Just to let anyone reading this know, I have a new Wordpress site:
http://mightyalz.wordpress.com/
It's slightly flashier and allows me to put my videos up as well....
Ciao.
Thursday 29 December 2011
Tuesday 30 August 2011
Why the rich are better than us and we deserve to suffer for them...
I know a lot of people were getting a bit jittery about George Osborne's Swiss Tax deal, designed to puncture a hole in the super-rich's tax haven shield in Switzerland. In his own words, "We will be as tough on the richest who evade tax as on those who cheat on benefits. The days when it was easy to stash the profits of tax evasion in Switzerland are over." Wow, well that IS tough, seeing how much abuse they've given (and are going to give) benefit cheats - who, let's be honest, by taking £1 billion out of the budget each year compared with the £15.2 billion lost through tax-dodging, are definitely in the same ball park - I'd say there's a lot of rich people shaking in their £200 boots. Has George finally started listening to UK Uncut and taken a decidedly leftist attack?
Hmm...nope.
The Financial Times has highlighted a few problems:
“First, evaders will still pay less than if they had gone by the law. The withholding tax on investment returns is below the top rate in the UK - by a quantitatively marginal but symbolically significant difference. The one-off levy, too, is unnecessarily forgiving for principal that was not taxed when it was first earned."
So, the rich are still paying less than the rest of us. I suppose this is "better than nothing"...
“Second, this is an anti-evasion measure that seems all too easy to evade. The one-off tax will only be levied on accounts still open after May 2013. That is plenty of time for evaders and their Swiss bankers to discuss where it might make most sense to place the money next. Lichtenstein, which has a less taxing agreement with the UK, is being mentioned, but there is an abundance of other tax havens."
Ah, good. So unless any of the big tax-dodging companies have heard of any other country than Switzerland, this is a water-tight clampdown...also, assuming that they're all lazy bastards who won't get around to doing anything with their balance sheets until 2013...
“Third, though the deal is not presented as an amnesty, it is hard to spot the difference. To let account holders who can keep not declaring their accounts settle their tax liabilities by paying less than regular UK residents smacks of permitting some people to pay their way out of obeying the law.”
Well, this is of course the crux of the matter - this is one law for the rich and one for the, uh, less rich.
Basically, this is just a bone thrown to the rabid dogs (i.e. sane people) who want to see some action taken against the tax-dodgers, but without any real substance to back it up.
It all goes back to the great neo-liberal ethos which has bascially become a superstition - if you do anything overly nasty to the rich, they will bugger off. And that is, in some way, a bad thing and will be, in some way, bad for the country and economy.
But it's more than that - it's an almost childish admiration that the likes of Cameron and Osborne have for the super-rich. Its almsot like a desire to be able to say "Look! My country's got more billionaires than your country! Suck my Prince Albert!" Or something. To be honest, I don't really understand it and I know a lot of people, both on the left and right, don't. The FTSE 100 paid a total of £5 billion in corporation tax in 2010, which is less than the amount of tax taken from Tobacoo duties. Looks like they might want to back-track on all those anti-smoking ads. Afterall, big business is much worse for your health. Anyone remember that notorios statistic about Barclays paying only £113 million in corporation tax in 2009? Yet, of course, if we push these people too much and try and make them, y'know, obey the same law as the rest of us, they'll all leave and it'll be the end of the world. So every other part of the economy - even those groups that generate more tax revenue (and let's not forget not gambling away all our money resulting in us bailing them out and leaving the actual taxpayers £131 billion in debt) - are going to suffer instead. The rest of us are expendable.
Osborne's decision to scrap the 50p top rate of income tax is just typical of this - either he's a complete moron, or he's totally in thrall of the big boys. Or both. Apparently, the 50p rate of tax is only producing marginal returns...according to the Independent, the difference between a 45p tax and 50p tax might be only £750 million a year.
Ah right.
Wait, what?
£750 million?! Danny Alexander described cutting the 50p tax as "living in cloud-cuckoo land" and it's not hard to see why. For example, Osborne is planning to cut £670 million from the budget for the Department for Education. He is also planning to cut £535 million from the Department for Work and Pensions. So while these cuts are desparate and necessary, a sum of money greater than either of the budget deficit in either department is "marginal"? Like I said, either Osborne's a moron, or he's completely in the pocket of the super-rich. There's simply no other way to justify this. Even by neo-liberal standards, this is a totally irrational move, as many have been quick to point out. It's not even an ideological move - it's really just pure corruption. It's one step removed from the kind of Mafia-like oligarchy that's been ruining Russia since the collapse of the USSR.
To be honest, the reaction in the government has been so strongly negative - both from Conservatives and Lib-Dems - that I can't see it actually being pushed through. But the fact that Osborne actually saw this as a good idea is what makes it so scary. If I was in the cabinet, I'd be pushing for a vote of no-confidence. It's not like there aren't enough talented economists in the cabinet as it is - Vince Cable's proposals, such as a land tax (which would close one tax loophole - you can't exactly move a plot of land to the Caimen Islands, can you?) have been much more sensible, at the very least.
But this is missing the point really - Cameron and Osborne have not, and have never, had any intention of penalising the bankers or the super-rich for the financial crises or for engaging in even the slightest amount of Robin Hood taxation. That's just not their ethos - they are a group of fundamenalists who are going to cling to their "we need the rich" idiom and drag everyone else down with them just so they don't have to admit that it's not actually true.
It all goes back to Mervyn King's now-legendary summation of the financial crisis: "Now is the period when the cost is being paid. I'm surprised the real anger hasn't been greater than it has."
When you have a government which is protecting the people who caused the financial crisis in the first place and making the rest of suffer for it, you have to ask - is the government insane and corrupt...or are we insane and corrupt for voting them in?
Hmm...nope.
The Financial Times has highlighted a few problems:
“First, evaders will still pay less than if they had gone by the law. The withholding tax on investment returns is below the top rate in the UK - by a quantitatively marginal but symbolically significant difference. The one-off levy, too, is unnecessarily forgiving for principal that was not taxed when it was first earned."
So, the rich are still paying less than the rest of us. I suppose this is "better than nothing"...
“Second, this is an anti-evasion measure that seems all too easy to evade. The one-off tax will only be levied on accounts still open after May 2013. That is plenty of time for evaders and their Swiss bankers to discuss where it might make most sense to place the money next. Lichtenstein, which has a less taxing agreement with the UK, is being mentioned, but there is an abundance of other tax havens."
Ah, good. So unless any of the big tax-dodging companies have heard of any other country than Switzerland, this is a water-tight clampdown...also, assuming that they're all lazy bastards who won't get around to doing anything with their balance sheets until 2013...
“Third, though the deal is not presented as an amnesty, it is hard to spot the difference. To let account holders who can keep not declaring their accounts settle their tax liabilities by paying less than regular UK residents smacks of permitting some people to pay their way out of obeying the law.”
Well, this is of course the crux of the matter - this is one law for the rich and one for the, uh, less rich.
Basically, this is just a bone thrown to the rabid dogs (i.e. sane people) who want to see some action taken against the tax-dodgers, but without any real substance to back it up.
It all goes back to the great neo-liberal ethos which has bascially become a superstition - if you do anything overly nasty to the rich, they will bugger off. And that is, in some way, a bad thing and will be, in some way, bad for the country and economy.
But it's more than that - it's an almost childish admiration that the likes of Cameron and Osborne have for the super-rich. Its almsot like a desire to be able to say "Look! My country's got more billionaires than your country! Suck my Prince Albert!" Or something. To be honest, I don't really understand it and I know a lot of people, both on the left and right, don't. The FTSE 100 paid a total of £5 billion in corporation tax in 2010, which is less than the amount of tax taken from Tobacoo duties. Looks like they might want to back-track on all those anti-smoking ads. Afterall, big business is much worse for your health. Anyone remember that notorios statistic about Barclays paying only £113 million in corporation tax in 2009? Yet, of course, if we push these people too much and try and make them, y'know, obey the same law as the rest of us, they'll all leave and it'll be the end of the world. So every other part of the economy - even those groups that generate more tax revenue (and let's not forget not gambling away all our money resulting in us bailing them out and leaving the actual taxpayers £131 billion in debt) - are going to suffer instead. The rest of us are expendable.
Osborne's decision to scrap the 50p top rate of income tax is just typical of this - either he's a complete moron, or he's totally in thrall of the big boys. Or both. Apparently, the 50p rate of tax is only producing marginal returns...according to the Independent, the difference between a 45p tax and 50p tax might be only £750 million a year.
Ah right.
Wait, what?
£750 million?! Danny Alexander described cutting the 50p tax as "living in cloud-cuckoo land" and it's not hard to see why. For example, Osborne is planning to cut £670 million from the budget for the Department for Education. He is also planning to cut £535 million from the Department for Work and Pensions. So while these cuts are desparate and necessary, a sum of money greater than either of the budget deficit in either department is "marginal"? Like I said, either Osborne's a moron, or he's completely in the pocket of the super-rich. There's simply no other way to justify this. Even by neo-liberal standards, this is a totally irrational move, as many have been quick to point out. It's not even an ideological move - it's really just pure corruption. It's one step removed from the kind of Mafia-like oligarchy that's been ruining Russia since the collapse of the USSR.
To be honest, the reaction in the government has been so strongly negative - both from Conservatives and Lib-Dems - that I can't see it actually being pushed through. But the fact that Osborne actually saw this as a good idea is what makes it so scary. If I was in the cabinet, I'd be pushing for a vote of no-confidence. It's not like there aren't enough talented economists in the cabinet as it is - Vince Cable's proposals, such as a land tax (which would close one tax loophole - you can't exactly move a plot of land to the Caimen Islands, can you?) have been much more sensible, at the very least.
But this is missing the point really - Cameron and Osborne have not, and have never, had any intention of penalising the bankers or the super-rich for the financial crises or for engaging in even the slightest amount of Robin Hood taxation. That's just not their ethos - they are a group of fundamenalists who are going to cling to their "we need the rich" idiom and drag everyone else down with them just so they don't have to admit that it's not actually true.
It all goes back to Mervyn King's now-legendary summation of the financial crisis: "Now is the period when the cost is being paid. I'm surprised the real anger hasn't been greater than it has."
When you have a government which is protecting the people who caused the financial crisis in the first place and making the rest of suffer for it, you have to ask - is the government insane and corrupt...or are we insane and corrupt for voting them in?
Tuesday 9 August 2011
Responses to the Riots reveal the Prejudices of the Liberal Left
This morning the FTSE100 fell in early trade to 4,866.48, meaning the onset of a new stock market crash and no doubt international economic misery from us all...
But who cares about that?! People were smashing stuff up in London, Liverpool and Birmingham last night!
No, more than usual!
There is a tendency here to try and politicise the riots that began in Tottenham and tore through Hackney, Brixton, Croydon and on to Liverpool, Birmingham and Bristol.
Riots don't happen out of the blue I'll give you that. But if ever there was a case of oppurtunism, the Tottenham riots were just that. On the back of a perfectly legitimate, peaceful demonstration outside Tottenham police station, a series of gangsters and thugs have taken the oppurtunity to go on a rampage around the country, looting and pillaging. Naturally a lot of people are "having opinions" on why this is happening.
The view being taken by a lot the various left-liberal and horribly middle-class commentators (not to mention Ken Livingstone) takes these riots from a high structuralist perch. These riots are not a response to specific policies or, really, even a specific incident (the shooting of Mark Duggan can't possibly still be relevant) so we're basically having to take it as read that this is general response to the socio-economic circumstances that they find themselves in. Well, duh. That's why they're expressing their anger in the form of looting local shops and smashing uo the houses of people often in exactly the same situation as they are? Yeah, wow, power to the people!
The stance being taken by a lot of political commentators is simply patronising. Who is Dan Hodges to say "Our streets are aflame. Now black Britain will be allowed its say"?
Sorry, because black people are such a bunch of ignorant savages that they can't express themselves except through violence?
It's also this idea of mass movement someone signifying political legitimacy. There are robberies and shootings all the time in these same areas of London, but I rarely see these same people being hailed as an political commentators. But when they all gang together to do exactly the same thing on a larger scale, it's a folk movement!
The only thing I'd say this really proves is that the poorer areas of London have given rise to gang culture. That's clearly the case. And that needs to be addressed - but the people who are trying to defend the actions of violent thugs due to their circumstances and the policies of the government are on a par with defending Anders Behring Breivik's shootings as the inevitable cause of Islamic immigration.
If I see some graffitti, or banners or any example proving a politicsed intent from the rioters then I concede a political intent. But to try and categorise a group of thinking, reasoning people as being a mindless reactive mass who can only express themselves on the most base level to circumstances beyond their control is actually the most insulting macro-sociological attitude to take and completely ignores the input of individuals, completely ignores the plight of the victims and is an enourmously patronising high-on-a-pedastal attitude from a bunch of pseudo-liberal commentators who of course would never stoop to that level themselves...
In a way, I'd prefer it if they did just want to nick a widescreen TV. At least that proves some kind of individual motivation.
But who cares about that?! People were smashing stuff up in London, Liverpool and Birmingham last night!
No, more than usual!
There is a tendency here to try and politicise the riots that began in Tottenham and tore through Hackney, Brixton, Croydon and on to Liverpool, Birmingham and Bristol.
Riots don't happen out of the blue I'll give you that. But if ever there was a case of oppurtunism, the Tottenham riots were just that. On the back of a perfectly legitimate, peaceful demonstration outside Tottenham police station, a series of gangsters and thugs have taken the oppurtunity to go on a rampage around the country, looting and pillaging. Naturally a lot of people are "having opinions" on why this is happening.
The view being taken by a lot the various left-liberal and horribly middle-class commentators (not to mention Ken Livingstone) takes these riots from a high structuralist perch. These riots are not a response to specific policies or, really, even a specific incident (the shooting of Mark Duggan can't possibly still be relevant) so we're basically having to take it as read that this is general response to the socio-economic circumstances that they find themselves in. Well, duh. That's why they're expressing their anger in the form of looting local shops and smashing uo the houses of people often in exactly the same situation as they are? Yeah, wow, power to the people!
The stance being taken by a lot of political commentators is simply patronising. Who is Dan Hodges to say "Our streets are aflame. Now black Britain will be allowed its say"?
Sorry, because black people are such a bunch of ignorant savages that they can't express themselves except through violence?
It's also this idea of mass movement someone signifying political legitimacy. There are robberies and shootings all the time in these same areas of London, but I rarely see these same people being hailed as an political commentators. But when they all gang together to do exactly the same thing on a larger scale, it's a folk movement!
The only thing I'd say this really proves is that the poorer areas of London have given rise to gang culture. That's clearly the case. And that needs to be addressed - but the people who are trying to defend the actions of violent thugs due to their circumstances and the policies of the government are on a par with defending Anders Behring Breivik's shootings as the inevitable cause of Islamic immigration.
If I see some graffitti, or banners or any example proving a politicsed intent from the rioters then I concede a political intent. But to try and categorise a group of thinking, reasoning people as being a mindless reactive mass who can only express themselves on the most base level to circumstances beyond their control is actually the most insulting macro-sociological attitude to take and completely ignores the input of individuals, completely ignores the plight of the victims and is an enourmously patronising high-on-a-pedastal attitude from a bunch of pseudo-liberal commentators who of course would never stoop to that level themselves...
In a way, I'd prefer it if they did just want to nick a widescreen TV. At least that proves some kind of individual motivation.
Monday 1 August 2011
Good old-fashioned intrinsic values...
One of my favourite ways to spend a nice day of living on the dole in Central London is to head down to Denmark Street and casually peruse the guitar shops. Now, I have never owned a guitar costing more than £200 and so it's a real novelty for me to go in there and play the endless amounts of exquisitely produced guitars that play like elixer of the Gods (in guitar form). There is an upward correlation between price and quality of course - a guitar costing £500 plays better than one costing £100. Like, duh. However, if you're really itching for it you can find that price steadily increase to £800, £2000, even pushing £10,000 and of course you can buy guitar costing considerably more from specialist dealers. The problem is that the cost/quality correlation flatlines around about the £1000 mark. I'm not basing that on any particular survey or even experience of playing. It's just that it's simply impossible for it not to - because they're just guitars. And, excusing a few daft gimmicks such as those self-tuning guitars that are all the rage with tone-deaf imbeciles, there is only so much you do to improve the playing and sound quality of guitar before it's just basically becomes perfect.
Guitars that cost the price of porsche then become purely assets with no intrinsic value - but abstract factors such as brand name still add flexibility in price; often, even this isn't an issue. There are a number of factors...one is that enough people simply believe in the price/quality correlation to assume that, somehow, a guitar costing £10,000 must be better than one cost £1000 grand. One might call this gullibility, but it's also not an unreasonable expectation. Another factor is status of wealth - this is a trend which is, thankfully, dying down a bit with the onset of austerity, but that nasty hangover from the 80's which says that those with the money to afford it should actually buy the more expensive option simply because it is more expensive, is still prevelant. Some idiots might see this along the same lines as investing in the housing market - but, of course, it's not because, with a few very rare exceptions, guitars generally lose value once purchased and rarely gain.
What I'm trying to really get at here is that the 21st century is a society where money has become meaningless - intrinsic value, materials which are actually inherintly valuable to their owners, has become a distant memory. A painting sold at auction can go for millions of pounds, but it's not actually worth that, is it? It's only worth that according to the social-historical reasoning of a few experts who have deemed it worth that particular sum. If I was to go and draw a smiley face on it, it's still a painting, but it would suddenly crash in price. Which is nonsense in economic terms (not that I'm promoting the defacing of art, which should have social value beyond financial value).
The lack of physicality in the economy has really hit home since the banking crisis where banks' balance sheets were loaded with non-existent toxic assets based on the income from debtors who simply didn't have the physical means to pay them back. In this age where paper and metallic forms of money are giving way to the age of PayPal, this problem will only accelerate. Money is just a series of shapes on a screen.
The death of intrinsic value has really accelerated since the war, when Keynes was hailing the rejection of the gold standard as providing new horizons of economic freedom. Money has since become more and more detached from reality. Since Nixon took America out of the gold standard (the "Nixon Shock" of 1971) mainly for the purposes of being able to pay to kill endless amount of people in Southeast Asia (see, some good came out of it!) US debt has been able to climb steadily into more abstract heights. As of June 29, 2011, the Total Public Debt Outstanding of the United States was $14.46 trillion - if the USA were still using the gold standard, and using the current rate of US$1500/oz this would amount to approximately 272,231 metric tons of gold - seeing as how, of 2009, the total amount of gold ever mined by human kind equals only 165,000 tonnes, this shows how far gone these kinds of figures are. Gold was a useful stop-plug for this kind of insane financial skyscraping, but, then, most of the world would probably be bankrupt if we had stuck with it.
Now, the notion of the instrinsic value of gold is one which kind of boggles my mind as well. The official line all the smart-arses use for the gold's instrinsic value is that it's so unreactice. This essentially meant, when it was probably first used in around 4,000 BC, that it was a case of "ooh, shiny metal stay shinier than other metals for longer!" This has somehow developed over millenia to put gold as the base level for international trade - but of course, it's not really that useful for anything. It's used in electronics due to high conductivity and, well, jewelry. That's pretty much it. Not useless, but hardly the greatest substance under the sun - essentially it's just a form of unaligned currency that happens to be valued highly pretty much everywhere. But eventually, people are going to snap out of the gold hazed miasma to realise that what they've been hording for all of history is, essentially, big shiny worthless lumps of metal.
The abstracting of money to the point where it loses touch with reality has historically resulted in massive public backlash leading to extremist tendencies - Hitler's rise to power was partially fomented by the collapse of the Germany economy in nonsensical levels of hyperinflation and national debt; in his own words, "The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all." When the populace feel lost in an economic whirlwind of meaningless figures, people who claim to cut through all the crap, like Hitler, start to seem much more attractive and sensible.
The decline of physical wealth and physical currency is not as progressive an idea as it might appear - it's that great postmodern horror story in which some bored, amoral clerk somewhere decides to stick a few zeros on the end of a transfer and suddenly a million quid has appeared out of nowhere. Inflation goes to hell, but a computer doesn't account for inflation. It just knows there's more of something than there was before. It's this kind of spectral financial manipulation which lead to the crash and which tore a hole in the global economy. It's this kind of thing which is driving Greece, Italy and Portugal to bankrupcy - and the reason are getting so pissed off is that none of the money that being thrown around is real. All it would take be someone to hit the "delete" key and suddenly all those bonds and loans would just disappear. It would completely screw up the international economic system, but a lot of people would argue that it's screwed up anyway.
So let's not all get hooked to our credit cards and internet banking and remember that there is real security in owning physical assets and currency. It's not perfect, but it's more reliable than ethereal number crunching. Adding more zeros to something, whether it's a guitar, or a painting, a car, a plane, or a solid gold skull, doesn't mean it's really worth anything. It's just another fickle asset to be passed around among consumers, until another meaningless set of numbers somewhere makes it suddenly worthless. Items of intrinsic value are becoming a very rare commodity and, sadly, perhaps the only thing in this world which has genuine intrinsic value anymore is mostly owned by a small group of royal nutters in Saudi Arabia...
Guitars that cost the price of porsche then become purely assets with no intrinsic value - but abstract factors such as brand name still add flexibility in price; often, even this isn't an issue. There are a number of factors...one is that enough people simply believe in the price/quality correlation to assume that, somehow, a guitar costing £10,000 must be better than one cost £1000 grand. One might call this gullibility, but it's also not an unreasonable expectation. Another factor is status of wealth - this is a trend which is, thankfully, dying down a bit with the onset of austerity, but that nasty hangover from the 80's which says that those with the money to afford it should actually buy the more expensive option simply because it is more expensive, is still prevelant. Some idiots might see this along the same lines as investing in the housing market - but, of course, it's not because, with a few very rare exceptions, guitars generally lose value once purchased and rarely gain.
What I'm trying to really get at here is that the 21st century is a society where money has become meaningless - intrinsic value, materials which are actually inherintly valuable to their owners, has become a distant memory. A painting sold at auction can go for millions of pounds, but it's not actually worth that, is it? It's only worth that according to the social-historical reasoning of a few experts who have deemed it worth that particular sum. If I was to go and draw a smiley face on it, it's still a painting, but it would suddenly crash in price. Which is nonsense in economic terms (not that I'm promoting the defacing of art, which should have social value beyond financial value).
The lack of physicality in the economy has really hit home since the banking crisis where banks' balance sheets were loaded with non-existent toxic assets based on the income from debtors who simply didn't have the physical means to pay them back. In this age where paper and metallic forms of money are giving way to the age of PayPal, this problem will only accelerate. Money is just a series of shapes on a screen.
The death of intrinsic value has really accelerated since the war, when Keynes was hailing the rejection of the gold standard as providing new horizons of economic freedom. Money has since become more and more detached from reality. Since Nixon took America out of the gold standard (the "Nixon Shock" of 1971) mainly for the purposes of being able to pay to kill endless amount of people in Southeast Asia (see, some good came out of it!) US debt has been able to climb steadily into more abstract heights. As of June 29, 2011, the Total Public Debt Outstanding of the United States was $14.46 trillion - if the USA were still using the gold standard, and using the current rate of US$1500/oz this would amount to approximately 272,231 metric tons of gold - seeing as how, of 2009, the total amount of gold ever mined by human kind equals only 165,000 tonnes, this shows how far gone these kinds of figures are. Gold was a useful stop-plug for this kind of insane financial skyscraping, but, then, most of the world would probably be bankrupt if we had stuck with it.
Now, the notion of the instrinsic value of gold is one which kind of boggles my mind as well. The official line all the smart-arses use for the gold's instrinsic value is that it's so unreactice. This essentially meant, when it was probably first used in around 4,000 BC, that it was a case of "ooh, shiny metal stay shinier than other metals for longer!" This has somehow developed over millenia to put gold as the base level for international trade - but of course, it's not really that useful for anything. It's used in electronics due to high conductivity and, well, jewelry. That's pretty much it. Not useless, but hardly the greatest substance under the sun - essentially it's just a form of unaligned currency that happens to be valued highly pretty much everywhere. But eventually, people are going to snap out of the gold hazed miasma to realise that what they've been hording for all of history is, essentially, big shiny worthless lumps of metal.
The abstracting of money to the point where it loses touch with reality has historically resulted in massive public backlash leading to extremist tendencies - Hitler's rise to power was partially fomented by the collapse of the Germany economy in nonsensical levels of hyperinflation and national debt; in his own words, "The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all." When the populace feel lost in an economic whirlwind of meaningless figures, people who claim to cut through all the crap, like Hitler, start to seem much more attractive and sensible.
The decline of physical wealth and physical currency is not as progressive an idea as it might appear - it's that great postmodern horror story in which some bored, amoral clerk somewhere decides to stick a few zeros on the end of a transfer and suddenly a million quid has appeared out of nowhere. Inflation goes to hell, but a computer doesn't account for inflation. It just knows there's more of something than there was before. It's this kind of spectral financial manipulation which lead to the crash and which tore a hole in the global economy. It's this kind of thing which is driving Greece, Italy and Portugal to bankrupcy - and the reason are getting so pissed off is that none of the money that being thrown around is real. All it would take be someone to hit the "delete" key and suddenly all those bonds and loans would just disappear. It would completely screw up the international economic system, but a lot of people would argue that it's screwed up anyway.
So let's not all get hooked to our credit cards and internet banking and remember that there is real security in owning physical assets and currency. It's not perfect, but it's more reliable than ethereal number crunching. Adding more zeros to something, whether it's a guitar, or a painting, a car, a plane, or a solid gold skull, doesn't mean it's really worth anything. It's just another fickle asset to be passed around among consumers, until another meaningless set of numbers somewhere makes it suddenly worthless. Items of intrinsic value are becoming a very rare commodity and, sadly, perhaps the only thing in this world which has genuine intrinsic value anymore is mostly owned by a small group of royal nutters in Saudi Arabia...
Friday 8 July 2011
Nothing Lasts Forever, Rupert...
Apparently, it has just been revealed in the New Statesman, that Rebekah Brooks said that the phone-hacking scandal would end with Guardian editor "Alan Rusbridger on his knees, begging for mercy". God, Alan Rusbridge must be feeling so damn smug and superior at the moment.
And with good reason - the Guardian has spent the better part of ten years trying to bring down the Murdoch papers and expose their corruption and dirty-dealings - he should be giving himself a big pat on the back, as should Chris Blackhurst. These guys have been the main vanguard pushing the phone-hacking scandal and it's finally having crashing consequences.
The News of the World is gone. Well, is this a bad or a good thing? On the one hand, it shows Murdoch and Brooks are scared and that it's all starting to hit home for them. And it won't hurt not to have the NOTW's right-wing, sensationalist drivel polluting our media waters. Yes, it's a 168 year old institution, but, according to a restrospective in the Guardian, it has always basically been what it is. So I don't think we should be sad to see it go. And although I have some sympathy for the journalists who lost their jobs, I would say that everyone of them did know what the NOTW and although they perhaps didn't deserve to take the blame for this, ignorance is also not an excuse for them anymore than it is for Rebekah Brooks. I mean, they did choose to work a the NOTW afterall. Have a bit of integrity - if you're all so honest and decent and work for a proper newspaper. Still, the fact that they're gone and Brooks is still in place is a sham and it's still hard to see why Murdoch is so keen to keep her - she'll almost certainly be gone with a week, I'd say.
David Cameron must be pretty peeved at Alan Rusbridger himself - now that Andy Coulson's gone down himself. In a press conference earlier today he once again spouted that stomach-churning adage, "We're all in this together" and tried to spread the infection a bit thinner by implicating the news media as a whole - a not-so-subtle attempt to divert attention away from his negligence (or worse) in hiring Andy Coulson as communications director. But this is not a case of mass-corruption - even if these practices are not solely confined to the Murdoch press, you can't start getting accusatory when there's no evidence, unless you're just deeply paranoid. This is News International's problem and you're implicated, Davey boy. Suck it up, man.
And then we come to the dark lord himself, Rupert.
I wouldn't be surprised if, at some point in the near future, Rupert kicks his son, James, off his position as chairman of NI, particularly if the hacking scandal reaches more extreme heights. It's just the kind of almost comically ruthless thing he could and would beautifully cement his image as real-life Mr. Burns. In an earlier episode of the Simpsons (sadly one of Murdoch's own cash-cows), Bart and Homer watch a film in which an evil supervillain cackles hysterically while poisoning McBain. Bart says, "that is one evil dude" and Homer replies, "Don't worry, boy, there's no-one that evil in real life." The scene then switches to Mr. Burns also cackling in an evil manner. Well, you could just as easily cut again to Rupert Murdoch as he cackles while watching striking workers getting their heads beaten by riot police.
The problem with Rupert is that he is such a self-confirmed "evil bastard". He has spent decades revelling in his untouchability and playing into his dark overlord image (just see his guest-spot in the Simpsons) that it looks like it's all going to backfire.
Because, now, basically everyone hates him. Anyone with a moral consciences has always hated him, the left hate him for his politics, the right hate him (begrudgingly) for his monopolising the media, the politicians hates (again, begrudgingly) for his domination of them and now even the mindless masses who read the Sun (seriously, I don't know anyone who does) are starting to hate him for the same reason they get morally outraged at every piece of drivel he puts on the front of his papers. Even people who have no idea why they should hate him, know that he is generally thought of as a figure of justified hate.
And because it's not an undefinable group of, say, "bankers" or "politicians", but one singular amoral king of the hill, there is an easy focus for everyone's bile, anger and retribution. It's all leads back to this one man. Perhaps the best way to emphasise the kind of contempt he can generate...legendary dramatist Dennis Potter summed it up best, "the enemy in question is that drivel-merchant, global huckster and so-to-speak media psychopath, Rupert Murdoch... Hannibal the Cannibal...." - after being diagnosed with terminal cancer, the ever sardonic Potter named his cancer "Rupert". He's a figure of almost total vilification and he's never cared one iota, because he's been "untouchable".
The best thing, though, that comes immediately from all this is that the Murdoch brand may become a genuine cancer. With the NOTW gone and the Sun staff threateningly industrial action over the NOTW sacking, the power of Murdoch to influence politicians is just going to decline as it is realised that being associated with the Murdoch mafia is not actually going to do them any favours. And so the decades of politicians living or dying under Murdoch's greasy thumb might soon be over...here's hoping.
And the best thing that could ever come out of this is that it might show people like Murdoch that they are not untouchable and that they cannot lead these amoral, corrupt, egotistical lives without facing the consequences. You do not deserve the power you have.
We cannot let this story be buried, the campaign to crush the Murdoch empire, to crush corruption and the media monopoply must continue.
Let's cut out the cancer.
And with good reason - the Guardian has spent the better part of ten years trying to bring down the Murdoch papers and expose their corruption and dirty-dealings - he should be giving himself a big pat on the back, as should Chris Blackhurst. These guys have been the main vanguard pushing the phone-hacking scandal and it's finally having crashing consequences.
The News of the World is gone. Well, is this a bad or a good thing? On the one hand, it shows Murdoch and Brooks are scared and that it's all starting to hit home for them. And it won't hurt not to have the NOTW's right-wing, sensationalist drivel polluting our media waters. Yes, it's a 168 year old institution, but, according to a restrospective in the Guardian, it has always basically been what it is. So I don't think we should be sad to see it go. And although I have some sympathy for the journalists who lost their jobs, I would say that everyone of them did know what the NOTW and although they perhaps didn't deserve to take the blame for this, ignorance is also not an excuse for them anymore than it is for Rebekah Brooks. I mean, they did choose to work a the NOTW afterall. Have a bit of integrity - if you're all so honest and decent and work for a proper newspaper. Still, the fact that they're gone and Brooks is still in place is a sham and it's still hard to see why Murdoch is so keen to keep her - she'll almost certainly be gone with a week, I'd say.
David Cameron must be pretty peeved at Alan Rusbridger himself - now that Andy Coulson's gone down himself. In a press conference earlier today he once again spouted that stomach-churning adage, "We're all in this together" and tried to spread the infection a bit thinner by implicating the news media as a whole - a not-so-subtle attempt to divert attention away from his negligence (or worse) in hiring Andy Coulson as communications director. But this is not a case of mass-corruption - even if these practices are not solely confined to the Murdoch press, you can't start getting accusatory when there's no evidence, unless you're just deeply paranoid. This is News International's problem and you're implicated, Davey boy. Suck it up, man.
And then we come to the dark lord himself, Rupert.
I wouldn't be surprised if, at some point in the near future, Rupert kicks his son, James, off his position as chairman of NI, particularly if the hacking scandal reaches more extreme heights. It's just the kind of almost comically ruthless thing he could and would beautifully cement his image as real-life Mr. Burns. In an earlier episode of the Simpsons (sadly one of Murdoch's own cash-cows), Bart and Homer watch a film in which an evil supervillain cackles hysterically while poisoning McBain. Bart says, "that is one evil dude" and Homer replies, "Don't worry, boy, there's no-one that evil in real life." The scene then switches to Mr. Burns also cackling in an evil manner. Well, you could just as easily cut again to Rupert Murdoch as he cackles while watching striking workers getting their heads beaten by riot police.
The problem with Rupert is that he is such a self-confirmed "evil bastard". He has spent decades revelling in his untouchability and playing into his dark overlord image (just see his guest-spot in the Simpsons) that it looks like it's all going to backfire.
Because, now, basically everyone hates him. Anyone with a moral consciences has always hated him, the left hate him for his politics, the right hate him (begrudgingly) for his monopolising the media, the politicians hates (again, begrudgingly) for his domination of them and now even the mindless masses who read the Sun (seriously, I don't know anyone who does) are starting to hate him for the same reason they get morally outraged at every piece of drivel he puts on the front of his papers. Even people who have no idea why they should hate him, know that he is generally thought of as a figure of justified hate.
And because it's not an undefinable group of, say, "bankers" or "politicians", but one singular amoral king of the hill, there is an easy focus for everyone's bile, anger and retribution. It's all leads back to this one man. Perhaps the best way to emphasise the kind of contempt he can generate...legendary dramatist Dennis Potter summed it up best, "the enemy in question is that drivel-merchant, global huckster and so-to-speak media psychopath, Rupert Murdoch... Hannibal the Cannibal...." - after being diagnosed with terminal cancer, the ever sardonic Potter named his cancer "Rupert". He's a figure of almost total vilification and he's never cared one iota, because he's been "untouchable".
The best thing, though, that comes immediately from all this is that the Murdoch brand may become a genuine cancer. With the NOTW gone and the Sun staff threateningly industrial action over the NOTW sacking, the power of Murdoch to influence politicians is just going to decline as it is realised that being associated with the Murdoch mafia is not actually going to do them any favours. And so the decades of politicians living or dying under Murdoch's greasy thumb might soon be over...here's hoping.
And the best thing that could ever come out of this is that it might show people like Murdoch that they are not untouchable and that they cannot lead these amoral, corrupt, egotistical lives without facing the consequences. You do not deserve the power you have.
We cannot let this story be buried, the campaign to crush the Murdoch empire, to crush corruption and the media monopoply must continue.
Let's cut out the cancer.
Tuesday 5 July 2011
The Murdoch Media - the Modern Mafia?
Dig that alliteration, the News of the World's been caught again! And this time it's actually gone for some real criminal intent!
The only thing which outrages the public more than a, to quote the Sun, "serial child-sex beast" is a serial child-sex beast's victim's phone being hacked into by seedy a private investigator working for a multinational media corporation. That's the big difference here. The public has no problem with the personal abuse of "celebrities" or the rich and famous. I don't think it's justified, but everyone else apparently does and, as the tabloid and lifestyle mags show, there's a real sadist culture when it comes to unpleasant tales of the rich and famous. As such, when the phone-hacking of the likes of Hugh Grant, Sienna Miller and the Royal Family came to light, no-one really went mad about it since they're, somehow, getting their just desserts for having the nerve to be well-known. This is another issue to discuss, but the point is that now that the phone-hacking centred on a dear, sweet, innocent, cute, etc. member of the public who was murdered by a serial child-sex beast (that could be such a great B-movie title), the outrage will really come to the fore...she doesn't deserve it like the rest of those rich scum!
Well, it's not hard to be outraged - it's pretty textbook on the outrage front, even if you don't normally care about these kinds of functionalist histrionics. There's absolutely no defence for the NOTW in this case, they've gone and perverted the course of justice and misled the police and prolonged and manipulated a murder case. Someone should go to jail.
Well, Glenn Mulcaire's already gone down for six months. This is pretty much irrelevant, since he's just a tool of the trade. Clive Goodman went down for four months. Meh. James Weatherup was arrested, but nothing seems to have come of that. And that's it. These are just News International's vestigial tails, lackeys who can be thrown into the firing line when they're asked for blood. Otherwise, no-one of any real power has been seen with their head on the block and it's a scam.
Like I said in the title, they've become like a crime syndicate. They can send out their mugs to do their dirty deals and get fresh victims and then toss them off as fall guys and cover their tracks so no-one can find the route back to the Godfather, Murdoch, or his consigliere, Rebekah Wade.
The Press Complaints Commission and its Tory peer head, Peta Jane Buscombe, have been utterly impotent. It has so far failed to do a single thing, beyond issuing lame, unthreatening, powerless "edicts" and according to the Daily Politics, Buscombe is today, "not happy". Oooh, I'll bet Wade's just shaking in her polo boots...David "Mr. Rebekah Wade" Cameron has been irrelevant, as has Justin Hunt who's giving Murdoch another pat on the back by allowing his buying of BSkyB to go ahead.
Perhaps the Guardian and the Independent have been the only ones to really gain any boost to their reputation out of this out of this - it's hardly surprising that they've been jumping at the opportunity to tear down another wall of the Murdoch empire, but on top of that it's really allowed them to take the moral highground and with good reason. After all, neither paper has had to resort to illegal tactics to get the dish and it's not as though their sales are slumping and they're very keen to emphasise this. I think it's a good thing, because - at least for the time being - it proves that a paper and its journalists can maintain an ethical compass, that it's not a matter of making a fast buck by any means necessary.
Personal morality should not be dismissed. It is not enough to say that the public want it and therefore anything goes or that the press are just part of one big rat race (with the cheese being sales and mild, totally ineffectual electric shocks being the PCC) and so journalists need to resort to dirtier and more suspect tactics in order beat the competition.
Still, the big question here is that if the the Press Complaints Commission, self-regulation and personal ethics can't prevent the press undermining the law and society, then what can be done. How about statuatory regulation? Then we let the politicians decide what the media can and can't print?
Like the bankers, the media essentially hold the government at ransom - but they also hold liberals and progressives at ransom, too. While none of us would mind if the bankers had their every move followed and kept in line by white-collar cops, the thought of state-regulated media is a far more dangerous and risky notion; no matter how much we rant and rave at the government, if they turn around and say, "well, do you want us to sort it out, then?", we all just cringe and say, "Um, actually, uh..." If we do that, then it's a blanket thrown on all the news media, not just the corrupt media like News International and that's a very scary prospect.
So what can we do? We could all stop buying the Times, the Sun, the NOTW, stop watching Fox, stop reading the Sunday Times, the Wall Street Journal, Caribbean Life, Papua New Guinea Post-Courier...etc. And so force Murdoch into bankrupcy! All we need is to convince about 3 billion people to do that and there would no problem!
Still, the Milly Dowler case is important - by perverting the course of justice, there is a straightforward legal case to bring against the people in power and so Murdoch might not be untouchable if it can somehow be proved that he was consciously in on it. This is all that needs to be lobbied for - genuine legal reaction to the breaking of the law. This can't just be a matter of outrage from the government, this isn't just a case of the kind moral disgust that the NOTW and the Sun like to splatter over their pages - this is real, straightforward, unambiguous law-breaking. And Glenn Mulcaire was hired to do this and so those who hired him should be punished the highest level to prevent it happening again. But because it's so many levels of authority heading back to the big boss man, with so many levels of "deniability" and so many people good at covering up the evidence that the Godfather might still be pulling the strings for some time. Still, if the consiglieri goes down, I'll be happy...
In spite of everything, there's going to be a lot of public outrage and perhaps a nice bone for Jeremy Hunt to throw would be to stop the BSkyB takeover? Not too much to ask is it? At least it might show that we're a few steps away from being totally at the thrall of the Murdoch Mafia...
The only thing which outrages the public more than a, to quote the Sun, "serial child-sex beast" is a serial child-sex beast's victim's phone being hacked into by seedy a private investigator working for a multinational media corporation. That's the big difference here. The public has no problem with the personal abuse of "celebrities" or the rich and famous. I don't think it's justified, but everyone else apparently does and, as the tabloid and lifestyle mags show, there's a real sadist culture when it comes to unpleasant tales of the rich and famous. As such, when the phone-hacking of the likes of Hugh Grant, Sienna Miller and the Royal Family came to light, no-one really went mad about it since they're, somehow, getting their just desserts for having the nerve to be well-known. This is another issue to discuss, but the point is that now that the phone-hacking centred on a dear, sweet, innocent, cute, etc. member of the public who was murdered by a serial child-sex beast (that could be such a great B-movie title), the outrage will really come to the fore...she doesn't deserve it like the rest of those rich scum!
Well, it's not hard to be outraged - it's pretty textbook on the outrage front, even if you don't normally care about these kinds of functionalist histrionics. There's absolutely no defence for the NOTW in this case, they've gone and perverted the course of justice and misled the police and prolonged and manipulated a murder case. Someone should go to jail.
Well, Glenn Mulcaire's already gone down for six months. This is pretty much irrelevant, since he's just a tool of the trade. Clive Goodman went down for four months. Meh. James Weatherup was arrested, but nothing seems to have come of that. And that's it. These are just News International's vestigial tails, lackeys who can be thrown into the firing line when they're asked for blood. Otherwise, no-one of any real power has been seen with their head on the block and it's a scam.
Like I said in the title, they've become like a crime syndicate. They can send out their mugs to do their dirty deals and get fresh victims and then toss them off as fall guys and cover their tracks so no-one can find the route back to the Godfather, Murdoch, or his consigliere, Rebekah Wade.
The Press Complaints Commission and its Tory peer head, Peta Jane Buscombe, have been utterly impotent. It has so far failed to do a single thing, beyond issuing lame, unthreatening, powerless "edicts" and according to the Daily Politics, Buscombe is today, "not happy". Oooh, I'll bet Wade's just shaking in her polo boots...David "Mr. Rebekah Wade" Cameron has been irrelevant, as has Justin Hunt who's giving Murdoch another pat on the back by allowing his buying of BSkyB to go ahead.
Perhaps the Guardian and the Independent have been the only ones to really gain any boost to their reputation out of this out of this - it's hardly surprising that they've been jumping at the opportunity to tear down another wall of the Murdoch empire, but on top of that it's really allowed them to take the moral highground and with good reason. After all, neither paper has had to resort to illegal tactics to get the dish and it's not as though their sales are slumping and they're very keen to emphasise this. I think it's a good thing, because - at least for the time being - it proves that a paper and its journalists can maintain an ethical compass, that it's not a matter of making a fast buck by any means necessary.
Personal morality should not be dismissed. It is not enough to say that the public want it and therefore anything goes or that the press are just part of one big rat race (with the cheese being sales and mild, totally ineffectual electric shocks being the PCC) and so journalists need to resort to dirtier and more suspect tactics in order beat the competition.
Still, the big question here is that if the the Press Complaints Commission, self-regulation and personal ethics can't prevent the press undermining the law and society, then what can be done. How about statuatory regulation? Then we let the politicians decide what the media can and can't print?
Like the bankers, the media essentially hold the government at ransom - but they also hold liberals and progressives at ransom, too. While none of us would mind if the bankers had their every move followed and kept in line by white-collar cops, the thought of state-regulated media is a far more dangerous and risky notion; no matter how much we rant and rave at the government, if they turn around and say, "well, do you want us to sort it out, then?", we all just cringe and say, "Um, actually, uh..." If we do that, then it's a blanket thrown on all the news media, not just the corrupt media like News International and that's a very scary prospect.
So what can we do? We could all stop buying the Times, the Sun, the NOTW, stop watching Fox, stop reading the Sunday Times, the Wall Street Journal, Caribbean Life, Papua New Guinea Post-Courier...etc. And so force Murdoch into bankrupcy! All we need is to convince about 3 billion people to do that and there would no problem!
Still, the Milly Dowler case is important - by perverting the course of justice, there is a straightforward legal case to bring against the people in power and so Murdoch might not be untouchable if it can somehow be proved that he was consciously in on it. This is all that needs to be lobbied for - genuine legal reaction to the breaking of the law. This can't just be a matter of outrage from the government, this isn't just a case of the kind moral disgust that the NOTW and the Sun like to splatter over their pages - this is real, straightforward, unambiguous law-breaking. And Glenn Mulcaire was hired to do this and so those who hired him should be punished the highest level to prevent it happening again. But because it's so many levels of authority heading back to the big boss man, with so many levels of "deniability" and so many people good at covering up the evidence that the Godfather might still be pulling the strings for some time. Still, if the consiglieri goes down, I'll be happy...
In spite of everything, there's going to be a lot of public outrage and perhaps a nice bone for Jeremy Hunt to throw would be to stop the BSkyB takeover? Not too much to ask is it? At least it might show that we're a few steps away from being totally at the thrall of the Murdoch Mafia...
Saturday 25 June 2011
Who says there's a "correct" way to talk?
Yes, I'm drunk. Think how I'd sound if I was sober. Anyway...
Just watching Michael McIntyre's comedy roadshow and it occurs to me that much of his comedy seems to revolve around, basically, how the working-class (or at least, people with accents) are essentially scum for not sounding like he does. Not in so many words of course - and he gives the modern "oh yes, I'm being ironic" wink to the audience - but there's certainly a class-based contempt when he ridicules Blackpool regarding its plebishness.
Later we have have Miles Jupp, who has an even more extreme variant - his entire act seems to revolve around the one gag of how he speaks..."properly", apparently. I get it, it's a joke - and sure, I found it pretty funny, but, like I said, I'm drunk - but it is emblematic of a larger problem - this notion of a "correct" way of speaking.
How is it, after centuries of suffrage and the seeming breakdown of class distinctions, Britain is still obsessed with ideals and, particularly, ideals of language?
Let's examine one big freaking signifier, kids - the UK still has a monarchy. Now, if you needed more proof regarding this idealism of class that we have in this glorious nation of ours, there it is...we are one of the few first world countries on the planet where we have an official government-sanctioned symbol of our acceptance that certain people - due to blood, wealth and breeding - are inherintly superior to others. And it is called the Queen's English, isn't it? That perfect mode of speaking we all aspire to...if only we could throw off the shackles of words like "shite" or "bairn" or "knees up mother brown" that keep us such simple country folk and prevent us aspiring to the heights of investment bankers or missionaries...
The point is...regional accents are not the "wrong" way of speaking - the ruling classes have always been a minority and language is the ultimate folk art. English has only had this standard set by the likes of upper-class linguiusts like Samuel Johnson who have set an ideal of language according to royal precedent. When Chaucer wrote the Canterbury Tales, notions of a "correct" English were unheard of and, as such, we have an amalgamtion of English according to his own interpretation -
"When that Aprill with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licour
Of which vertu engendred is the flour,
Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tender croppes, and the yonge sonne"
Isn't that freaking awesome?! It's like Jazz - and I get it, I compare far too much stuff to Jazz - you take what is the basis, the basic melody perhaps whether it be "Basin Street Blues" or "When The Saints Go Marching In" and you improvise...English has a certain amount of set characteristics and similarities which have been forced into one set template over centuries of homogenisation, but it can still be used as a tool for development, offshoots and idionsyncrasies.
English has always been fluid and "dialect" should not be considered a pejorative term - the unique nature and individuality of accents is far superior to the bland recieved pronunciation forced upon us by the upper classes and the media. But, of course, as more and more people identify themselves as "middle-class", more and more people frown upon accents and dialects. And this is a real tragedy. The likes of Mark Twain, Brendan Behan, James Joyce, Eugene O'Neill and, like, whoever, have been praised for using the vernacular in their writing and have been called the greatest writers of all time and yet people still ridicule and lambast those who use of regional accents, all around the world. It's horrible, hypocritical and classist (is this a word? If not, then it proves my point even more adroitly)...
So to, like, conclude - you should be proud of your accent. It's not bad language - there is such a thing as bad grammar which is completely apart from this - it's better than the bland shite that is "recieved pronunciation", which should henceforth be referred to rather as "generic pronunciation".
Just watching Michael McIntyre's comedy roadshow and it occurs to me that much of his comedy seems to revolve around, basically, how the working-class (or at least, people with accents) are essentially scum for not sounding like he does. Not in so many words of course - and he gives the modern "oh yes, I'm being ironic" wink to the audience - but there's certainly a class-based contempt when he ridicules Blackpool regarding its plebishness.
Later we have have Miles Jupp, who has an even more extreme variant - his entire act seems to revolve around the one gag of how he speaks..."properly", apparently. I get it, it's a joke - and sure, I found it pretty funny, but, like I said, I'm drunk - but it is emblematic of a larger problem - this notion of a "correct" way of speaking.
How is it, after centuries of suffrage and the seeming breakdown of class distinctions, Britain is still obsessed with ideals and, particularly, ideals of language?
Let's examine one big freaking signifier, kids - the UK still has a monarchy. Now, if you needed more proof regarding this idealism of class that we have in this glorious nation of ours, there it is...we are one of the few first world countries on the planet where we have an official government-sanctioned symbol of our acceptance that certain people - due to blood, wealth and breeding - are inherintly superior to others. And it is called the Queen's English, isn't it? That perfect mode of speaking we all aspire to...if only we could throw off the shackles of words like "shite" or "bairn" or "knees up mother brown" that keep us such simple country folk and prevent us aspiring to the heights of investment bankers or missionaries...
The point is...regional accents are not the "wrong" way of speaking - the ruling classes have always been a minority and language is the ultimate folk art. English has only had this standard set by the likes of upper-class linguiusts like Samuel Johnson who have set an ideal of language according to royal precedent. When Chaucer wrote the Canterbury Tales, notions of a "correct" English were unheard of and, as such, we have an amalgamtion of English according to his own interpretation -
"When that Aprill with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licour
Of which vertu engendred is the flour,
Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tender croppes, and the yonge sonne"
Isn't that freaking awesome?! It's like Jazz - and I get it, I compare far too much stuff to Jazz - you take what is the basis, the basic melody perhaps whether it be "Basin Street Blues" or "When The Saints Go Marching In" and you improvise...English has a certain amount of set characteristics and similarities which have been forced into one set template over centuries of homogenisation, but it can still be used as a tool for development, offshoots and idionsyncrasies.
English has always been fluid and "dialect" should not be considered a pejorative term - the unique nature and individuality of accents is far superior to the bland recieved pronunciation forced upon us by the upper classes and the media. But, of course, as more and more people identify themselves as "middle-class", more and more people frown upon accents and dialects. And this is a real tragedy. The likes of Mark Twain, Brendan Behan, James Joyce, Eugene O'Neill and, like, whoever, have been praised for using the vernacular in their writing and have been called the greatest writers of all time and yet people still ridicule and lambast those who use of regional accents, all around the world. It's horrible, hypocritical and classist (is this a word? If not, then it proves my point even more adroitly)...
So to, like, conclude - you should be proud of your accent. It's not bad language - there is such a thing as bad grammar which is completely apart from this - it's better than the bland shite that is "recieved pronunciation", which should henceforth be referred to rather as "generic pronunciation".
Wednesday 8 June 2011
Sex and Children...Why Can't They Just Get Along?
There's been a lot of hoo-ha in the press about the sexualisation of children - yep, it's that time of year again - with the usual moralists and scaremongers venting their iration over the death of childhood and all that...
This time it's sexually provocative clothing and lad's mags. Apparently, the likes of Loaded and pre-teen lingerie are sexualising our children - as such, and as usual, the government's out to ban lots of stuff!
So...what's wrong with the sexing up of children?
Well, the main arguement always tends to be that it makes them targets for paedophiles. Well, this is a rather contradictory arguement - why would dressing children in clothes designed for supposedly more mature adults make them more likely targets for people who supposedly disdain maturity? That's a bit like gay men dressing effeminately to attract other gay men (oh, wait a second...)
We live in a society that is, for some reason, determined to keep the throes of adulthood at bay for as long as possible. "Childhood innocence" is perhaps the most sacred image in our society for some reason and anything which stands to threaten that may as well be thrown to the dogs. It's not even a particularly conservative element, either - even liberal, progressive groups seem to promote the "protection" of childhood as among the most important tasks in modern society, primarily taking it as part of the rape-prevention scene; in other words, childhood must be protected to protect children from paedophiles.
What "childhood" has become, in fact, is a form of learned stupidity and helplessness. Childhood is marked by naivety and ignorance, traits which are inarguably negative qualities in adults, but which are apparently positive qualities in the young. A child who expresses interest in anything above his supposed age-group is inevitably penalised in our society - sex is most obvious example, of course. As such, there are laws and "accepted norms" which basically label every child up to the age 12 as an interchangable, innocent, sweet, angelic cherub and every child between the ages of 13 and 18 as an ignorant, violent, sex-obsessed thug, who clearly didn't have the right kind of childhood up to the age of 12. On top of all this, personality is suppressed - more than at any other age, children are forced both by parents, peers, the government and companies into set templates that penalise any form of free thinking before the age of 18 - in spite of the fact that, arguably, prior the age of 18 is when you form most of your perception of the world.
This is my issue: the attraction of children to lad's mags and provocative and demeaning clothes can only stem from ignorance, a lack of self-confidance, peer pressure and sexual confusion - just like with adults. Except that an adult can be freed from ignorance, have their confidence and independence boosted and determine their own sexuality and attitudes towards sexuality. The absolute opposite approach is taken with children - sex education, both at home and at school is a joke (I still remember my "sex ed" in school which consisted of showing two people kind of writhing about in a very dark room where only their heads and legs were visible. When I asked why we weren't actually be shown any sex, my teacher just laughed.) You have parents which "protect" (i.e. confuse) their children from sex and then are shocked and suprised that, when encountering any sexualised image, their children react in a less than pleasant manner. And, apparently, the solution to this is to just keep banning as much sex-related stuff as possible until children everywhere are nicely insulated from reality - rather than hitting of the root of the problem, namely:
Why the hell are you so freaking scared of your children knowing about sex?
Now, I am not trying to say that lads mags lingerie and t-shirts saying the likes of "MONGOLOID PORN INFERNO" on them are necessarily a good thing. But the issue here is not related to children - these are all degrading to both women and men, but the question is, why do people buy these? And it sure as hell isn't due to having a healthy attitude towards sex. If children actually knew a damn thing about sex then they might actually understand why it is that they shouldn't want to aspiring to be a WAG or page 3 girl.
More than anything, we should sure as hell not be taking the advice of the Tories - many of whom still come from a generation when husbands and wives shared separate beds - on what is considered "normal" or "healthy" sexuality. Their attitude to sexuality is naturally "conservative" and harks back to a Victorian age when sex was less publicised, but prostitution, rape and child abuse were FAR more prevelant. Oh, and yeah, Daily Mail, you're part of that, too...
Perhaps the reason why parents fear paedophiles so much is that represent the most forceful example of childhood being threatened by the imposition of sexual interaction. In a way, this is a rather horrendous thought - that the paedophile is a scapegoat for the modern sexualisation of children, representing its absolute pinnacle and being used as the excuse for basically every sex-scare in the last 30 years or longer. Would paedophiles be a such a problem if we weren't all so shit-scared of sex?
And of course, the main problem, as far as I'm concerned, is that if you do teach your children to be ignorant, uninformed and "innocent", then they will grow up to be exactly the same way. And then they'll have children and pass it on themselves and the cycle of abuse will continue. Geez, wouldn't the Tories hate that...
But it all usually falls back to, "they're so damn cute when they're stupid"...
This time it's sexually provocative clothing and lad's mags. Apparently, the likes of Loaded and pre-teen lingerie are sexualising our children - as such, and as usual, the government's out to ban lots of stuff!
So...what's wrong with the sexing up of children?
Well, the main arguement always tends to be that it makes them targets for paedophiles. Well, this is a rather contradictory arguement - why would dressing children in clothes designed for supposedly more mature adults make them more likely targets for people who supposedly disdain maturity? That's a bit like gay men dressing effeminately to attract other gay men (oh, wait a second...)
We live in a society that is, for some reason, determined to keep the throes of adulthood at bay for as long as possible. "Childhood innocence" is perhaps the most sacred image in our society for some reason and anything which stands to threaten that may as well be thrown to the dogs. It's not even a particularly conservative element, either - even liberal, progressive groups seem to promote the "protection" of childhood as among the most important tasks in modern society, primarily taking it as part of the rape-prevention scene; in other words, childhood must be protected to protect children from paedophiles.
What "childhood" has become, in fact, is a form of learned stupidity and helplessness. Childhood is marked by naivety and ignorance, traits which are inarguably negative qualities in adults, but which are apparently positive qualities in the young. A child who expresses interest in anything above his supposed age-group is inevitably penalised in our society - sex is most obvious example, of course. As such, there are laws and "accepted norms" which basically label every child up to the age 12 as an interchangable, innocent, sweet, angelic cherub and every child between the ages of 13 and 18 as an ignorant, violent, sex-obsessed thug, who clearly didn't have the right kind of childhood up to the age of 12. On top of all this, personality is suppressed - more than at any other age, children are forced both by parents, peers, the government and companies into set templates that penalise any form of free thinking before the age of 18 - in spite of the fact that, arguably, prior the age of 18 is when you form most of your perception of the world.
This is my issue: the attraction of children to lad's mags and provocative and demeaning clothes can only stem from ignorance, a lack of self-confidance, peer pressure and sexual confusion - just like with adults. Except that an adult can be freed from ignorance, have their confidence and independence boosted and determine their own sexuality and attitudes towards sexuality. The absolute opposite approach is taken with children - sex education, both at home and at school is a joke (I still remember my "sex ed" in school which consisted of showing two people kind of writhing about in a very dark room where only their heads and legs were visible. When I asked why we weren't actually be shown any sex, my teacher just laughed.) You have parents which "protect" (i.e. confuse) their children from sex and then are shocked and suprised that, when encountering any sexualised image, their children react in a less than pleasant manner. And, apparently, the solution to this is to just keep banning as much sex-related stuff as possible until children everywhere are nicely insulated from reality - rather than hitting of the root of the problem, namely:
Why the hell are you so freaking scared of your children knowing about sex?
Now, I am not trying to say that lads mags lingerie and t-shirts saying the likes of "MONGOLOID PORN INFERNO" on them are necessarily a good thing. But the issue here is not related to children - these are all degrading to both women and men, but the question is, why do people buy these? And it sure as hell isn't due to having a healthy attitude towards sex. If children actually knew a damn thing about sex then they might actually understand why it is that they shouldn't want to aspiring to be a WAG or page 3 girl.
More than anything, we should sure as hell not be taking the advice of the Tories - many of whom still come from a generation when husbands and wives shared separate beds - on what is considered "normal" or "healthy" sexuality. Their attitude to sexuality is naturally "conservative" and harks back to a Victorian age when sex was less publicised, but prostitution, rape and child abuse were FAR more prevelant. Oh, and yeah, Daily Mail, you're part of that, too...
Perhaps the reason why parents fear paedophiles so much is that represent the most forceful example of childhood being threatened by the imposition of sexual interaction. In a way, this is a rather horrendous thought - that the paedophile is a scapegoat for the modern sexualisation of children, representing its absolute pinnacle and being used as the excuse for basically every sex-scare in the last 30 years or longer. Would paedophiles be a such a problem if we weren't all so shit-scared of sex?
And of course, the main problem, as far as I'm concerned, is that if you do teach your children to be ignorant, uninformed and "innocent", then they will grow up to be exactly the same way. And then they'll have children and pass it on themselves and the cycle of abuse will continue. Geez, wouldn't the Tories hate that...
But it all usually falls back to, "they're so damn cute when they're stupid"...
Sunday 8 May 2011
The Osama is dead...Long live the Obama
Well, Osama Bin Laden's dead and a lot of people are buzzing about what this will mean for the rest of the world, the Axis of Evil, War on Terror and numerous other institutions with punchy titles...
In spite of everything, the death of Osama will be a shot in the arm for the American psyche. For 10 years, the media and the government, both Democrats and Republicans, have painted the great evil of the "Osama". Every paranoia and fear and insecurity in the nation has been funnelled and fuelled into this one image - the great evil Osama sitting in his evil fortress thinking of his evil Muslim plots to destroy America. He is, for the average America, evil incarnate. And now he's dead - Obama has killed him. Suddenly, Americans can once again sleep safe in their beds knowing that Obama is watching safely over them, knowing that once again America has heroically triumphed over adversity and maintained it status as the greatest nation on Earth. Obama will of course now be basically anointed unto the heavens - ever since being elected as the second coming of Christ, his popularity has shrunk due to a lack of any grand Christ-like miracles. Killing Osama has rectified this - Christ has killed the Devil.
If we put this in psycho-sexual terms - oh yes I will - think of the World Trade Centre as two huge phalluses representing the huge metaphorical chauvanism that the USA has towards the rest of the world. Young, testosterone-fuelled country that it is, al-Qaeda basically went and made them go all flacid. Punctured that sense of over-whelming, arrogant pride. So, like many sexually-deprived psychopaths, the only way to relive the sexual inadequacy is to go and kill someone.
OK, that's a pretty extreme analogy, but it's not far from the truth. Osama's death will mean very little for al-Qaeda as a terrorist organisation - they're a decentralised group who are more likely to become more aggressive and vengeful after Osama is turned into a martyr, than to just kind of shrug and disband - this is not a case of "cut off the head and the tail will follow". The death of Osama, which provoked such riotous celebrations in Washington D.C. and elsewhere in the states, is a celebration of the repairing of the American psyche. Otherwise, how would you explain the decided lack of jubilation elsewhere in the world? America is a self-contained, introverted country, with a huge ego and threats to that ego are ten times more intimidating than in, say, Britain or France, both of whom have a history of terrorist attacks, occupations and wartime destruction which America is simply not used to.
What all this crazed Yankee jingoism means for the rest of us is that Obama has almost no chance of losing the next election. And, regardless of what Obama's critics may say - I'm looking at you, Noam Chomsky - we're better off with the Hawaiian Hercules than with the likes of the Trump card.
Still, with Osama dead, and that other great "enemy of America" dead Saddam Hussein, and with Gaddaffi pretty much on his way out (we'll see), it'll be interesting to see who becomes the next great Devil figure for the US...it's much easier than having to explain you're self if you just write the word's "EVIL, EVIL BASTARD!" above their heads in big glowing letters. America is a country founded on a very simplistic - and often dangerous - concept of Good vs. Evil and their government is well aware of this. Thus, if figures of hate cannot be simplified down into this easy dichotomy, then they barely get a mention.
Oh well, score one for the good guys, apparently...
Friday 8 April 2011
Everything You Wanted To Know About Porn (But Were Afraid to Google)
I was thinking about porn the other day (as I often do, in other circumstances) and I realised in my innately smug pragmatic way I genuinely can't decide whether I'm in favour of it or not. There's plenty of good arguments both ways and, unlike many debates, there's no straight party line from the left/right divide. Although many on the right want it banned for it's amorality and obscenity, many on the left want it banned for its exploitativeness and misogyny. It's even more controversial and incendiary than the prostitution debate, because it affects a much, MUCH wider percentage of the population - apparently, more than 70% of men from 18 to 34 visit a pornographic site in a typical month. That's a few more than visit whores, I'd say. Even an 188 year old man like myself has watched more than few skin-flicks (we didn't have this problem back during Reconstruction, I tell ya) and so, really, it's a trade which takes a bit of analysis...
So, here's my schizoid debate on porn - we'll see which one wins out...
Against
The problem with porn is pretty simple – it’s exploitative, misogynistic and sets a pretty bad example for anyone looking for an insight as to “what sex is”.
Let’s get on with exploitative – the porn industry targets the most vulnerable and poor in society. While it could be said there is something of a legitimate porn industry, which I will get onto in a sec, there is also a much larger amateur industry which involves crime, corruption and targets young, impressionable women (and men, don’t forget), often immigrants (both legal and otherwise) who have little money or qualifications and coerces them into engaging in degrading and often harmful behaviour which is broadcast around the web. Much of it is illegal, but much of it is worse because the law protects it – so pornographers and criminals can exploit men and women as much as they want without a single reprimand because it all occurs behind closed doors. Prostitution comes under fire from the police when it takes place on the street, but pornography is left alone because it takes place in a sleazy hotel room, rather than in “decent society”. In this sense, it borders on the same excuse for the lack of police intervention into domestic violence – except that domestic violence is now investigated regularly while amateur pornography, often as damaging if not more so to the individual, is left untouched. And don’t even get me started on child porn!
That’s the amateur porn business – there is a more professional industry which is more controlled and less concerned on the black-market. Top-shelf stuff which is, by comparison, much more respectful to the actors/actresses, at least in financial and legal terms. Still, this is where the very nature of pornography comes under scrutiny – it presents an image of sex which is unrealistic, offensive and often aggressive. As a result, generations have grown up with pornography as their only image of sexual intercourse and this can’t be healthy. Much of the fault lies with schools which are still too cagey and conservative to educate pupils about sex in any explicit terms. Children are therefore forced to turn to porn for an insight; I’m no social psychologist, so I’m not going to make a generalisation here (I was able to watch porn without going mad for one), but it’s certainly not a preferable alternative to genuine education on the subject.
So my bottom line is – maybe there shouldn’t be law to condemn pornography since that would drive it further underground. But I would hope that individuals in society will simply come to realise the harmful effects of porn and stop providing a market for it.
For
Much of the argument for pornography is the same as the one for prostitution – if you make it illegal you force it into illegal circles and it becomes embroiled in corruption, organised crime and sex trafficking. If you keep it legal and monitored, then those involved are protected, respected and receive the compensation they deserve. Prostitution and pornography are the world’s two oldest professions and they will, arguably, always exist as long as people are cagey about having sex with one another. So surely it’s better to pull it out of the underground and into a regulated and legal setting, rather than making it the province of the Mafia?
The other big issue is this – who has the right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies. In particular, the argument against porn seems to always revolve around women and “decency”. In this sense, it’s a throwback to Victorian prudishness and big wire-framed dresses – men telling women to hide their shame. When pornography involves consenting adults, what kind of legal justification can you give? Exhibitionism is not a crime so long as the watching of it is done by choice – and it’s not like you’re forced to watch pornography. So if everyone involved is consenting, then surely it’s suppressing civil liberties to ban it?
Finally – and this is my most tenuous argument – who is to say that pornography has a negative effect on those watching it? And, if it does, who is to say that it is pornography’s fault rather than the sheer ignorance and impressionable stupidity of those watching? I managed to watch pornography for years without becoming a serial rapist so it IS possible. Why is it the fault of the product rather than the buyer? And what about to idea that porn actually produces a catharsis? It has been scientifically shown that regular masturbation is a physically healthy pastime (if you can’t get sex, that is) so why shouldn’t pornography be part of this cathartic aid?
So I believe it is pointless to talking about banning porn – it is here to stay as far as I am concerned and I think the world would be a much more uptight place without it.
Conclusion
Sooo, what's the conclusion, kids? Well, I don't think this one's going to be sorted out soon. If we all had access to regular sex with whoever we felt like, it wouldn't be an issue, but I can't see that being the case any time soon and, to be honest, that would throw up as many problems as it causes. So I can't see porn going away soon and, with the internet getting bigger and bigger, it's just going to push further into the mainstream.
I say, for now, just hang loose and see what happens!
So, here's my schizoid debate on porn - we'll see which one wins out...
Against
The problem with porn is pretty simple – it’s exploitative, misogynistic and sets a pretty bad example for anyone looking for an insight as to “what sex is”.
Let’s get on with exploitative – the porn industry targets the most vulnerable and poor in society. While it could be said there is something of a legitimate porn industry, which I will get onto in a sec, there is also a much larger amateur industry which involves crime, corruption and targets young, impressionable women (and men, don’t forget), often immigrants (both legal and otherwise) who have little money or qualifications and coerces them into engaging in degrading and often harmful behaviour which is broadcast around the web. Much of it is illegal, but much of it is worse because the law protects it – so pornographers and criminals can exploit men and women as much as they want without a single reprimand because it all occurs behind closed doors. Prostitution comes under fire from the police when it takes place on the street, but pornography is left alone because it takes place in a sleazy hotel room, rather than in “decent society”. In this sense, it borders on the same excuse for the lack of police intervention into domestic violence – except that domestic violence is now investigated regularly while amateur pornography, often as damaging if not more so to the individual, is left untouched. And don’t even get me started on child porn!
That’s the amateur porn business – there is a more professional industry which is more controlled and less concerned on the black-market. Top-shelf stuff which is, by comparison, much more respectful to the actors/actresses, at least in financial and legal terms. Still, this is where the very nature of pornography comes under scrutiny – it presents an image of sex which is unrealistic, offensive and often aggressive. As a result, generations have grown up with pornography as their only image of sexual intercourse and this can’t be healthy. Much of the fault lies with schools which are still too cagey and conservative to educate pupils about sex in any explicit terms. Children are therefore forced to turn to porn for an insight; I’m no social psychologist, so I’m not going to make a generalisation here (I was able to watch porn without going mad for one), but it’s certainly not a preferable alternative to genuine education on the subject.
So my bottom line is – maybe there shouldn’t be law to condemn pornography since that would drive it further underground. But I would hope that individuals in society will simply come to realise the harmful effects of porn and stop providing a market for it.
For
Much of the argument for pornography is the same as the one for prostitution – if you make it illegal you force it into illegal circles and it becomes embroiled in corruption, organised crime and sex trafficking. If you keep it legal and monitored, then those involved are protected, respected and receive the compensation they deserve. Prostitution and pornography are the world’s two oldest professions and they will, arguably, always exist as long as people are cagey about having sex with one another. So surely it’s better to pull it out of the underground and into a regulated and legal setting, rather than making it the province of the Mafia?
The other big issue is this – who has the right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies. In particular, the argument against porn seems to always revolve around women and “decency”. In this sense, it’s a throwback to Victorian prudishness and big wire-framed dresses – men telling women to hide their shame. When pornography involves consenting adults, what kind of legal justification can you give? Exhibitionism is not a crime so long as the watching of it is done by choice – and it’s not like you’re forced to watch pornography. So if everyone involved is consenting, then surely it’s suppressing civil liberties to ban it?
Finally – and this is my most tenuous argument – who is to say that pornography has a negative effect on those watching it? And, if it does, who is to say that it is pornography’s fault rather than the sheer ignorance and impressionable stupidity of those watching? I managed to watch pornography for years without becoming a serial rapist so it IS possible. Why is it the fault of the product rather than the buyer? And what about to idea that porn actually produces a catharsis? It has been scientifically shown that regular masturbation is a physically healthy pastime (if you can’t get sex, that is) so why shouldn’t pornography be part of this cathartic aid?
So I believe it is pointless to talking about banning porn – it is here to stay as far as I am concerned and I think the world would be a much more uptight place without it.
Conclusion
Sooo, what's the conclusion, kids? Well, I don't think this one's going to be sorted out soon. If we all had access to regular sex with whoever we felt like, it wouldn't be an issue, but I can't see that being the case any time soon and, to be honest, that would throw up as many problems as it causes. So I can't see porn going away soon and, with the internet getting bigger and bigger, it's just going to push further into the mainstream.
I say, for now, just hang loose and see what happens!
Wednesday 30 March 2011
Why the left are sick of Clare Solomon...
In light of the recent defeat of Clare Solomon in the University of London Union elections a lot of people have been bandying about a lot of the usual political rhetoric about a victory of the right in dethroning the revolution’s favourite single mother, highlighting once again the intense politicisation of the student movement in recent years. Clare’s own politicisation – which was a relatively recent development for her – has been one of the key points of contention. The ex-Muslim, ex-Mormon, ex-Capitalist, “Revolutionary” could certainly tick a few boxes in an Equal Oppurtunities application, which is why it’s kind of ironic that’s it’s her massive political sectarianism which was finally downfall. Of course, this is hardly a radical statement – it’s clear that Clare’s views are not exactly going to appeal to all shades of the political spectrum. Where she and her gang have shot themselves in the foot is that they have managed to essentially divide and disillusion the student left.
Clare and her followers have created an invisible line in the sand and anyone whose views lean any farther left of that line than her is basically a Tory sympathiser. A “counter-revolutionary”. Aaron Porter’s own vilification at the hands of the Solomonites has been a perfect example; a man whose views certainly swing a bit further left than Ed Miliband’s has basically been accused of turning the NUS into an HQ for Tory spies because he didn’t give the old nod and wink to the balaclava boys when they were tearing down public property. Admittedly there were a few more criticisms of him than that, but most of them can be attributed by some kind of need for inclusiveness and pragmatism – concept which the Solomonites just can’t comprehend. It’s become a case of towing the party line; “you’re either with us, or you’re against us” and “against us” is anyone who dares to condemn the destruction of public property or throwing cinderblocks at the police. This is perhaps the true hypocrisy of the Solomonites – they constantly throw around the word “solidarity” while setting a bar of such high extremes of political violence, both physical and verbal, that the only people qualified to take the high ground have the Gang of Four tattooed on their arse-cheeks and alienate anyone but the most rampantly left-wing. People use the word “bigot” interchangeably with “racist” nowadays, but it is actually defined as anyone obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices and this sure as hell sums up the bigoted Solomonites.
In a recent Guardian interview, Clare blamed her defeat on a “right-wing alliance” which, for her, includes Labour, Tory, Lib Dem and basically anyone who isn’t a card-carrying Socialist Worker. Even if we ignore the intense paranoia in this accusation, it is the sheer gall she has in asserting her importance in the grand scheme of things – as if the Tories don’t have better things to do. And I think that the greater left have simply had enough. The sheer nonsense of the Solomonites’ sectarianism is that students are traditionally left-leaning. Conservative students are still a rarity - if a majority kicked her out, then that’s a majority of lefties who kicked her out. Maybe not balaclava-wearing, para-militirist wannabe lefties, but lefties nonetheless. There is a large constituent of students with left-wing beliefs – probably a majority in fact – who are being ostracised and vilified by the Solomonites’ vindictive triumphalism. To label Clare’s defeat as a victory of the right is arrogant in the extreme; Clare Solomon does not represent the left, she is not the socialist figurehead, she was the head of a multi-faceted, inclusive organisation and by forcing her own bigoted, violent pseudo-Bolshevism on the student movement came damn near close to destroying it and turning progressive politics into a caricature. Her defeat is a victory for the left, not the right. The Red Flag is not flying for you, Clare...
Clare and her followers have created an invisible line in the sand and anyone whose views lean any farther left of that line than her is basically a Tory sympathiser. A “counter-revolutionary”. Aaron Porter’s own vilification at the hands of the Solomonites has been a perfect example; a man whose views certainly swing a bit further left than Ed Miliband’s has basically been accused of turning the NUS into an HQ for Tory spies because he didn’t give the old nod and wink to the balaclava boys when they were tearing down public property. Admittedly there were a few more criticisms of him than that, but most of them can be attributed by some kind of need for inclusiveness and pragmatism – concept which the Solomonites just can’t comprehend. It’s become a case of towing the party line; “you’re either with us, or you’re against us” and “against us” is anyone who dares to condemn the destruction of public property or throwing cinderblocks at the police. This is perhaps the true hypocrisy of the Solomonites – they constantly throw around the word “solidarity” while setting a bar of such high extremes of political violence, both physical and verbal, that the only people qualified to take the high ground have the Gang of Four tattooed on their arse-cheeks and alienate anyone but the most rampantly left-wing. People use the word “bigot” interchangeably with “racist” nowadays, but it is actually defined as anyone obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices and this sure as hell sums up the bigoted Solomonites.
In a recent Guardian interview, Clare blamed her defeat on a “right-wing alliance” which, for her, includes Labour, Tory, Lib Dem and basically anyone who isn’t a card-carrying Socialist Worker. Even if we ignore the intense paranoia in this accusation, it is the sheer gall she has in asserting her importance in the grand scheme of things – as if the Tories don’t have better things to do. And I think that the greater left have simply had enough. The sheer nonsense of the Solomonites’ sectarianism is that students are traditionally left-leaning. Conservative students are still a rarity - if a majority kicked her out, then that’s a majority of lefties who kicked her out. Maybe not balaclava-wearing, para-militirist wannabe lefties, but lefties nonetheless. There is a large constituent of students with left-wing beliefs – probably a majority in fact – who are being ostracised and vilified by the Solomonites’ vindictive triumphalism. To label Clare’s defeat as a victory of the right is arrogant in the extreme; Clare Solomon does not represent the left, she is not the socialist figurehead, she was the head of a multi-faceted, inclusive organisation and by forcing her own bigoted, violent pseudo-Bolshevism on the student movement came damn near close to destroying it and turning progressive politics into a caricature. Her defeat is a victory for the left, not the right. The Red Flag is not flying for you, Clare...
The Morality of Violence and the March 26th TUC march
In light of the TUC demonstration on the 26th of March, the big issue again getting all the media attention is the violence. Groups of black-shirted “anarchists” vandalising Oxford Street, Piccadilly Cirucs, Trafalgar Square and anywhere else they may feel like in the name of bringing down the symbols of capitalist exploitation, etc. As usual it was the youngsters causing all the trouble – aside from a few drunken shouts of “sell-out” during Ed Miliband’s Hyde Park speech from the older generations, it was the same group of young wannabe-insurrectionists spoiling the party for everyone.
Let me posit this scenario – one day I’m walking down Oxford Street and I come across McDonald’s. Since I’m a staunch anti-capitalist (and they ripped off my name) I decide to pick up a brick and throw it through the window. No-one is hurt, but the police come and take me away. Now, I doubt there are many people who would see my actions as justified, or as the actions of anything other than a lunatic, and yet this is exactly the same scenario that occurred in Oxford Street and Piccadilly and Trafalgar Square on the 26th. The only difference is the mob mentality which gives people strength (and anonymity) in numbers. And I honestly cannot see what the “anarchists” present on the 26th – and I use that term in the loosest possible sense since I very much doubt Kropotkin or Proudhon would have been giving their stamp of approval to these nutjobs – think they can achieve with their tactics. To quote Kropotkin himself, in reference to the acts of violent anarchists in 1887, “a structure based on centuries of history cannot be destroyed with a few kilos of dynamite.” It’s all meaningless venting, particularly considering that they only ever come out in force under the shelter of a greater demonstration. Their inherently frightening personas mean that they have no chance of winning public support and the fact that they all come under the definition of “youths” certainly makes me picture a lot of feckless Black Flag fans with too much time on their hands. At best, the suppression of the state is the last thing you want in these neo-neo-liberal times and the anarchist cause is hopelessly misguided and naive as it ever was, and its theories unworkable beyond pragmatic application in select institutions. At worst, you have a bunch of ignorant moral egoist thugs who are destroying the reputation of the greater anti-cuts movement by association.
Of course, the other anti-cuts groups don’t exactly help themselves in this case – the refusal of UK Uncut spokesman Lucy Annson to condemn the violence committed on the 26th is a perfect example of otherwise peaceful anti-cuts groups shooting themselves in the foot. The only way they can justified and rally public support is by presenting themselves as anything but “radical” and although it may be more ethically sound not to make a stand on the violent action, it’s a real kick in the crotch for their publicity – particularly since UK Uncut’s ideologies couldn’t be further from those of the black block. This is another example of that dreaded notion of “solidarity” – the concept that there is some kind of good/evil divide in the ether at the moment and that the black bloc and other violent protesters are part of the “good” because they stand against the “evil” bankers and tax-cheats. This sounds moronic, but it’s dangerously close to how the minds of many people work. The police actions at Fortnum and Mason were bizarre and idiotic, but that does not mean that the police are the “bad guys” here and therefore the black bloc are the “good guys”. This not a conflict. This is not a revolution.
Here in Britain we are blessed with one of the most free and open societies on the planet. The insurrection in North Africa is a tragedy – the people of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya should never have needed to overthrow their government and the fact that they were pushed to it should not be romanticised. To compare our society to theirs is sick and offensive – the protesters calling to turn Trafalgar Square into Tahrir Square are so utterly ignorant that it baffles the mind that these people are supposed to be standing at the avant-garde of “progressive” society. In Britain we have a system has been honed over years of political construction to allow individuals the right to expression. By resorting to violence, these privileges – which every rebel in Libya is fighting for their lives to gain – are being tossed aside in favour of primitive, un-thinking, instinctive stupidity. Violence is the first and last resort of the moronic. And we do not need it here.
Now of course, there is a big difference between the destruction of property and violent acts against other human beings. But at the same time, the impetus is the same – destruction. Aggression. Anger. Violence. No stable society can be built on these principles – violence begats violence, as the French Revolution showed us. Why people still romanticise violence in this day and age is beyond me. And my main point is this – who the hell are you to decide what’s acceptable in terms of violence? Who the hell are you to make the choice to destroy someone else’s work, let alone destroy a person? What gives you that right? Since when did destruction ever lead to growth? We have laws in this country because there needs to be an objective set of rules on these limits, particularly in these increasingly secular times – a lot of us don’t have a big magic book to tell us anymore and you are sure as hell not smart enough to decide for yourself. It’s that kind of moral egoism which enables men like Gaddafi to take power and lets bankers decide to rob people blind without disturbing their conscience. By deciding their own boundaries, the black bloc are all part of the same parcel and are, therefore, hypocrites.
So let me just say this – I have no shame in trying to push a pacifist agenda on people. As far as I am concerned it’s the only morally justified lifestyle. It is not possible for individuals to make a decision on the moral use of violence – to do so is fascist and, last time I checked, fascism was a bad thing. And to the black shirts – whoops, sorry, I mean the black bloc - if you’re still keen on the old anarchism, try reading Tolstoy’s “The Kingdom of God is Within You” and then see how your ideologies stand. Because from where you stand to me, all I see is a big black mark on the face of society...
Let me posit this scenario – one day I’m walking down Oxford Street and I come across McDonald’s. Since I’m a staunch anti-capitalist (and they ripped off my name) I decide to pick up a brick and throw it through the window. No-one is hurt, but the police come and take me away. Now, I doubt there are many people who would see my actions as justified, or as the actions of anything other than a lunatic, and yet this is exactly the same scenario that occurred in Oxford Street and Piccadilly and Trafalgar Square on the 26th. The only difference is the mob mentality which gives people strength (and anonymity) in numbers. And I honestly cannot see what the “anarchists” present on the 26th – and I use that term in the loosest possible sense since I very much doubt Kropotkin or Proudhon would have been giving their stamp of approval to these nutjobs – think they can achieve with their tactics. To quote Kropotkin himself, in reference to the acts of violent anarchists in 1887, “a structure based on centuries of history cannot be destroyed with a few kilos of dynamite.” It’s all meaningless venting, particularly considering that they only ever come out in force under the shelter of a greater demonstration. Their inherently frightening personas mean that they have no chance of winning public support and the fact that they all come under the definition of “youths” certainly makes me picture a lot of feckless Black Flag fans with too much time on their hands. At best, the suppression of the state is the last thing you want in these neo-neo-liberal times and the anarchist cause is hopelessly misguided and naive as it ever was, and its theories unworkable beyond pragmatic application in select institutions. At worst, you have a bunch of ignorant moral egoist thugs who are destroying the reputation of the greater anti-cuts movement by association.
Of course, the other anti-cuts groups don’t exactly help themselves in this case – the refusal of UK Uncut spokesman Lucy Annson to condemn the violence committed on the 26th is a perfect example of otherwise peaceful anti-cuts groups shooting themselves in the foot. The only way they can justified and rally public support is by presenting themselves as anything but “radical” and although it may be more ethically sound not to make a stand on the violent action, it’s a real kick in the crotch for their publicity – particularly since UK Uncut’s ideologies couldn’t be further from those of the black block. This is another example of that dreaded notion of “solidarity” – the concept that there is some kind of good/evil divide in the ether at the moment and that the black bloc and other violent protesters are part of the “good” because they stand against the “evil” bankers and tax-cheats. This sounds moronic, but it’s dangerously close to how the minds of many people work. The police actions at Fortnum and Mason were bizarre and idiotic, but that does not mean that the police are the “bad guys” here and therefore the black bloc are the “good guys”. This not a conflict. This is not a revolution.
Here in Britain we are blessed with one of the most free and open societies on the planet. The insurrection in North Africa is a tragedy – the people of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya should never have needed to overthrow their government and the fact that they were pushed to it should not be romanticised. To compare our society to theirs is sick and offensive – the protesters calling to turn Trafalgar Square into Tahrir Square are so utterly ignorant that it baffles the mind that these people are supposed to be standing at the avant-garde of “progressive” society. In Britain we have a system has been honed over years of political construction to allow individuals the right to expression. By resorting to violence, these privileges – which every rebel in Libya is fighting for their lives to gain – are being tossed aside in favour of primitive, un-thinking, instinctive stupidity. Violence is the first and last resort of the moronic. And we do not need it here.
Now of course, there is a big difference between the destruction of property and violent acts against other human beings. But at the same time, the impetus is the same – destruction. Aggression. Anger. Violence. No stable society can be built on these principles – violence begats violence, as the French Revolution showed us. Why people still romanticise violence in this day and age is beyond me. And my main point is this – who the hell are you to decide what’s acceptable in terms of violence? Who the hell are you to make the choice to destroy someone else’s work, let alone destroy a person? What gives you that right? Since when did destruction ever lead to growth? We have laws in this country because there needs to be an objective set of rules on these limits, particularly in these increasingly secular times – a lot of us don’t have a big magic book to tell us anymore and you are sure as hell not smart enough to decide for yourself. It’s that kind of moral egoism which enables men like Gaddafi to take power and lets bankers decide to rob people blind without disturbing their conscience. By deciding their own boundaries, the black bloc are all part of the same parcel and are, therefore, hypocrites.
So let me just say this – I have no shame in trying to push a pacifist agenda on people. As far as I am concerned it’s the only morally justified lifestyle. It is not possible for individuals to make a decision on the moral use of violence – to do so is fascist and, last time I checked, fascism was a bad thing. And to the black shirts – whoops, sorry, I mean the black bloc - if you’re still keen on the old anarchism, try reading Tolstoy’s “The Kingdom of God is Within You” and then see how your ideologies stand. Because from where you stand to me, all I see is a big black mark on the face of society...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)