Today at work I was reminded of how (relatively) lucky I have it working in my shop compared to others in the retail sector.
One of our bosses came in from up on high, and delegated a job he thought needed doing his way. It involved uber amounts of work, was highly inconvenient and could have been done much better. Yet do it we did, after he was gone, despite our manageress conceding that she had lost the debate and we had no choice.
Now, I don't like doing something irrational simply because an authority tells me too. I'm not alone in that, but fortunately I don't let it affect me in the slightest. What I did feel was sympathy and anger on behalf of all the other minimum-wage workers in the retail industry (amongst others) who have even the simplest creative jobs delegated to them by people from on up high.
Denying workers any degree of autonomy is, apparently 'the way things are' according to our (secret from the boss) anarchist manageress. Now I know she doesn't like it, I know she doesn't have a choice if she wants to earn a bit more. But should people have to go on renting out their autonomy as well as their labour?
Case in point. Now that we have a nice new shop, we need a uniform. Fair enough, they were good enough to at least give us some choice in the matter. What they have also done is to take away any seating behind the tills.
The reason? It doesn't look good to the customers,
Now, if I had my way (i.e. if I owned the shop), people who would be offended by stools being provided for workers who were on their feet in proper shoes all day could fuck off. I have yet to meet anyone who regards making workers comfortable as more offending than workers forced to limp in pain. The unsaid reason that makes more sense is that they don't want to encourage lazing about, that the workers cannot be trusted. Well fuck you and your fucked 19th century notion of owning the worker to do with what you will.
And another thing. Why the fuck does our creativity have to be denied to the point of determining what font and size our promotional material is? Why the fuck does it matter? The whole fucking store is branded, why not have just a little individuality. The only people who are going to visit our different branches on a regular basis are head office! It is for their anal benefit that we must become mere machines, pawns in their power trip.
Those from on up high could be working in ANY retail sector and their job would be identical. The same newspeak, the same fucked jargon and answering your phone not with a "Hello" but by curtly announcing your own name because after all, time is money! The mutual back-slapping, the unaccountable fuck-ups that those at the bottom have to clean up time-after-time.. when the revolution comes they will become extinct, and the world will feel lighter.
The only reason there IS an 'on up high' in the first place is because there are greedy people who want more than they could possibly make use of. They dont just want to be rich, they want the biggest chain of stores in the country, they want to go international! So they centralise, and as with government, centralised control over such vast distances are psychologically illegitimate. Locality, familiarity, individuality; these are the realm of the minimum wage worker that are being crushed by the branded grip of people no better than they, yet somehow deserving of triple or quadruple their pay.
If all companies were split up into a maximum of just a few branches, we would have such a greater distribution of wealth and autonomy as to represent a social as well as economic revolution. There is no reason why such companies could not come together and work in cooperation to achieve comparable economies of scale and buying power as today, with the social bonus of having diversity and creativity at the fore of our shopping experience instead of a slew of focus-group derived fantasies of what we really want.
Rant over.
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
Thursday, 8 April 2010
A quick thought on Tax
All this 'our tax manifesto is better than your tax manifesto' bullshit has got me thinking. Well, that and some posters on the Huffingtonpost scoffing at the idea of introducing a 'UK style' Value Added Tax.
VAT, as with National Insurance, means absolutely nothing to me. I never see it. Things simply cost whatever they cost and I simply get paid whatever I get paid. It remains constant, it becomes habitualised and I don't think of either at any point of any day (bar now obviously)...
In fact, the only tax I worry about in the council tax. Not surprising when what it consists of is a bill through your door at intervals long enough for each to be a stressful surprise. It's a large amount and psychologically it is simply all about the tax and the consequences it entails.
So why don't we make all tax the indirect, invisible kind? The initial pain of whatever we change to enact such a policy would soon become habitualised and represent a new norm, whilst eliminating the stress and worry of having a stand-alone tax. It would also be fairer in that those who use whatever services we tax least, gets taxed less.
It would be so much better, no?
VAT, as with National Insurance, means absolutely nothing to me. I never see it. Things simply cost whatever they cost and I simply get paid whatever I get paid. It remains constant, it becomes habitualised and I don't think of either at any point of any day (bar now obviously)...
In fact, the only tax I worry about in the council tax. Not surprising when what it consists of is a bill through your door at intervals long enough for each to be a stressful surprise. It's a large amount and psychologically it is simply all about the tax and the consequences it entails.
So why don't we make all tax the indirect, invisible kind? The initial pain of whatever we change to enact such a policy would soon become habitualised and represent a new norm, whilst eliminating the stress and worry of having a stand-alone tax. It would also be fairer in that those who use whatever services we tax least, gets taxed less.
It would be so much better, no?
Saturday, 20 March 2010
The case of the controversial evolution article by Oliver Burkeman in the Guardian
Yesterday I saw an article on the front page of the Guardian website that caused widespread anger and controversy. Under possibly the worst headline of the year, "Why everything they told you about evolution is wrong", the piece was a review of Fodor's latest book 'What Darwin got Wrong' (only slightly less a disingenuous title).
The piece drew a lot of instant criticism, from Adam Rutherland's Comment is Free piece published the same day on the Guardian site (kudos for that) and, rather more extensively, by Coyne's great blog on Why Evolution is True. The criticisms drew on the numerous scientific inaccuracies and the muddled, unenlightening way that Fodor's arguments were presented. The title in particular seemed to vex many who commented.
Unfortunately, in my desire to vent spleen having read through the rather lengthy review, I had a rant on the Today in Sport blog of the Guardian site, only to be banned a few minutes before comments opened on Burkeman's article. I contacted the editors and copied Burkeman in which, to his credit, he replied to. I have decided to publish those emails here because I feel that, given the vitriol that the article created, it needs more context and a fair hearing of Burkeman's side of things.
Here is the email exchange in full:
I read all the way to the end just so that when it came time to write my damning comment clarifying the whole matter I wouldn't miss out any of the absurdities.... only to find there are no comments at the end!
How do these people get published? Fodors argument is absolute nonsense, the fallacy of 'selecting for' meaning design is one that High School children are taught. And as for the fucking title the sub-editors gave it! Thats a title the Mail would be happy with.
Honestly, when I read bollocks like this it makes me so angry about 1) someone getting a book published that even I could debunk and 2) someone seemingly utterly incapbale of grasping the matter being paid to write a review about it!
FFS! A couple of interesting studies that needed to be expanded upon are merely touched on at the start (not even clear if they have anything to do with Fodors book) and then, to back up Fodors claim turns to that well-known expert on evolution, right-wing fundamentalist Anne Coulter, the woman who thinks Jews need to be 'perfected'.
I mean, Anne Coulter? I can't believe I just wasted so much time on something so utterly worthless.
Ben
How do these people get published? Fodors argument is absolute nonsense, the fallacy of 'selecting for' meaning design is one that High School children are taught. And as for the fucking title the sub-editors gave it! Thats a title the Mail would be happy with.
Honestly, when I read bollocks like this it makes me so angry about 1) someone getting a book published that even I could debunk and 2) someone seemingly utterly incapbale of grasping the matter being paid to write a review about it!
FFS! A couple of interesting studies that needed to be expanded upon are merely touched on at the start (not even clear if they have anything to do with Fodors book) and then, to back up Fodors claim turns to that well-known expert on evolution, right-wing fundamentalist Anne Coulter, the woman who thinks Jews need to be 'perfected'.
I mean, Anne Coulter? I can't believe I just wasted so much time on something so utterly worthless.
Ben
Dear Ben:
Thanks for your thoughts, however contemptuously expressed.
To respond to your points: 1. My piece made amply clear, several times, that Fodor's argument is thought by many to be absolute nonsense, and 2. I can't see how anyone cojld read that piece and not see that I was bringing up Ann Coulter to criticise her and point out that her argument was rubbish.
Still, thanks for reading!
Oliver
Thanks for your thoughts, however contemptuously expressed.
To respond to your points: 1. My piece made amply clear, several times, that Fodor's argument is thought by many to be absolute nonsense, and 2. I can't see how anyone cojld read that piece and not see that I was bringing up Ann Coulter to criticise her and point out that her argument was rubbish.
Still, thanks for reading!
Oliver
You say that despite coulters record, her argument is persuasive.
That's only if you have no idea about evolution. It had no place in
the article. And what on earth did the missing day BS have to do with
anything? With a topic such as this you need to be aware of the
dangers of misinformation. People are already using your article as
evidence seemingly based on the title alone.
Have you nothing to add regarding the title? Absolutely shocking
behaviour. Designed to get hits and advertisers? Did you seek an
expert opinion on anything? Are the two PhD students who looked it
over studying Art?
That's only if you have no idea about evolution. It had no place in
the article. And what on earth did the missing day BS have to do with
anything? With a topic such as this you need to be aware of the
dangers of misinformation. People are already using your article as
evidence seemingly based on the title alone.
Have you nothing to add regarding the title? Absolutely shocking
behaviour. Designed to get hits and advertisers? Did you seek an
expert opinion on anything? Are the two PhD students who looked it
over studying Art?
Ben
I am honestly astonished that anyone could read that piece and not see that the hilarious Creationist urban myth about Nasa was included because it is so comically ridiculous.
And as I make completely clear, Coulter is *wrong*. Of course she is — she's Ann Coulter!
It's very strange to me, this position that holds that you're somehow helping the forces of irrationalism by *mentioning* the fact that people believe these things, even if you point out (several times in a row) that they're wrong.
I do (sincerely!) wish you an excellent weekend, nonetheless.
Oliver
And as I make completely clear, Coulter is *wrong*. Of course she is — she's Ann Coulter!
It's very strange to me, this position that holds that you're somehow helping the forces of irrationalism by *mentioning* the fact that people believe these things, even if you point out (several times in a row) that they're wrong.
I do (sincerely!) wish you an excellent weekend, nonetheless.
Oliver
Thanks for the reply. The tone you intended for Tue piece didn't come across at all well. Such a long article on such a contentious book is hardly the place for it though.
Chalk it as a lesson learned. A long piece on a serious matter needs proper accuracy and understanding else you will get this sort of reaction. Too many people do not know, or want to know, about evolution enough to be able to read between the links so to speak. It sorely needed fact checking.
Also I really want to know about that title. It has really given the guardian some bad press, and rightly so. Are you not pissed about it?
And thanks for your reply.
For the record, I firmly believe that it isn't a viable approach to journalism to spend one's time worrying how a piece might be used by people who utterly misread it either wilfully or out of ignorance.
Provocative headlines is an interesting question — feel free to raise it with our readers' editor if you wish. It is entirely outside my role at the paper, so I'm not in a position to say much more than that. In general, though, I think a headline coexists with the piece, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to critique the headline in a stand-alone way.
I guess this is all coming down to the same basic point: I don't think anyone of average intelligence who reads my whole piece could possibly come away with the misimpression that it's somehow pro-irrational-thinking, and I'm not prepared to start writing pieces in order to please people who can't be bothered to read them all the way through (and in good faith) — it would make the journalistic enterprise essentially impossible!
All best
Oliver
For the record, I firmly believe that it isn't a viable approach to journalism to spend one's time worrying how a piece might be used by people who utterly misread it either wilfully or out of ignorance.
Provocative headlines is an interesting question — feel free to raise it with our readers' editor if you wish. It is entirely outside my role at the paper, so I'm not in a position to say much more than that. In general, though, I think a headline coexists with the piece, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to critique the headline in a stand-alone way.
I guess this is all coming down to the same basic point: I don't think anyone of average intelligence who reads my whole piece could possibly come away with the misimpression that it's somehow pro-irrational-thinking, and I'm not prepared to start writing pieces in order to please people who can't be bothered to read them all the way through (and in good faith) — it would make the journalistic enterprise essentially impossible!
All best
Oliver
That doesn't excuse the gross inaccuracies as shown in coyne's piece,
that a simple cross-check with an expert couldn't correct. These
things matter since science rarely get mainstream coverage and leaves
those doing hard work educating the public exasperated.
You say the title and the piece should be regarded as one falls down
when they bare no resemblance to one another. Such a juxtaposition is
deserving of a parody piece and is getting the ridicule it deserves.
It smacks of trying to get the hits up. Neither is this the first
time. It is becoming a running joke with the guardians readership,
something that needs to be flagged with the superiors.
You either overestimate your readership or, judging by the comments
section, failed to get across your intended tone for the piece. Since
it wasn't clearly a comic piece, due to the subject at hand, the
length of the piece, the admittance of its complexity and subsequent
attempt to explain, it was treated as a science piece. This is where
the criticism stems from.
Ben
that a simple cross-check with an expert couldn't correct. These
things matter since science rarely get mainstream coverage and leaves
those doing hard work educating the public exasperated.
You say the title and the piece should be regarded as one falls down
when they bare no resemblance to one another. Such a juxtaposition is
deserving of a parody piece and is getting the ridicule it deserves.
It smacks of trying to get the hits up. Neither is this the first
time. It is becoming a running joke with the guardians readership,
something that needs to be flagged with the superiors.
You either overestimate your readership or, judging by the comments
section, failed to get across your intended tone for the piece. Since
it wasn't clearly a comic piece, due to the subject at hand, the
length of the piece, the admittance of its complexity and subsequent
attempt to explain, it was treated as a science piece. This is where
the criticism stems from.
Ben
I think these emails reveal important context within the wider questions of mainstream reporting of science and the limitations of the textual medium. I don't doubt Burkeman when he says that bringing up Ann Coulter was a joke, though I seriously doubt if starting a new paragraph with the line, "This argument, perhaps uniquely among all arguments ever made by Coulter, feels persuasive, not least because it is a reasonable criticism of some pop-Darwinism" is the best way to go about creating comic effect.
He says that, "I am honestly astonished that anyone could read that piece and not see that the hilarious Creationist urban myth about Nasa was included because it is so comically ridiculous". I too would be astonished by that.. had I included it in a clearly scientific review context. The problem comes in the fact that it had no serious counter-balance. See, this is what it boils down to. I believe Burkeman is sincere when he says that these references, through their tenuousness to the subject matter, are meant as a joke. But where does the joke end and the science begin?
This is a very lengthy piece reviewing a contentious book about very interesting science. Now, I wouldn't have any problem with jokes (given the level of fallacy in Fodor's book) had it been included within a proper and clever rebuttal. Yet even where the jokes ended according to Burkeman, for people with proper knowledge of evolution they simply kept on coming. As seen in Coyne's piece, there is an awful lot wrong here. Oliver, correct me in the comments if I'm wrong, but I get the feeling that you read the book and took a little too much of it at face value, relaying mistakes from the book as fact. Had you got an expert opinion, your attempts at humour wouldn't have blended so seemlessly with the rest of the article.
For any journalist out there: If you contact any scientist, I can guarantee that 95% of them would drop everything at being asked to look over an article pre-publication just in the hope that it might actually lead to an accurate depiction. When Burkeman says, "For the record, I firmly believe that it isn't a viable approach to journalism to spend one's time worrying how a piece might be used by people who utterly misread it either wilfully or out of ignorance" he misses the point entirely. People do not need to misread his article, it was factually inept in reality. Had it been looked at by an expert, had it been accurate, I would agree 100%. There are people striving all the time to try and educate the public: it is immensely frustrating for those experts to see such a mainstream platform get science wrong time and time again. All for the lack of a quick email. The article appeared 'pro-irrational thinking' simply on the basis that a feature writer had written it and not got any expert opinion (pretty irrational). The Guardian claimed that two PhD students looked over it, to much hilarity from commenter's with biology backgrounds. Not. Good. Enough.
"It is entirely outside my role at the paper, so I'm not in a position to say much more than that. In general, though, I think a headline coexists with the piece, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to critique the headline in a stand-alone way."
This is important. It must be a source of constant frustration that the title of articles isn't chosen (or necessarily even run-by) the person who wrote it. As suspected, Burkeman wasn't responsible, though neither does he seem too bothered. As for co-existing with the piece, this is nonsense. He just said it's chosen by someone else, and besides, what if the title bares absolutely no relation to the article? What if, say, the story of a bake sale in a village hall had the title "Grannies in cake orgy scandal!"? The title of Burkeman's piece was a travesty and it gives the Guardian a bad name. The only way that title could be excused was if Charlie Brooker was writing the review, it was 600 words long and featured nought but Coulter and 'missing days'.
By making the article an attempt to explain, by making it seem an outwardly science-like piece, it merely smacks of trying to cheaply generate controversy and hits to sell to the advertisers. At last looking it was the second-highest read piece. Strange that the Guardian sees large viewing figures for it's most shameful pieces as a success.
Oliver, I don't hold it against you. Your not alone in all of this. There are serious deficiencies in the way in which mainstream press covers these things and you have to admit that getting a feature writer (which I often enjoy) to cover such a complex and contentious topic is just asking for trouble. It is so easy to fact-check today. There is absolutely no excuse.
Update:
As quite a humorous aside, if you type 'Burkeman evolution article' into google, the first hit hows this:
Update:
As quite a humorous aside, if you type 'Burkeman evolution article' into google, the first hit hows this:
Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong | Science ...
19 Mar 2010 ... I can see it for myself thankyou) on evolution is wrong'. Shame, shame, shame. P.S To Mr Burkeman: Are you Happy with the title? ... For some reason the search result for the article itself has a snippet of a comment left early on in the message board on my behalf (I had recently been banned remember). Does someone choose that? For the life of me I can't imagine what determines the text in the search result, but I love the fact it's my comment (that has over 150 recommends at last viewing) there as well as my blog being fourth.
Friday, 19 March 2010
Guardian fucks up once again...
The 'Why everything you've been told about Evolution is Wrong' article has 45 tweets already and rising rapidly.
Well done Guardian sub-editors. That'll be the creationists going into a frenzy ignoring the fact that the article was written by someone with the critical abilities of a mouse in front of a cheese-laden mousetrap and that it was about a book whose premise has been regarded as a fallacy for decades (which it most obviously is).
Well-done indeed. What an absolute waste of my time. The Mail would be proud of such a misleading and nonsensical title. And to invoke Anne Coulter of all people? Is that the best that could be shown of Fodors allys? A woman who thinks Jews need perfecting and is about as qualified to speak on evolution as a fucking brick wall? Less so in fact: the Brick wall isn't a fundamentalist Christian pre-programmed to scream "God created us! See, look how i'm not ugly! Put me on TV!"
FFS Guardian. Fucking Morons!
Well done Guardian sub-editors. That'll be the creationists going into a frenzy ignoring the fact that the article was written by someone with the critical abilities of a mouse in front of a cheese-laden mousetrap and that it was about a book whose premise has been regarded as a fallacy for decades (which it most obviously is).
Well-done indeed. What an absolute waste of my time. The Mail would be proud of such a misleading and nonsensical title. And to invoke Anne Coulter of all people? Is that the best that could be shown of Fodors allys? A woman who thinks Jews need perfecting and is about as qualified to speak on evolution as a fucking brick wall? Less so in fact: the Brick wall isn't a fundamentalist Christian pre-programmed to scream "God created us! See, look how i'm not ugly! Put me on TV!"
FFS Guardian. Fucking Morons!
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
Im so fucking pissed right now....
I am so so so angry right now.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ma ... ing-cheese
Right....
My father has bi-polar. I grew up witnessing it. I visited my dad after his nervous breakdown. I helped him with his recovery, I learned about the problem as he did and now he has managed, after twenty years suffering and ten years after being diagnosed, to live in some form of harmony with it.
I am so disgusted that the U.S prison system could be so fucking 19th century in it's morality. 8 fucking years for stealing a bag of cheese? I could understand why people would defend it... i'd never agree but there we go.
I cannot imagine how ANYONE could defend this though:
"...a psychological evaluation deemed him bipolar and unable to control his impulses to steal, the Sacramento Bee reported."
I mean, this is simply farcical. Inhuman, but also utterly nonsensical. He has something wrong with his brain. It's simple fucking chemistry. He is unable to control his impulse to steal! I KNOW this is utterly possible. I also wonder how many others with bipolar are currently doing life in prison when they should be getting fucking help!
AAAAAARGH! How can you be 'lenient' and 'only' give him 8 years?! He's fucking ill! 8 fucking years!?!?!?!?
I say again... the U.S justice system is fucked!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ma ... ing-cheese
Right....
My father has bi-polar. I grew up witnessing it. I visited my dad after his nervous breakdown. I helped him with his recovery, I learned about the problem as he did and now he has managed, after twenty years suffering and ten years after being diagnosed, to live in some form of harmony with it.
I am so disgusted that the U.S prison system could be so fucking 19th century in it's morality. 8 fucking years for stealing a bag of cheese? I could understand why people would defend it... i'd never agree but there we go.
I cannot imagine how ANYONE could defend this though:
"...a psychological evaluation deemed him bipolar and unable to control his impulses to steal, the Sacramento Bee reported."
I mean, this is simply farcical. Inhuman, but also utterly nonsensical. He has something wrong with his brain. It's simple fucking chemistry. He is unable to control his impulse to steal! I KNOW this is utterly possible. I also wonder how many others with bipolar are currently doing life in prison when they should be getting fucking help!
AAAAAARGH! How can you be 'lenient' and 'only' give him 8 years?! He's fucking ill! 8 fucking years!?!?!?!?
I say again... the U.S justice system is fucked!
Saturday, 27 February 2010
Couple of updates...
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.
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.
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:
- 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...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
