimes that are nice to us or not easy targets (Saudi, China, Israel), then NO! It has NOT made us safer.
It has made us villains in the eyes of the world. Rendition, Support for Guantanemo, Blackwater, Abu Graib, The Oil contracts, the rigged Afghan elections, the BAe bribery scandal, the scandelous post-war debacle.... and he couldn't find a regret amongst all that shit? You know what that list looks like? It looks like what baddies do.
People reply, "but Saddam killed his own people!". Bullshit. You ask a Kurd back in 1988, anytime in fact, whether they are 'Saddam's people' and see what they say. They are no more his people than the Irish were UK's people way back when. To Saddam they were alien, foreigners, unworthy of consideration. |Perhaps we should stop putting up with the same thinking being applied by our own most gracious leaders? Saddam was a cunt but what are we going to do? Invade every country led by a cunt? Or just the easy targets with sanctions already in place, awaiting activation as justification so as to create a nice, easy, oily target?
I have something to say however that I have yet to read elsewhere. It requires no guesswork or questions to be answered, it merely means recognising the immorality of what he admits too already!
So, here's his argument. After 9/11, the concept of risk had grown regarding the danger of terrorism. The intelligence that was available to him showed beyond doubt that WMD's existed. Given that Iraq had been uncooperative for 10 years of sanctions, the post-9/11 environment demanded that something be done. The risk was there and had to be dealt with.
This alone in my mind is confession of guilt. Let me break it down. 9/11 and Iraq are utterly unrelated. However repugnent he may be, Saddam had shown absolutely no inclination to commit terrorist acts on our shores, as would presumably have been required to claim self-defense. 9/11 showed where the threat lay, and it wasn't state sponsered. Hell, Saudi Arabia represented a greater risk (A tyranny who citizens were directly part of 9/11) but we didn't go for them...
Yet he treats it all as part of the same narrative. In order to minimise the risk of a terrorist attack on UK soil, we must conduct a full-scale war in another country. Didn't your mama ever tell you two wrongs don't make a right? Did he think for a minute about the far more real 'risk' to the millions of Iraqis that such a war would entail?
In summary: A few thousand MIGHT die of a terrorist attack. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis WILL die or become refugees in the event of war. His whole argument rests on the notion of nationalism being a justification! Does No-one see that?!
We live in a world that we now have to share collectively. We MUST adopt thinking that regards ALL humans on an equal footing. The nationalistic concept of social-contract simply will not do if it leads to decisions such as these. Old thinking combined with modern communication technology equals very fucking bad idea!
He says the world is better without Saddam and that we are safer as a nation? Sure, if we are being hypothetical and saying that by snapping our fingers he and his sons disappeared then OK, I'd agree with you. If it is as the result of a decade long occupation with hundreds of thousands killed in the fighting, resulting in mass indignation from all corners of the world whilst simultaneously continuing to support those tyrannies and militaristic regimes that are nice to us or not easy targets (Saudi, China, Israel), then NO! It has NOT made us safer.
It has made us villains in the eyes of the world. Rendition, Support for Guantanemo, Blackwater, Abu Graib, The Oil contracts, the rigged Afghan elections, the BAe bribery scandal, the scandelous post-war debacle.... and he couldn't find a regret amongst all that shit? You know what that list looks like? It looks like what baddies do.
People reply, "but Saddam killed his own people!". Bullshit. You ask a Kurd back in 1988, anytime in fact, whether they are 'Saddam's people' and see what they say. They are no more his people than the Irish were UK's people way back when. To Saddam they were alien, foreigners, unworthy of consideration. |Perhaps we should stop putting up with the same thinking being applied by our own most gracious leaders? Saddam was a cunt but what are we going to do? Invade every country led by a cunt? Or just the easy targets with sanctions already in place, awaiting activation as justification so as to create a nice, easy, oily target?
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
Why the internet changes things...
I wrote this in reply to a very well written piece by a guy called Chris Hedges. It is spot on in it's analysis of America's "democracy" as 'inverted totalitarianism' but I felt it needed a bit of optimism to say the least.
"It isn't sustainable though. In order for it to be sustainable the web would have to be uninvented.
The full essay I wrote on why this is can be found at on my website.
In summary: Power structures remain intact only so long as it retains a monopoly on memetic production of culture. We are memeplexs (dawkins/dennett/blackmore), a combination of genes and memes. Control the memes and you control peoples concept of reality, identity and self. Lose control, and comparative memes are allowed in that can challenge and counter the rationale of those in power.
Religion, the state and now capitalism have all enjoyed historical periods of memetic monopoly, a chance to saturate culture with their memes not just in their own time but, through memetic artifacts (language, art etc), into the future as well. The religious memeplex lost ground to the state through the enlightenment. Modernism allowed the state to take its place, turning devoutly religious populations into religious, devoutly patriotic populations. Now that capitalism has completed its silent coup de te, populations are (less) religious, patriotic, devout defenders of capitalism, all displaying exactly the same characteristics of being adept at ignoring the evidence put before them.
The internet changes things. I can now diversify my memetic influences, coming to know the once unknown on a global level. And so are others, on the other side of the world. There are now people in every country of the world that would regard themselves as more memetically similar to each other than with the rulers of their respective countries.
Elites, both politicians and business the world over, share more memes with each other than with the common man they claim to represent. Democratisation of memetic production with a global reach augers the mother of all revolutions.
Capitalism is sowing the seeds of it's own destruction. Can you see them stopping in their quest to extend the internet to all corners of the globe? As more unknowns become knowns, the arguments of the ruling elite will sound ever more irrational. The state is by definition nationalistic; the new generation will be beyond that. The old generation was that way because they had nothing to compare it too. They had only the word of the state.
When there are no unknowns left, what will the politicians use to Induce fear? I predict that they will kill two birds with one stone. It will be those who exhibit a global morality, not just a nationalistic one. Rally the sheep to attack the first, and last, real threat to the status-quo.
"It isn't sustainable though. In order for it to be sustainable the web would have to be uninvented.
The full essay I wrote on why this is can be found at on my website.
In summary: Power structures remain intact only so long as it retains a monopoly on memetic production of culture. We are memeplexs (dawkins/dennett/blackmore), a combination of genes and memes. Control the memes and you control peoples concept of reality, identity and self. Lose control, and comparative memes are allowed in that can challenge and counter the rationale of those in power.
Religion, the state and now capitalism have all enjoyed historical periods of memetic monopoly, a chance to saturate culture with their memes not just in their own time but, through memetic artifacts (language, art etc), into the future as well. The religious memeplex lost ground to the state through the enlightenment. Modernism allowed the state to take its place, turning devoutly religious populations into religious, devoutly patriotic populations. Now that capitalism has completed its silent coup de te, populations are (less) religious, patriotic, devout defenders of capitalism, all displaying exactly the same characteristics of being adept at ignoring the evidence put before them.
The internet changes things. I can now diversify my memetic influences, coming to know the once unknown on a global level. And so are others, on the other side of the world. There are now people in every country of the world that would regard themselves as more memetically similar to each other than with the rulers of their respective countries.
Elites, both politicians and business the world over, share more memes with each other than with the common man they claim to represent. Democratisation of memetic production with a global reach augers the mother of all revolutions.
Capitalism is sowing the seeds of it's own destruction. Can you see them stopping in their quest to extend the internet to all corners of the globe? As more unknowns become knowns, the arguments of the ruling elite will sound ever more irrational. The state is by definition nationalistic; the new generation will be beyond that. The old generation was that way because they had nothing to compare it too. They had only the word of the state.
When there are no unknowns left, what will the politicians use to Induce fear? I predict that they will kill two birds with one stone. It will be those who exhibit a global morality, not just a nationalistic one. Rally the sheep to attack the first, and last, real threat to the status-quo.
Will the UK ever be subject to International law?
An interesting day today at the Chilcott Inquiry. Foreign office lawyers advising on the legality of the Iraq War today told the panel that they were in agreement that the war would be illegal without a second UN resolution (one actually resigned at the time). They also claimed that Goldsmith, the Attorney general, did a 180 degree turn in the time between sending a draft of his advice to Blair in January 03 (illegal) and the formal advice given in March (legal).
Leaving aside the dubious and "unprecendented" (according to said lawyer who resigned) act of giving a draft to a repcipient for comment when giving apparantly expert advice, it is clear that Goldsmith's 11th hour turnaround went against the general consensus of international lawyers convening on the matter. Goldsmith is up tomorrow... check out www.guardian.co.uk for good live comment.
Also, www.arrestblair.org is picking up steam. A bounty is being collected for people who attempt citizens arrests on Blair. At the time of writing the pot had grown to over £7000. 1/4 of the bounty to anyone who gets an attempted arrest in the news... good timing what with the recession and all.
Also, it appears that the coroners report on the suicide of David Kelly, whistle blower to the BBC of the 'sexed-up' Iraw war dossier delivered by Labour has been classified for the next 70 years!!! Five doctors requesting information through freedom of information laws were told this by people apprantly unaware they were meant to continue keeping it secret. Why a suicide, as the conclusion of investigations stated it was, would need classifying for 70 years seems incredibly suspicious to say the least.
After the Dutch ruling that the war was illegal, there is mounting anger in the UK at the moment. More and more is coming out about the dubious nature of the build-up to the Iraq war.
We can but hope that one day those who commit acts of aggression get what they deserve. Kissinger, Bolton, Blair... it's nuts how just because you come from the 'moral' West, you seem to be above suspicion. It's as though the notion 'everyone but us' is implicit in the concept of International Law.
Leaving aside the dubious and "unprecendented" (according to said lawyer who resigned) act of giving a draft to a repcipient for comment when giving apparantly expert advice, it is clear that Goldsmith's 11th hour turnaround went against the general consensus of international lawyers convening on the matter. Goldsmith is up tomorrow... check out www.guardian.co.uk for good live comment.
Also, www.arrestblair.org is picking up steam. A bounty is being collected for people who attempt citizens arrests on Blair. At the time of writing the pot had grown to over £7000. 1/4 of the bounty to anyone who gets an attempted arrest in the news... good timing what with the recession and all.
Also, it appears that the coroners report on the suicide of David Kelly, whistle blower to the BBC of the 'sexed-up' Iraw war dossier delivered by Labour has been classified for the next 70 years!!! Five doctors requesting information through freedom of information laws were told this by people apprantly unaware they were meant to continue keeping it secret. Why a suicide, as the conclusion of investigations stated it was, would need classifying for 70 years seems incredibly suspicious to say the least.
After the Dutch ruling that the war was illegal, there is mounting anger in the UK at the moment. More and more is coming out about the dubious nature of the build-up to the Iraq war.
We can but hope that one day those who commit acts of aggression get what they deserve. Kissinger, Bolton, Blair... it's nuts how just because you come from the 'moral' West, you seem to be above suspicion. It's as though the notion 'everyone but us' is implicit in the concept of International Law.
Sunday, 24 January 2010
An Inspiring Story
The BBC recently ran a news story about a Gitmo guard who tracked down a couple of innocent detainees to say Sorry. They became friends and showed that we do actually hold more in common than our governments, particularly the U.S, would have us believe.
Some people still bleat that there are no innocent Gitmo detainees. Either they don't know about the fact that the Northern Alliance were selling any foreign person they came across to the Americans... wouldn't you if they were offering $5000 a head, or a dozen years wages in real terms?
Fucking apologist Morons.
Watch the clip and be inspired.
Some people still bleat that there are no innocent Gitmo detainees. Either they don't know about the fact that the Northern Alliance were selling any foreign person they came across to the Americans... wouldn't you if they were offering $5000 a head, or a dozen years wages in real terms?
Fucking apologist Morons.
Watch the clip and be inspired.
Saturday, 23 January 2010
An optimistic view of Human Nature: The Venus Project or The End of Capitalism
I have recently been debating the ideas behind the Venus Project with a capitalist right-winger from the US on the Dan Carlin message boards. After coming back at me with straw-men and a limited graft of History, I thought I should go deeper into the philosophical foundations such a vision both recognises and requires. The Venus Project is a conceptual plan for a post-capitalist resource-based economy. It turned into something of a rant, so I thought I'd share it on here, a bit of optimism to try to balance the negativity all around us...
Post subject: Re: The Venus Project
Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:42 pm Their (Venus Project) whole concept rests upon the adaptability of human nature, the fact that what we see as the self is a cultural construct, al a memetics, something that until recently western thought neglected. It isn't hippy shit, it's a view of human nature shared by Dawkins and Dennett amongst many others.
Their view, one I have come to understand independently, is (very simplistically) that we are a being of both genetic and memetic evolution, hardware/software respectively. Genes denote the ingredients, the potentials, whilst the environment develops this potential. This includes ones memetic make-up, determined by ones course through life: all the ideas, tastes (not sense taste..), beliefs.. everything you learn and imitate, the information input/output.
Our environment is now dominated by memes, by culture. The 'software' is man-made, a menage of prior beliefs. This is scary for some people. It gives rise to thoughts of social engineering. But that's only bad if it's enforced engineering. What memetic evolutionary theory (dawkins) shows, what History shows (Hegel), is that society as a mixing whole has more power in engineering their own collective intelligence than the state. The individual now constructs society, they do not have society forced upon them. This is the trend if you give people freedom. This has only been allowed to happen because capitalism preached freedom for the individual. The state and capitalism were necessary, vital, for the explosion of memetic transmission globally.
We can only progress incrementally, lest those less scrupulous gain to clear an advantage. An evolutionary adaptive system can only proceed with incremental trends in long-term change. Perhaps when moving between dictatorial, heredital rule and ultimate freedom such exploitative capitalism is inevitable? It is most certainly not final. Fukuyama should be ashamed to be considered a Historian of any sort. Rule number 1: learn from mistakes of the past.
I am no enemy of capitalism. I am an enemy of the immorality displayed by those who have grown powerful because of it. Every age, every generation, grows in the world of the old. This is why youth are idealistic, they are forced to live according to moral codes laid down in the past: nationalism, imperialism, military might.
What Hegel was witness to was reason as the driving force of History. Why? We are rational beings. Unless one is insane, we follow rational causes. We would not have survived long otherwise. It follows that cause and effect governs, to enough of a degree, our decisions, the course of History. Everyone wants security, safety.
Yet we are still, to various degrees, like animals when it comes to emotion. We fear the unknown. It has ever been thus and governments throughout time immemorial have used this in retaining and expanding their power.
However, we can equally feel empathy toward the known, the relatable, an obvious evolutionary advantage. As capitalism searches for ever more markets, communication technology will be spread to all corners of the globe. In this virtual world, there are no borders (the exceptions proving the rule). As it does so, the unkown becomes the known. Groups, empathy, understanding, solidarity... all will grow as technology becomes ubiquitous. I see it happening everyday. The generational gap in terms of breadth of global empathy of this Internet generation is sizes of magnitude greater than anything before. The West used to hate blacks. Then, the state acted as a force for good, enforcing mixing until enough people made enough black friends and saw enough black culture to come to know them, realise the commonalities instead of listening to the hysteria of narrow-minded people. When we come to know the sweatshop workers, when we begin to relate to the oppressed who suffer know because of the very same historical legacies that engorge us now, will governments again step in do do the right thing? Or will they do what's right for those whom they know most well, those they relate to... capitalists?
What unknowns will be left to hide behind, to suppress the free minds of the many in an effort to maintain the inequality? Such fear-mongering will come to seem evermore irrational; politics and high-finance ever more apart from the realities of every day life.
We are relativistic beings. We judge according to that which we know. 24-hour rolling coverage, native peoples blogging their own stories, individuals connected world-wide, soon to be seamless, intuitive, speech activated connectivity. We will realise that we are all not as different as our current masters believe. With every Haiti there comes a collective reflection, a mental comparison between those mothers and orphans and those men in suits and private planes, both as distant and alien from your own yet one reeking of need and neglect, the other of greed and excess.
This is what they understand at Venus I think, formed not from grandios idealism but from an understanding of cognitive science, from an understanding of global trends and from taking a systems approach to problem solving.
They can do this because for Venus to be possible, it would require slow, gradual acceptance from the people themselves. It is a thought-experiment based upon the notion that as we come to know each other we become more moral. There is no notion of force, no desire for imposition. Listen to the old guy who is the original creative idea behind it: his message that we can be free from notions of prejudice and nonsensical political catch-all's or 'isms is incredibly refreshing.
I refuse to accept that my individuality is derived from the job i do. 80% of work available here in Brighton is sales related. By your token, their individuality is tied to cold-calling. Now that is scary, and imposed upon us simply by necessity and Historical happen-stance.
Oh!, the capacity for individuality when everyone is free to do what they want? To play and write music, create art, play sports, collaborate on whatever projects they wish, a world of creation, not a world of jobs that take a majority of your best waking life just so that you can live. No time, no energy simply for you to be you.
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
Here's the Plan..
What I intend to do with my pseudo-baiting is this. I am going to write to various groups with various maladies that have been affecting me lately. I will add to this some sceptical remark about science based medicine and a plea for help.
I have emailed a couple of doctors requesting ideas for symptoms:
1) consistent with a serious illness/condition that urgently requires treatment with science based medicine.
2) whose appearance together would signal a clear red flag warning for any properly trained, competent doctor
If the respondent fails to advise me to seek medical assistance, they will be named and shamed. They will be fully informed of the consequences had it been a real email.
Does anyone have any suggestions for such symptoms? Is anyone aware of any body such respondents could be reported to?
I'll keep you posted!
Amendum: I will also be naming and praising those who do not endanger people for profit.
I have emailed a couple of doctors requesting ideas for symptoms:
1) consistent with a serious illness/condition that urgently requires treatment with science based medicine.
2) whose appearance together would signal a clear red flag warning for any properly trained, competent doctor
If the respondent fails to advise me to seek medical assistance, they will be named and shamed. They will be fully informed of the consequences had it been a real email.
Does anyone have any suggestions for such symptoms? Is anyone aware of any body such respondents could be reported to?
I'll keep you posted!
Amendum: I will also be naming and praising those who do not endanger people for profit.
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
Oh and for heavens sake...
Don't forget to check out Skeptics Guide to the Universe, only the best damned thing on the interwebby thing. Pulled me back from some dark, castaneda-related, youthful transgressions and set me back in the right direction!
You can find them at www.theskepticsguide.org, cannot recommend them enough!
(aint it funny how, for an atheist, I seem to use a lot of religious terminology? Amazing to think how much that memetic force has permeated through time. I chuckle to think of the religious people destined to find my page through mistaken search hits...)
You can find them at www.theskepticsguide.org, cannot recommend them enough!
(aint it funny how, for an atheist, I seem to use a lot of religious terminology? Amazing to think how much that memetic force has permeated through time. I chuckle to think of the religious people destined to find my page through mistaken search hits...)
Applying a bit of critical thinking...
I've been considering a new idea involving calling out those pseudo-scientific institutions and companies using the quite miraculous-in-itself placebo effect to their own, irrational (though highly profitable) ends.
Firstly, as seems always necessary when dealing with the irrational: a disclaimer of sorts.
1) I happen to think that 'alternative medicine' does actually have something to teach science-based medicine, or rather the political decisions behind science based medicine. Any doctor or nurse I am sure would agree that not having the time to get to know patients properly, having to whisk them in and out and under pressure to get the numbers through as quickly as possible. The relegation of humans in need to mere bureaucracy is clearly not in the best interests of the patient. If pseudo-science can do what it can do through placebo, is science based medicine taking that into account? I don't see how stripping the doctor-patient relationship of possible placebo effects is a mistake.
2) I do not think that everyone into pseudo-science are outright fraudsters. There are many ways in which our minds are simply shit. Period. I'm convinced that I keep putting my USB in upside-down every single time but I know deep down that's bullshit. It's around 50%. Obviously. It's just that I only notice when it jams and I shout "Aaargh! Not again!". I fully accept that people really believe these things 100%. But what's new about people really believing make-believe stuff? There are however people who are actually laughing all the way to the bank.
So, now that's out of the way, here's the plan. I'm going to find websites and groups proffering these magical ointments and such like and I'm going to play the innocent enquiry. Then I will become not so innocent. It should be pretty fun to see what weird and wonderful things they promise to cure with the hocus-pocus pocus as well as providing a fascinating insight into 'alternative rationalisations'.
AN EXAMPLE OF HOW EASY IT IS TO APPLY SOME CRITICAL THINKING...
As a starting point, I thought I would go look at the British Homeopathic Association website to see what sort of craziness I would be up against. It's a very flashy affair full of calming, fashionable buzz words just oozing both credibility and serenity. The ever-growing shame that is inclusion in the NHS is the first thing you see: let's face it, what is more likely to give apparent validation than that! It's almost (well, it's no where near) enough to be glad the U.S don't have an NHS... imagine what kooky shit they would get on it, opening all sorts of doors...
Second thing I see on the site is "The evidence for Homeopathy. There are 60 randomised controlled trials demonstrating homeopathy has a positive effect." I happen to already know that current (independent) consensus is that there have been no high-quality (double-blind, placebo controlled, large groups etc.) studies showing a positive for homeopathy, so I click the link expecting to see some pretty lame examples. One that caught my eye in particular claimed homeopathy could have beneficial effect for 'mild traumatic brain injury'. Aside from sounding like an oxymoron in itself, the idea that water with memory could help with this condition made me chuckle.
The Internet is a wonderful thing. Within 10 seconds I had the journal edition in which the study of published and a few more saw the abstract for the study itself. I wasn't going to pay for the whole thing but it gave what I wanted to know.. double blind, check. Placebo-control, check. Group of 60.. not bad, and the call for studies to replicate the data at the end seemed genuine. Conclusions... unequivocally positive in the apparent effects of magic water. Knowing what I know, this would make it unique, so perhaps there is some other possible bias, in the 'scientists' themselves.
Notice the inverted commas. I took the first name off the list of collaborators, one Edward H. Chapman, and stuck it in google. God the Internet is a wonderful thing. Here is the first hit:
1996;97;779 Pediatrics Edward H. Chapman Homeopathic Medicine by EH Chapman - 1996 - Cited by 1 - Related articles - All 2 versions EDWARD. H. CHAPMAN,. MD, DHT,. PRESIDENT. American. Institute of Homeopathy. Denver,. CO 80220. REFERENCES. 1. Sampson. W, London. W. Analysis ...pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/97/5/779.pdf
President of the American Institute of Homeopathy. I wasn't holding out hope (for all of the few seconds this took) for something that clean cut. Let me spell it out to you, if you haven't already twigged, why this is so important in discrediting this study.
HE IS PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF HOMEOPATHY!
Just in what kind of situation could you envisage him coming out of that with a negative? If Homeopathy studies came out negative all the time, HE WOULD BE OUT OF A JOB. That is why the only positive studies that come come out are either of such bad quality as to be ignored or by homeopaths themselves. In fact, a true scientist would recognise the conflict of interest and already know in advance that any study undertaken by them will knot be taken seriously! So why does he do it... who else will?! If you are asking yourself, "well, couldn't this apply to all scientists?" then the answer is no. Sensible critiques of funding cycles aside (and the funds would dry up when nothing came off it anyway...), there is an important difference: If a physicist comes out with a negative result, physics does not stop existing! He can go back and work out why it didn't work. That is how science works: falsifiability.
This guys entire lifes-work is at stake, his entire livlihood (and I would guess it's a pretty nice one too) hanging on these results. Besides that, he already 'knows' that homeopathy works! It's like trying to conduct experiments to find out if witches exist and allowing the Inquisition to do it, insisting we listen as they proclaim that, surprisingly, witches really do exist!
It is so very, very easy to utilise the web, grant yourself God-like powers and start thinking for yourself. The entire premise of homeopathy and the rest is that no other scientists are confirming their 'results' because they are all part of a grand conspiracy involving big-pharma and corporations. Don't give them any more consideration than you would a scientologist.
I will keep the blog posted about any interesting responses. Full responses will be available at my website.
Firstly, as seems always necessary when dealing with the irrational: a disclaimer of sorts.
1) I happen to think that 'alternative medicine' does actually have something to teach science-based medicine, or rather the political decisions behind science based medicine. Any doctor or nurse I am sure would agree that not having the time to get to know patients properly, having to whisk them in and out and under pressure to get the numbers through as quickly as possible. The relegation of humans in need to mere bureaucracy is clearly not in the best interests of the patient. If pseudo-science can do what it can do through placebo, is science based medicine taking that into account? I don't see how stripping the doctor-patient relationship of possible placebo effects is a mistake.
2) I do not think that everyone into pseudo-science are outright fraudsters. There are many ways in which our minds are simply shit. Period. I'm convinced that I keep putting my USB in upside-down every single time but I know deep down that's bullshit. It's around 50%. Obviously. It's just that I only notice when it jams and I shout "Aaargh! Not again!". I fully accept that people really believe these things 100%. But what's new about people really believing make-believe stuff? There are however people who are actually laughing all the way to the bank.
So, now that's out of the way, here's the plan. I'm going to find websites and groups proffering these magical ointments and such like and I'm going to play the innocent enquiry. Then I will become not so innocent. It should be pretty fun to see what weird and wonderful things they promise to cure with the hocus-pocus pocus as well as providing a fascinating insight into 'alternative rationalisations'.
AN EXAMPLE OF HOW EASY IT IS TO APPLY SOME CRITICAL THINKING...
As a starting point, I thought I would go look at the British Homeopathic Association website to see what sort of craziness I would be up against. It's a very flashy affair full of calming, fashionable buzz words just oozing both credibility and serenity. The ever-growing shame that is inclusion in the NHS is the first thing you see: let's face it, what is more likely to give apparent validation than that! It's almost (well, it's no where near) enough to be glad the U.S don't have an NHS... imagine what kooky shit they would get on it, opening all sorts of doors...
Second thing I see on the site is "The evidence for Homeopathy. There are 60 randomised controlled trials demonstrating homeopathy has a positive effect." I happen to already know that current (independent) consensus is that there have been no high-quality (double-blind, placebo controlled, large groups etc.) studies showing a positive for homeopathy, so I click the link expecting to see some pretty lame examples. One that caught my eye in particular claimed homeopathy could have beneficial effect for 'mild traumatic brain injury'. Aside from sounding like an oxymoron in itself, the idea that water with memory could help with this condition made me chuckle.
The Internet is a wonderful thing. Within 10 seconds I had the journal edition in which the study of published and a few more saw the abstract for the study itself. I wasn't going to pay for the whole thing but it gave what I wanted to know.. double blind, check. Placebo-control, check. Group of 60.. not bad, and the call for studies to replicate the data at the end seemed genuine. Conclusions... unequivocally positive in the apparent effects of magic water. Knowing what I know, this would make it unique, so perhaps there is some other possible bias, in the 'scientists' themselves.
Notice the inverted commas. I took the first name off the list of collaborators, one Edward H. Chapman, and stuck it in google. God the Internet is a wonderful thing. Here is the first hit:
1996;97;779 Pediatrics Edward H. Chapman Homeopathic Medicine by EH Chapman - 1996 - Cited by 1 - Related articles - All 2 versions EDWARD. H. CHAPMAN,. MD, DHT,. PRESIDENT. American. Institute of Homeopathy. Denver,. CO 80220. REFERENCES. 1. Sampson. W, London. W. Analysis ...pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/97/5/779.pdf
President of the American Institute of Homeopathy. I wasn't holding out hope (for all of the few seconds this took) for something that clean cut. Let me spell it out to you, if you haven't already twigged, why this is so important in discrediting this study.
HE IS PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF HOMEOPATHY!
Just in what kind of situation could you envisage him coming out of that with a negative? If Homeopathy studies came out negative all the time, HE WOULD BE OUT OF A JOB. That is why the only positive studies that come come out are either of such bad quality as to be ignored or by homeopaths themselves. In fact, a true scientist would recognise the conflict of interest and already know in advance that any study undertaken by them will knot be taken seriously! So why does he do it... who else will?! If you are asking yourself, "well, couldn't this apply to all scientists?" then the answer is no. Sensible critiques of funding cycles aside (and the funds would dry up when nothing came off it anyway...), there is an important difference: If a physicist comes out with a negative result, physics does not stop existing! He can go back and work out why it didn't work. That is how science works: falsifiability.
This guys entire lifes-work is at stake, his entire livlihood (and I would guess it's a pretty nice one too) hanging on these results. Besides that, he already 'knows' that homeopathy works! It's like trying to conduct experiments to find out if witches exist and allowing the Inquisition to do it, insisting we listen as they proclaim that, surprisingly, witches really do exist!
It is so very, very easy to utilise the web, grant yourself God-like powers and start thinking for yourself. The entire premise of homeopathy and the rest is that no other scientists are confirming their 'results' because they are all part of a grand conspiracy involving big-pharma and corporations. Don't give them any more consideration than you would a scientologist.
I will keep the blog posted about any interesting responses. Full responses will be available at my website.
Sunday, 17 January 2010
Michael Scheuer: An exception to Godwin's Law
I recently happened to hear someone talking about Godwin's Law on Radio 5 today having somewhat optimistically hoped that England may actually still be batting (no such luck). If you haven't heard of it before, it's the idea that in any message board, given time, the level of probability of someone invoking Hitler, or the Nazi's, approaches 1. Once it happens, any further chance of meaningful debate is extinguished, the debate having sunk to inexcusable nonsense (unless, that is, it happens to be a history of the second world war blog or some such, obviously.).
This idea made me turn my mind back to that odorous arse Michael Scheuer on Newsnight last Thursday. Michael Scheuer is an ex-CIA employee specialising somehow in Bin laden and Al Qaeda. Strangely, he has been an out-spoken critic of the wisdom of America's overly-friendly relations with Israel and Saudi Arabia. I say strangely, because here he suggests killing and imprisoning millions of people who agree with him. If someone could explain that to me I'd be very grateful.
By the way, if the name sounds familiar, that might be because he was the guy on Glenn Beck's show saying that what America really needed was another huge terrorist attack to bring back that good old unity, something of a passion for Beck too
Now, I cannot stand flippant Nazi comparisons. Nothing betrays ones historical ignorance more. This fucker though... well, I simply cannot apply Godwin's Law to this one. This one is right in context. I have transcribed some of the more unbelievable quotes for your widening eyes...
MS: If we are not fighting Islam, then a large part of Islam is fighting us. 43.30
Presenter: Do you not see these as a tiny, tiny minority?
MS: Hardly Ma'am. 80% of Muslims around the world see the U.S, British and Western foreign policy as an assault on their faith and their brethren and whatever percentage of that 80% is fighting us it is growing around the world and so long as we continue to support Israel and Arab tyrannies this war will continue to grow. 44:30
Well, if it would mean falling out with Arab Tyrannies then.. and besides, who's he kidding? At best he could hope to form an argument against the most fanatical 0.01%, but 80%? Surely that'd be merely anyone who had the audacity to grumble a bit about U.S crop subsidies ruining their livlihoods?
This is a type of prisoner that we had better get used to capturing and for the first time in Western history, we're capturing people who may never be able to be released... and that's simply the reality of the situation. 45.49
Because now we face a greater threat than at any time in Western History..? Someone please beat this guy with a massive History book. Repeatedly.
Presenter: ....and that could amount to a billion people?
MS: Hardly that ma'am, you know, if he (the other guest on the show) was listening he would have heard what i said. The reliable polls that we have across the Muslim world show that Muslims who fight us are motivated by our foreign policy, and that 80% of Muslims believe our foreign policy is an attack 46.13
Here, he refuted the other guests calculation that 80% of Muslims is around a billion people by ingeniously suggesting he hadn't listened before giving exactly the same figure. Granted, he said 'whatever percentage of those..' but he also said it would grow so long as America carried on it's controversial foreign policies. At no point does simply changing the foreign policy seem to occur to him, presumably meaning that if the U.S needs to imprison that many people it would... actually as though they could.
Presenter: ...so what you would do?
MS: I would either kill them on the battlefield or put them into prisoners of war camp ma'am 46.33
So, Michael Scheuer, formerly of the CIA and (once?) influential, well, scaremonger, thinks that a large part of the worlds Muslim population should be killed or imprisoned if they do not like America's foreign policy, just as he doesn't... WTF? How is this rationalisation possible in a sane person? Is he like a mercenary talking head, willing to change views when the needs fit? Or is it a clever, self-sacrificing double-bluff trying to scare/entice the GOP hawks to join in?
The gross, almost schizophrenic, contradictions in this man are incredible... though not surprising. His form of nationalistic ideology, ignoring as it does that most rational of laws, cause and effect, has to be blind to contradictions for it to have taken root so firmly. He actually admits that people around the world are pissed off with Americas foreign policy, going so far as to admit that the war will continue to grow so long as we continue to support Israel and Arab tyrannies!
(That bit did actually surprise me. You could easily imagine an indoctrinated patriot willing to do anything for his country, but subjugating 80% of Muslims so that we can continue supporting Arab Tyrannies? Wow, that's some ballsy, and utterly perverted reasoning.). Hell, this is an argument leftists use for the complete opposite conclusion, one that doesn't lead to mass subjugation by a fascist, Naziesque regime. There, I said it, but unlike 99.9% of other times, it is in context.
The idea that a government should imprison or kill the majority of a people so that their foreign policy can do what it wants, regardless of the hurt it causes is comparable to Nazism. It is racist (you think he'd do this to white Europeans pissed at the foreign policy?), it's authoritarian (you think most of the American people would want that?) and, for that reason, would entail state, probably dictatorship, control of the (war) economy and it would require the subjugation of the majority of a religious group. Hell, with his criticisms of Obama being inexperienced and naive, you'd think he was longing for strong, iron-willed leader who would stop at nothing to enforce their Ideology onto the world. Sound familiar?
How is this guy on TV? He's almost a parody, some Pythonesque, psycho General who's list of conditions required to achieve moral recognition reads like his personal profile on facebook. How is he not denounced everyday in his line of work as a fascist? How are such contradictions held intact by someone who is clearly an experienced part of Washington life?
The cause and effect here worries me.. did being in the CIA produce this guy? What does this say for the culture there?
This idea made me turn my mind back to that odorous arse Michael Scheuer on Newsnight last Thursday. Michael Scheuer is an ex-CIA employee specialising somehow in Bin laden and Al Qaeda. Strangely, he has been an out-spoken critic of the wisdom of America's overly-friendly relations with Israel and Saudi Arabia. I say strangely, because here he suggests killing and imprisoning millions of people who agree with him. If someone could explain that to me I'd be very grateful.
By the way, if the name sounds familiar, that might be because he was the guy on Glenn Beck's show saying that what America really needed was another huge terrorist attack to bring back that good old unity, something of a passion for Beck too
Now, I cannot stand flippant Nazi comparisons. Nothing betrays ones historical ignorance more. This fucker though... well, I simply cannot apply Godwin's Law to this one. This one is right in context. I have transcribed some of the more unbelievable quotes for your widening eyes...
MS: If we are not fighting Islam, then a large part of Islam is fighting us. 43.30
Presenter: Do you not see these as a tiny, tiny minority?
MS: Hardly Ma'am. 80% of Muslims around the world see the U.S, British and Western foreign policy as an assault on their faith and their brethren and whatever percentage of that 80% is fighting us it is growing around the world and so long as we continue to support Israel and Arab tyrannies this war will continue to grow. 44:30
Well, if it would mean falling out with Arab Tyrannies then.. and besides, who's he kidding? At best he could hope to form an argument against the most fanatical 0.01%, but 80%? Surely that'd be merely anyone who had the audacity to grumble a bit about U.S crop subsidies ruining their livlihoods?
This is a type of prisoner that we had better get used to capturing and for the first time in Western history, we're capturing people who may never be able to be released... and that's simply the reality of the situation. 45.49
Because now we face a greater threat than at any time in Western History..? Someone please beat this guy with a massive History book. Repeatedly.
Presenter: ....and that could amount to a billion people?
MS: Hardly that ma'am, you know, if he (the other guest on the show) was listening he would have heard what i said. The reliable polls that we have across the Muslim world show that Muslims who fight us are motivated by our foreign policy, and that 80% of Muslims believe our foreign policy is an attack 46.13
Here, he refuted the other guests calculation that 80% of Muslims is around a billion people by ingeniously suggesting he hadn't listened before giving exactly the same figure. Granted, he said 'whatever percentage of those..' but he also said it would grow so long as America carried on it's controversial foreign policies. At no point does simply changing the foreign policy seem to occur to him, presumably meaning that if the U.S needs to imprison that many people it would... actually as though they could.
Presenter: ...so what you would do?
MS: I would either kill them on the battlefield or put them into prisoners of war camp ma'am 46.33
So, Michael Scheuer, formerly of the CIA and (once?) influential, well, scaremonger, thinks that a large part of the worlds Muslim population should be killed or imprisoned if they do not like America's foreign policy, just as he doesn't... WTF? How is this rationalisation possible in a sane person? Is he like a mercenary talking head, willing to change views when the needs fit? Or is it a clever, self-sacrificing double-bluff trying to scare/entice the GOP hawks to join in?
The gross, almost schizophrenic, contradictions in this man are incredible... though not surprising. His form of nationalistic ideology, ignoring as it does that most rational of laws, cause and effect, has to be blind to contradictions for it to have taken root so firmly. He actually admits that people around the world are pissed off with Americas foreign policy, going so far as to admit that the war will continue to grow so long as we continue to support Israel and Arab tyrannies!
(That bit did actually surprise me. You could easily imagine an indoctrinated patriot willing to do anything for his country, but subjugating 80% of Muslims so that we can continue supporting Arab Tyrannies? Wow, that's some ballsy, and utterly perverted reasoning.). Hell, this is an argument leftists use for the complete opposite conclusion, one that doesn't lead to mass subjugation by a fascist, Naziesque regime. There, I said it, but unlike 99.9% of other times, it is in context.
The idea that a government should imprison or kill the majority of a people so that their foreign policy can do what it wants, regardless of the hurt it causes is comparable to Nazism. It is racist (you think he'd do this to white Europeans pissed at the foreign policy?), it's authoritarian (you think most of the American people would want that?) and, for that reason, would entail state, probably dictatorship, control of the (war) economy and it would require the subjugation of the majority of a religious group. Hell, with his criticisms of Obama being inexperienced and naive, you'd think he was longing for strong, iron-willed leader who would stop at nothing to enforce their Ideology onto the world. Sound familiar?
How is this guy on TV? He's almost a parody, some Pythonesque, psycho General who's list of conditions required to achieve moral recognition reads like his personal profile on facebook. How is he not denounced everyday in his line of work as a fascist? How are such contradictions held intact by someone who is clearly an experienced part of Washington life?
The cause and effect here worries me.. did being in the CIA produce this guy? What does this say for the culture there?
Thursday, 28 February 2008
Pivotal times for the future of Democracy in the U.K
Apologies to those readers whom happen to live outside of these shores, though in todays world none of us can ignore what happens to each other. The days of caring about ones own country first and last have got to end. To this end, I want to share with you something that has been bothering me for quite some time which was wonderfully articlulated in this article in the Guardian on tuesday: I have tried to search for it online but could not find a link. Its by Simon Jenkins and it is about the crucial point at which democracy finds itself here in the UK. I myself can attest to what he says.
First, a couple of facts (no reference given in article, though, in my experience, Simon Jenkins is one of the more objective journalists there).
'In France there is an elected official for every 120 people...in Gernmany the ratio is 1:250. In Britain it is 1:2'600'
This is quite staggering. Yet it gets even more so.
'In France the smallest unit of discretionary local government is the commune, with an average population of 1500. In Germany that figure is 5000 people. In Britain the avaerage district population is 120'000...'
The tabloids have been constantly running 'breakdown of society' story for years now and every response by the government has involved strengthening police powers, getting more police onto the streets and handing out Anti-Social Behavioural Orders (or ASBOS) to thousand of kids and teenagers complete with curfews and restrictions on travel. All this does is pander to the tabloids demands to 'get tough' on youth crime and anti-social behaviour. Result? Our prisons are full, the prison populations having risen by more than 50% under the Blair government (perhaps something do to with the over 3000 new prosecutable laws they introduced) and, apparantly, the situation is just as bad as before.
The answer? Well, the Sun tabloid went further than even i expected, running a Poll on the Death Penalty Debate (something that completely passed me by...as far as i can tell, the 'debate' consisted of a telephone poll of Sun readers and a list of abbreviated text messages from people who cant even spell properly. The result of this 'debate'? That '99% of you wanted it back'... No. 99% of Sun readers, when exposed to hysteria and exploitative, hyped up reporting every morning with no other intellectual stimulus to inform them, choose to abandon all morals and ask for the death penalty back. Interesting... but only as an example of how indoctrination can work...
How in hell is giving kids the badge of honour of an ASBO and locking people away left, right and centre going to help with anything? Jenkins makes the right call as far as i'm concerned. Fact is, if you have a grievance in this country, you go to the police. Not the local mayor, or elected official. The police. The same police who violently break up peaceful demonstrations as lackeys to the government. Im sure there are some nice ones out there, who do the job for the right reasons. Fact is, a hammer might hope to be used to hammer in nails. Its just a tool. It does what it is asked, even if that means hammering someones head.
The police are now the only face of the state that the people see. They are the keepers of public order, according to whatever law the government tells them to abide by. It could be to spy on MP's as happened recently to a Muslim labour MP when visiting a constituant in prison or enacting the Serious Organised Crime Act which prohibits peaceful demonstration within a mile of Parliament without permission. When this is the sole connection between people and state, especially at a time of increasing state parranoia and restrictions on civil liberties, there can be no harmony at the local level. Peoples neighbourhoods are run by faceless distant officials with little power to do anything without the say so of central government.
Until people feel that they contribute something to their nrighbourhood, and until they have a different avanue for airing grievances than the enforcers of peace, they will continue to look out for number one.
We need to have an elected official per 500 people, at the least, so that he actually knows them and their needs. They also need devolution of power from central government so that they can address their own groups needs more specifically and targeted, in a way that centralised government makes impossible. People need to feel represented, this is the only way to form a sense of legitimacy necessary for people to welcome the state, not shun away from it. This way people can organise and feel involved in their own community, make them proud of where they live and bring society closer.
The alternative is to continue ton the road that paranoid fear always leads. A police state.
First, a couple of facts (no reference given in article, though, in my experience, Simon Jenkins is one of the more objective journalists there).
'In France there is an elected official for every 120 people...in Gernmany the ratio is 1:250. In Britain it is 1:2'600'
This is quite staggering. Yet it gets even more so.
'In France the smallest unit of discretionary local government is the commune, with an average population of 1500. In Germany that figure is 5000 people. In Britain the avaerage district population is 120'000...'
The tabloids have been constantly running 'breakdown of society' story for years now and every response by the government has involved strengthening police powers, getting more police onto the streets and handing out Anti-Social Behavioural Orders (or ASBOS) to thousand of kids and teenagers complete with curfews and restrictions on travel. All this does is pander to the tabloids demands to 'get tough' on youth crime and anti-social behaviour. Result? Our prisons are full, the prison populations having risen by more than 50% under the Blair government (perhaps something do to with the over 3000 new prosecutable laws they introduced) and, apparantly, the situation is just as bad as before.
The answer? Well, the Sun tabloid went further than even i expected, running a Poll on the Death Penalty Debate (something that completely passed me by...as far as i can tell, the 'debate' consisted of a telephone poll of Sun readers and a list of abbreviated text messages from people who cant even spell properly. The result of this 'debate'? That '99% of you wanted it back'... No. 99% of Sun readers, when exposed to hysteria and exploitative, hyped up reporting every morning with no other intellectual stimulus to inform them, choose to abandon all morals and ask for the death penalty back. Interesting... but only as an example of how indoctrination can work...
How in hell is giving kids the badge of honour of an ASBO and locking people away left, right and centre going to help with anything? Jenkins makes the right call as far as i'm concerned. Fact is, if you have a grievance in this country, you go to the police. Not the local mayor, or elected official. The police. The same police who violently break up peaceful demonstrations as lackeys to the government. Im sure there are some nice ones out there, who do the job for the right reasons. Fact is, a hammer might hope to be used to hammer in nails. Its just a tool. It does what it is asked, even if that means hammering someones head.
The police are now the only face of the state that the people see. They are the keepers of public order, according to whatever law the government tells them to abide by. It could be to spy on MP's as happened recently to a Muslim labour MP when visiting a constituant in prison or enacting the Serious Organised Crime Act which prohibits peaceful demonstration within a mile of Parliament without permission. When this is the sole connection between people and state, especially at a time of increasing state parranoia and restrictions on civil liberties, there can be no harmony at the local level. Peoples neighbourhoods are run by faceless distant officials with little power to do anything without the say so of central government.
Until people feel that they contribute something to their nrighbourhood, and until they have a different avanue for airing grievances than the enforcers of peace, they will continue to look out for number one.
We need to have an elected official per 500 people, at the least, so that he actually knows them and their needs. They also need devolution of power from central government so that they can address their own groups needs more specifically and targeted, in a way that centralised government makes impossible. People need to feel represented, this is the only way to form a sense of legitimacy necessary for people to welcome the state, not shun away from it. This way people can organise and feel involved in their own community, make them proud of where they live and bring society closer.
The alternative is to continue ton the road that paranoid fear always leads. A police state.
Tuesday, 26 February 2008
Before the main course, some sites for your delectation
Before I launch headlong into possibly the most horrendous and devastating story of greed, corruption and crimes against humanity I have ever come across (you can look forward to that light-hearted reading tomorrow... 10 points to who can guess what it is from this clue: An ongoing, 40 year occupation resulting in 200'000 deaths and fully supported, to this day, by the US and UK (no, not palestine)) I feel i should share with you some of the great things i have found in the last year. Sure, i can inform you of interesting and important shit... but its much better to have the tools to do it for oneself.
www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv
This site is the absolute dogs bollocks. Hosted by the George Washington University, this marvellous group of people have numerous lawsuits currently ongoing with the US government regarding the release of declassified documents and fulfilling the freedom of information act. Its chock full of declassified documents on all sorts of fascinating topics, such as the informant 'curveball'... the conman who duped US authorities (that is, unless they knew all along) into believing all sorts of crap about the mountains of WMD's Saddam had under his bed. This site seeks to collect all the declassified stuff it possibly can, analyse it and post it on the web for all to see... free of charge. Believe me, if this site gets pulled, it will signal a dark day for democracy.
www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk
This little gem of a site is a haven for those seeking suhversive documentaries (all free to stream/download), documents, news articles, maps etc from people concerned about getting you the truth...straight from the horses mouth. Not full blown conspiracy theorists, they weed out the sensational to leave you with a wonderful collections of works from the likes of John Pilger, Adam Curtis and Evan Williams. I highly highly recommend the Power of Nightmares trilodgy of films by Adam Curtis. Some of the finest documentary making i have ever seen.
Skeptics Guide to the Universe
This podcast available from iTunes has had me hooked for most of the last year. They weened my interest away from matters of psuedo-science and planted my feet firmly back on the ground. Covering news sotries and quacks from around the world, they educate and inform in a funny and witty style, shooting down those that dare exploit people for their own personal gain (mystics, phsycics etc), telling you the inside knowledge and innoculating your mind against frivolty.
www.indymedia.org.uk/
I've included this site in particular (there are others similar) because of the amount of laughs it has given me. Many times the authorities have tried to sue Indymedia, never quite realising that it is an open medium, free for anyone to write. Its a notice board for activists to record and publicise direct action, be it against Arms manufacturers or Coca-Cola. Ive included this because I do not think that the people of this country have the slightest idea simply how much direct action goes on in the UK every single day. It brightens up my day to see yet another young mind chaining themselves by the neck to a gate somewhere. Keep up the good work!
www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv
This site is the absolute dogs bollocks. Hosted by the George Washington University, this marvellous group of people have numerous lawsuits currently ongoing with the US government regarding the release of declassified documents and fulfilling the freedom of information act. Its chock full of declassified documents on all sorts of fascinating topics, such as the informant 'curveball'... the conman who duped US authorities (that is, unless they knew all along) into believing all sorts of crap about the mountains of WMD's Saddam had under his bed. This site seeks to collect all the declassified stuff it possibly can, analyse it and post it on the web for all to see... free of charge. Believe me, if this site gets pulled, it will signal a dark day for democracy.
www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk
This little gem of a site is a haven for those seeking suhversive documentaries (all free to stream/download), documents, news articles, maps etc from people concerned about getting you the truth...straight from the horses mouth. Not full blown conspiracy theorists, they weed out the sensational to leave you with a wonderful collections of works from the likes of John Pilger, Adam Curtis and Evan Williams. I highly highly recommend the Power of Nightmares trilodgy of films by Adam Curtis. Some of the finest documentary making i have ever seen.
Skeptics Guide to the Universe
This podcast available from iTunes has had me hooked for most of the last year. They weened my interest away from matters of psuedo-science and planted my feet firmly back on the ground. Covering news sotries and quacks from around the world, they educate and inform in a funny and witty style, shooting down those that dare exploit people for their own personal gain (mystics, phsycics etc), telling you the inside knowledge and innoculating your mind against frivolty.
www.indymedia.org.uk/
I've included this site in particular (there are others similar) because of the amount of laughs it has given me. Many times the authorities have tried to sue Indymedia, never quite realising that it is an open medium, free for anyone to write. Its a notice board for activists to record and publicise direct action, be it against Arms manufacturers or Coca-Cola. Ive included this because I do not think that the people of this country have the slightest idea simply how much direct action goes on in the UK every single day. It brightens up my day to see yet another young mind chaining themselves by the neck to a gate somewhere. Keep up the good work!
Monday, 25 February 2008
Whats it all about then?
I am starting this blog towards the end of an illuminating if somewhat disillusioning 3 years at Sussex University, Brighton, UK. On the plus side, it dragged me forever from the possible trap of working in an office for the rest of my life, oblivious to the alternative, and has given me my idea for the book I intend to write upon leaving. On the downside, it has left me angry and frustrated at the state of university education, the rigid parameters you are expected to conform to and the slow and painful corporate takeover of British universities.
Yet all that is nearly behind me and I shall finally be able to vent my spleen in a way that attempts to make a difference, something sadly lacking at Sussex University who seem intent on walking further from the revolutionary reputation it gained itself in the 60's and 70's. Now its just another corporate bitch.
So whats this blog about? Eventually I plan to air my ideas as I write my book, get feedback and comments and (hopefully) give you all the chance to participate in a paradigm breaking books creation (I did say hopefully...). Until then, my dissertation takes priority, something I will write on here once I have a few readers!
This is important... dont believe a word I say. That is, dont take what I say for granted. I will try at all times to add links to my sources or guide you to certain books etc that i have found... but I am just one point of view... the same as every other individual. What I say may be fact, it may be opinion... but I will try my hardest NOT to confuse the two and to make it clear.
So what is my point of view? This I want to make clear right away. I am on whichever side regards all of human life equal. Essentially, i feel that the current system of nation states are inherently and unavoidably nationalistic and that the resulting forms of 'pragmatic' foreign policy governments employ are immoral if it is to the detrement of people outside ones own borders. I believe in adhering to Human Rights laws, International laws and the like, be you 'rogue state' or 'world superpower'. In short, I believe that no-one has any form of 'right' higher than anyone else and so, in line with the title of my blog, I proclaim my view to be Globalism - One world; One People.
Yet all that is nearly behind me and I shall finally be able to vent my spleen in a way that attempts to make a difference, something sadly lacking at Sussex University who seem intent on walking further from the revolutionary reputation it gained itself in the 60's and 70's. Now its just another corporate bitch.
So whats this blog about? Eventually I plan to air my ideas as I write my book, get feedback and comments and (hopefully) give you all the chance to participate in a paradigm breaking books creation (I did say hopefully...). Until then, my dissertation takes priority, something I will write on here once I have a few readers!
This is important... dont believe a word I say. That is, dont take what I say for granted. I will try at all times to add links to my sources or guide you to certain books etc that i have found... but I am just one point of view... the same as every other individual. What I say may be fact, it may be opinion... but I will try my hardest NOT to confuse the two and to make it clear.
So what is my point of view? This I want to make clear right away. I am on whichever side regards all of human life equal. Essentially, i feel that the current system of nation states are inherently and unavoidably nationalistic and that the resulting forms of 'pragmatic' foreign policy governments employ are immoral if it is to the detrement of people outside ones own borders. I believe in adhering to Human Rights laws, International laws and the like, be you 'rogue state' or 'world superpower'. In short, I believe that no-one has any form of 'right' higher than anyone else and so, in line with the title of my blog, I proclaim my view to be Globalism - One world; One People.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
