Saturday 24 October 2009
Some brief words on the BNP.
First of all while I do not agree with the likes of Peter Hain on the banning of the BNP from television I can completely understand his position. Watching Nick Griffin on the panel of QT was painful and hilarious, and perhaps he should have the right to lie gratuitously, but I can understand why people who have consistently campaigned against racism are upset at seeing him on telly spouting this crap. After all I'd imagine anti-racist campaigners who started out in the sixties (like Mr Hain) would have thought that they would have got a bit further by now. Apologies we haven't Peter, there are still a lot of overt and covert racists in this country, I support your aim and to a certain extent methods, but Griffin is the wrong target, for a simple reason, him and his followers are fucking idiots.
Tuesday 15 September 2009
Ad Campaign?!
Call Me a fucking Advertising genius, not don't call me that as then I'd then I'd be on my own deathlist, but surely it's a great idea to run this early eighties tune over a collection of facts about Cameron, his policies, what cuts would mean what and he and his coterie and what they've done in the past. It's even got the phrase 'Time to Change' in it. The tune? Bucks Fizz - Make Believe. Perhaps a series involving Making your Mind Up? I'm sure Cheryl Baker would approve.
Saturday 12 September 2009
Three Lions on a shirt...
It has become a common view, perhaps in my mind that we're third to fifth favourites to wn the World Cup but it has occurred to me how much due to the skyification (I'm looking at you Mr Redknapp) how much we underrate the 96 team we had, any team that can rightly overlook Chris Waddle, David Hirst and Des Walker (declared interest I'm a Wednesdayite) is a great side. Many people bum Venables but look what he had to pick from? Chris Sutton? Not a look in, Dalian Atkinson? Go Fuck yourself, Julian Joachim? Great pace but don't make me laugh. Great fringe players at the time: Lee Dixon (better than G Johnson) Keown, Pallister, Bruce, Lee sharpe, Trevor Sinclair, Winterburn Campbell Ince Scholes G Hyde Barmby, Anderton, Parlour, Collymore, Fowler, Cole, Beardsley, Darren Eadie, Jeremy Goss, Andy sinton, Ruel Fox, Steve Bould, Ian Wright, Steve Clarke, David Howells could barely get in the Euro 96 side. Before we say we're up here, please bear in mind the quality that has failed to even fail on behalf of England. If we do win let's not salute the hero's without acknowledging the Gods of a poorer realm that came before.
Tuesday 8 September 2009
Saturday 29 August 2009
10 ways to confuse a Tory
1. Explain what the song 'Eton Rifles' is about.
2. Telll them that America's shit, and yet their ideas go completely against the idea that taxation should have representation.
3. Shirley Porter
4. Describe cricket as an inherently socialist game.
5. Ask them to watch 'The Wire'
6. Tell them to inspect the Swedish School system
7. Have a Lib dem leader leader who isn't shagging rentboys, an alcoholic or vaguely coherent.
8. Tell them you're a Wallpaper magnate and an SWP member.
9. Explain Daniel Hannan's political philosophy
10. Vote Blue Go Green.
2. Telll them that America's shit, and yet their ideas go completely against the idea that taxation should have representation.
3. Shirley Porter
4. Describe cricket as an inherently socialist game.
5. Ask them to watch 'The Wire'
6. Tell them to inspect the Swedish School system
7. Have a Lib dem leader leader who isn't shagging rentboys, an alcoholic or vaguely coherent.
8. Tell them you're a Wallpaper magnate and an SWP member.
9. Explain Daniel Hannan's political philosophy
10. Vote Blue Go Green.
I Think I'm In Love With Victoria Coren
Upon viewing her byline picture or an image in a long forgotten profile one cannot forget that beautiful smirk, that expression that tells you that it wouldn't just be beneath her intellect and compassion to put you down (even though you're someone who reads newspapers on a Sunday on the internet.) but that she just wouldn't be all that bothered, she's the sort of woman who'd charm the violent stalking type into baking fairy cakes. Having hardly ever seen her moving, let alone in three dimensions, it was interesting to watch C. Brookers channel 4 show, (which is rubbish for him but which i can't help thinking is charity towards TV) she is as undeniably exquisite as i could imagine, making even the gorgeously infectiously funny Josie Long seem like a Gorgon to her Penelope. Before you take out a restraining order Ms Coren, please just keep being wonderful. (PS a bit of that 500,000 would really come in handy.)
Saturday 8 August 2009
I would never describe myself as a harmanista, I think she's incompetent slightly rubbish and even those policies that anyone can see aim to solve genuine problems are about as well managed as most of us manage to attack wasps in pub gardens. I mean honestly how can anyone be ridiculed for trying to stop rape? However amongst the nonsense there is a genuine desire and vocation to achieve something, women have a crap bloody deal in our society and it's not really acceptable, however unartful imposition and positive discrimination only ever engenders resentment. I do agree that there is a role for government in legislating, but please leave us our freedom to be rubbish ourselves and for God's sake if you cared more about feminism or Labour values than your own role in it then please fuck off
Tuesday 30 June 2009
Michael Jackson's Death: Nonsense
Michael Jackson's death; what nonsense. That's guarenteed to get attention but not to the most interesting aspect of Jackson and his contemporaries in other industries. To me it was poetic justice that Bernie Madoff was sent to prison just after the date of Michael Jackson's death. I don't want to pass judgement on Jackson himself, his songs quite evidently touched billions of people and regardless of his eccentricities and the allegations against him, he led a life that few of us can comprehend. What it more says to me is the veneration of a man to ludicrous lengths, as we do all the time. Blur played an unbelievable set on Sunday night, only spoilt by my dumping two days later, still i've still got this is a low. But why is Jackson so unbelievably venerated when the death of Allbarn would raise barely a squeal? He was a commodity, he sold and when he wasn't sellable he had no purpose. Yes Jacko is far more popular but not in proportion (in this country at least) to the reaction. Perhaps Jacko's death is on Reagan's hands as much as our current bankrupt conception of economics is on Friedman's.
Thursday 4 June 2009
Is This Is The End?
Well there you have it: this looks like the hefty branch that added to a large pile of kindling should break the camel's back. James Purnell has resigned in what seems a slightly baffling move. There's no question that this will make it hard for Brown to survive: it is the first resignation that cannot be obviously dismissed as motivated by either personal circumstances and/or grievances against Brown and it will surely embolden those who perhaps want to resign but didn't want to associate themselves with the likes of Blears or go out on a limb by themselves and have their own personal motives for for their resignation questioned.
It seems strange because first of all the results of the elections aren't in yet and secondly because it doesn't seem in character. Purnell is a Blairite or 'moderniser' as they like to be known, but not one of those who is bristling with contempt for Gordon Brown. Lastly the results in the local and European elections may not be as bad as expected. Blears' attack on Brown will perhaps have encouraged a few Labour supporters to vote Labour in order to stave off the catastrophic results that would allow the likes of Blears to claim vindication, as well as a possible swelling of the vote in those areas where the BNP have been talked up.
It is key that if Brown is to be toppled by the Blairites, as well as possible moves from the left that the Blairites are not allowed to 'modernise' the party in their own mad way as if they do it would tear the Labour Party apart. This may well need to happen anyway but if it happens in the run up to an election it could mean that the Tories face an opposition that is not opposing them but itself. One thing's for certain 'The People's Dave' will be laughing in his public paid for house, or perhaps in the half of Oxfordhire or Lincolnshire that his family owns.
It seems strange because first of all the results of the elections aren't in yet and secondly because it doesn't seem in character. Purnell is a Blairite or 'moderniser' as they like to be known, but not one of those who is bristling with contempt for Gordon Brown. Lastly the results in the local and European elections may not be as bad as expected. Blears' attack on Brown will perhaps have encouraged a few Labour supporters to vote Labour in order to stave off the catastrophic results that would allow the likes of Blears to claim vindication, as well as a possible swelling of the vote in those areas where the BNP have been talked up.
It is key that if Brown is to be toppled by the Blairites, as well as possible moves from the left that the Blairites are not allowed to 'modernise' the party in their own mad way as if they do it would tear the Labour Party apart. This may well need to happen anyway but if it happens in the run up to an election it could mean that the Tories face an opposition that is not opposing them but itself. One thing's for certain 'The People's Dave' will be laughing in his public paid for house, or perhaps in the half of Oxfordhire or Lincolnshire that his family owns.
The Curious Case Of The Arshavin In The Tax System
One player who certainly has made an impact upon his arrival in the Premiership(or First Division as it should be is a certain Mr Andrey Arshavin, his beguiling talent making a fairly mediocre Arsenal side watchable again and putting what turned out to be one of the final nails in Liverpool's title hopes' coffin. However all is not well in the Arshavin household, not only has his no doubt fragrant wife had to put up with the supposed unkemptness of our English roses but it seems Andrey has been a left a little shortchanged by Mr Darling, his agent and Arsenal's negotiators. It seems Andrey didn't realise that a huge chunk of his £80,000 a week wages would not be going to buy materials for his dressmaking business but would instead be being used by HM Government to plug the black hole in its finances.
Now I may be being more generous than most but I would attribute Mr Arshavin's taking umbrage to something other than mere greed, namely the unfairness of it all. This is because most of his peers, many of whom lack his considerable talents, do not make the same generous contribution to the upkeep of the nation. Savvy agents have long insisted on wages being paid net and many clubs and players upon the announcement of the 50% Tax Rate will have swiftly renegotiated the payment of their wages as interest free loans or some other such method of keeping their star names happy and in Gucci manbags. Arshavin's contract was negotiated during the snow ridden chaos of the last transfer deadline day and so, no doubt, he failed to employ the creative accounting that others will have used in order to ensure that their cash is used for monogramed kitchen tiles for themselves rather than for the ducks of Gosport.
But Arshavin here is surely the exception: his travails are what millions of hard working people experience every day. Those with ordinary incomes (unlike Andrey), who lack the time (like him) and money to ensure that we make as small a contribution as possible to the public purse can only look on in envy at those who can. This is the inherent bias in the tax system towards the very rich. Not only do they sometimes earn unjustifiable sums of money due to markets' occasional bouts of insanity but they then pay far less as a percentage of their income even than those who one would class as rich. A basic principle of any progressive or even moderately Tory society is that the top earners pay a larger percentage of their income in tax than those in the middle or at the bottom.
To me a major moral case behind this is our humanity: We need money in order to exchange it for the things we need to live first and foremost. From there we need it to break up the monotony of our existence by either treating it as an end in itself and using it to open doors or by buying luxuries. The more one earns therefore the less each actual pound is 'worth' to its owner. Someone may struggle to live on £4,000 a year, £30,000 a year may allow one to live in relative comfort, the difference in quality of life between the two sums is significant. If someone is earning £100,000 a year then that same increase would make a not completely insignificant but far, far smaller contribution to that person having a better quality of life. Perhaps this difference is not to be sniffed at. It could after all mean a better car or an extra bedroom, not particularly significant when compared with the difference it could make to a child in poverty but one can understand why an increase in this person's tax bill would be unappreciated. However where I honestly cannot fathom the sheer selfishness is amongst our astronomical earners: precisely those who pay a much lower portion in tax. They may be earning £10m a year, losing £5m of that £10m rather than £2m would make absolutely no difference to their quality of life, that £3m could, if put to good use significantly change the lives of a huge number of people by providing better services such as good education, healthcare, housing, transport, or enabling us to pay off the debts incurred escaping a recession created by many of the same people who howl about higher tax, perhaps in better times we could even cut tax on those at the bottom, in the middle or even moderate high earners. Of course in reality life is much more complicated than this simple method of money vs quality of life: there are considerations about incentives, the rich moan that we must be 'competitive' (why to attract more greedy nation wreckers?), whether a government puts this money to good use etc. However surely as a starting point we need to have at least the super and very rich, who benefit from our public services as much as anyone else (how would companies make money if they had a workforce that was ill, illiterate and unable to travel?), paying the same percentage or more of their income in tax instead of being always one step ahead and contributing as little as they can to the country that has given them so much. He may not be very happy about it but we need more Andrey Arshavins: here's to more snow next January 31st.
Now I may be being more generous than most but I would attribute Mr Arshavin's taking umbrage to something other than mere greed, namely the unfairness of it all. This is because most of his peers, many of whom lack his considerable talents, do not make the same generous contribution to the upkeep of the nation. Savvy agents have long insisted on wages being paid net and many clubs and players upon the announcement of the 50% Tax Rate will have swiftly renegotiated the payment of their wages as interest free loans or some other such method of keeping their star names happy and in Gucci manbags. Arshavin's contract was negotiated during the snow ridden chaos of the last transfer deadline day and so, no doubt, he failed to employ the creative accounting that others will have used in order to ensure that their cash is used for monogramed kitchen tiles for themselves rather than for the ducks of Gosport.
But Arshavin here is surely the exception: his travails are what millions of hard working people experience every day. Those with ordinary incomes (unlike Andrey), who lack the time (like him) and money to ensure that we make as small a contribution as possible to the public purse can only look on in envy at those who can. This is the inherent bias in the tax system towards the very rich. Not only do they sometimes earn unjustifiable sums of money due to markets' occasional bouts of insanity but they then pay far less as a percentage of their income even than those who one would class as rich. A basic principle of any progressive or even moderately Tory society is that the top earners pay a larger percentage of their income in tax than those in the middle or at the bottom.
To me a major moral case behind this is our humanity: We need money in order to exchange it for the things we need to live first and foremost. From there we need it to break up the monotony of our existence by either treating it as an end in itself and using it to open doors or by buying luxuries. The more one earns therefore the less each actual pound is 'worth' to its owner. Someone may struggle to live on £4,000 a year, £30,000 a year may allow one to live in relative comfort, the difference in quality of life between the two sums is significant. If someone is earning £100,000 a year then that same increase would make a not completely insignificant but far, far smaller contribution to that person having a better quality of life. Perhaps this difference is not to be sniffed at. It could after all mean a better car or an extra bedroom, not particularly significant when compared with the difference it could make to a child in poverty but one can understand why an increase in this person's tax bill would be unappreciated. However where I honestly cannot fathom the sheer selfishness is amongst our astronomical earners: precisely those who pay a much lower portion in tax. They may be earning £10m a year, losing £5m of that £10m rather than £2m would make absolutely no difference to their quality of life, that £3m could, if put to good use significantly change the lives of a huge number of people by providing better services such as good education, healthcare, housing, transport, or enabling us to pay off the debts incurred escaping a recession created by many of the same people who howl about higher tax, perhaps in better times we could even cut tax on those at the bottom, in the middle or even moderate high earners. Of course in reality life is much more complicated than this simple method of money vs quality of life: there are considerations about incentives, the rich moan that we must be 'competitive' (why to attract more greedy nation wreckers?), whether a government puts this money to good use etc. However surely as a starting point we need to have at least the super and very rich, who benefit from our public services as much as anyone else (how would companies make money if they had a workforce that was ill, illiterate and unable to travel?), paying the same percentage or more of their income in tax instead of being always one step ahead and contributing as little as they can to the country that has given them so much. He may not be very happy about it but we need more Andrey Arshavins: here's to more snow next January 31st.
Wednesday 3 June 2009
What on Earth is going on?
Today the knives have been out for Gordon Brown, including one which with astonishing shamelessness has been wielded by Hazel Blears. One almost sympathises for Brown in the calibre of his assassins, but that has always been an essential reason why so many of us have supported him on the principle 'If Blair, Clarke, Blunkett, Blears, (Insert Blairite/Tory) hate him he must be a great person.' To be honest Brown probably deserves to go, he has consistently let down his supporters and has shown an astonishing lack of leadership in allowing the Tories to gain any benefit at all from a scandal in which they seem (I don't know the exact ins and outs) to have perpetrated the worst crimes. In this sense Brown is his own victim but it's seems astonishing that in the midst of the bloodletting that one HUGE story seems to have slipped under everyone's radar. This is that Cameron was at it! The leader of the Conservative Party paid off one mortgage so he could claim the maximum on another. Let us not forget that 'The People's Dave' is a multi-millionaire and so could easily afford the repayments of interest and not only that the mortgage is astronomical. As far as I can tell from his interview on Channel 4 his only defence seems to be that he didn't charge the whole of the claim to the taxpayer. If this is the case it means that Dave seems to think he is entitled to a certain level of taxpayer funding for his astronomical mortgage (he chose to pay off his non-taxpayer funded one) and that this is somehow mitigated by the fact that he is rich enough to have a larger house than he could otherwise get on his dodgy expense claims. What a fantastically Tory way of looking at things! I do hope those who bother to vote Blue tomorrow realise the green they are voting for is the extra acres of Dave's lawn the taxpayer has paid for. http://page.politicshome.com/uk/cameron_on_his_mortgage_claims.html
While I am aware that Gordon's attempts to prove Jilted John correct are probably the main political story of the moment, William Hague's hilarious attempt to justify one of the most scandalous elements of modern politics also deserves a mention. For anyone who hasn't seen it 'Ar Willyum refuses to answer Paxman's question on whether he has asked Lord Ashcroft about his Tax Status. Which funnily enough is exactly what the Tory Party Chairman refuses to do when asked that question by us. Whilst under current law it is perfectly acceptable to avoid tax, some in the Tory Party even say moral, it was under the condition that he paid UK tax that he was made a Lord and he is effectively funding the Tory election campaign allegedly through offshore companies. So perhaps we do have a right to know whether a man who effectively doesn't live in this country and is not British (for tax purposes) is influencing our democracy.
http://page.politicshome.com/uk/hague_pressed_on_ashcroft_tax_status.html
While I am aware that Gordon's attempts to prove Jilted John correct are probably the main political story of the moment, William Hague's hilarious attempt to justify one of the most scandalous elements of modern politics also deserves a mention. For anyone who hasn't seen it 'Ar Willyum refuses to answer Paxman's question on whether he has asked Lord Ashcroft about his Tax Status. Which funnily enough is exactly what the Tory Party Chairman refuses to do when asked that question by us. Whilst under current law it is perfectly acceptable to avoid tax, some in the Tory Party even say moral, it was under the condition that he paid UK tax that he was made a Lord and he is effectively funding the Tory election campaign allegedly through offshore companies. So perhaps we do have a right to know whether a man who effectively doesn't live in this country and is not British (for tax purposes) is influencing our democracy.
http://page.politicshome.com/uk/hague_pressed_on_ashcroft_tax_status.html
Sunday 19 April 2009
4. Become a newspaper reporter on the recession, whether it's cycling around the country or gaining the opportunity to out smug a David Cameron lookalike who likes the smell of his own farts about the fact that we just 'didn't save enough for a rainy day' erm were you not the ones who went mental when a retail outlet's sales were not up by the projected amount? Or who gleefully produced second home shows? Still I bet cash in the attic seems like an ideal show now. If one has a parent in the newspaper industry one may get the chance to discuss how the 'coping classes' have altered their cheese habits from Camembert to Brie and have turned the Wendy house in to a 'sustainable guest room facility' while cutting down on the essentials like ginseng tea, 'Oh don't you know we have PG tips now, it's so frightfully empowering, reminds one of the old days'. Also pays extremely well.
5 Switch down a level, funnily enough the cheaper less popular version is often much better. If you like Vampire Weekend go for Ra Ra Riot, if you liked coke do speed, pool fans take up a proper sport like snooker and those shelling out absurd amounts of money to see synchronised arse waggling go and watch your local lower league team instead, particular mention must go to my own personal favourite, a day out at Tranmere is difficult to beat, and whatever you do never watch Chester City. Jesus.
6. Smear tories, while this hobby is to be avoided if you are a senior member of the government's communication team inventing stories about the Bullingdon boys can be highly amusing. Of course if one is right wing one could apply this to the government, (Guido?) but something tells me it's not quite the same. There is something about George Osbourne pissing on orphans while claiming that as he's drinking champagne that they should be grateful that somehow rings true.
5 Switch down a level, funnily enough the cheaper less popular version is often much better. If you like Vampire Weekend go for Ra Ra Riot, if you liked coke do speed, pool fans take up a proper sport like snooker and those shelling out absurd amounts of money to see synchronised arse waggling go and watch your local lower league team instead, particular mention must go to my own personal favourite, a day out at Tranmere is difficult to beat, and whatever you do never watch Chester City. Jesus.
6. Smear tories, while this hobby is to be avoided if you are a senior member of the government's communication team inventing stories about the Bullingdon boys can be highly amusing. Of course if one is right wing one could apply this to the government, (Guido?) but something tells me it's not quite the same. There is something about George Osbourne pissing on orphans while claiming that as he's drinking champagne that they should be grateful that somehow rings true.
Saturday 18 April 2009
sorry in the 3rd element of that recession post I used language without connecting it properly, Tony Blair is too pro Israel for my liking. Tony Blair is too pro his scrotum for it's liking. It has nothing however to do with his liking of people's money. I must admit I think that Palestinians have their own country. This has nothing to do with my dislike of Israel's hypocrisy in owning nuclear weapons and condoning torture, while condemning it, allegedly.
Due to the proliferation of blogs and articles trying to tell us how to beat the recession and my own lower middle class yobbo background, which I feel is perfect for enabling me to spout without alienating the moderately rich without patronising the poor I have decided to give my top 10 recession tips. PS these are both schemes to help and time wasting exercises, untill we strike it lucky again.
1. Buy Newcastle United, any share guru will say buy low and sell high, even with the messiah at the helm this club's value diminishes by the week. For those of us looking to make money out of misery I suggest you buy Newcastle for bugger all and buy Blaise Matuidi, for those with a glint in their eye and a geordie ex, I suggest appointing Ross Kemp as manager and Perry Fenwick as director of football while playing 'That old piano' before games.
2. Become a researcher for a political party, as the recent rapid rise of Georgia Gould has shown one doesn't even need experience to join the parliamentary gravy train. I'm sure Georgia is passionate aout the issues that trouble Labour members and a lovely woman, but is it worth fighting this seat this hard at 22? Georgia I'm sure you'll make a great MP although I think your old man's definition of labour is as ludicrous as a frog arguing for a hosepipe ban. I would gladly debate the future of Labour with you, but i think better men than I should hone your skills before you represent people who may well be your ideologoical enemies.
3. Be Tony Blair, take money from Jewish think tanks corporate bastards, and generally do what even thatcher was shameless enough not to do. now, I know all of you are decent human beings, instead of bailing out the banks let's give Tyson $1Biliion to fight blair and hunt him down.
next three tomorrow
1. Buy Newcastle United, any share guru will say buy low and sell high, even with the messiah at the helm this club's value diminishes by the week. For those of us looking to make money out of misery I suggest you buy Newcastle for bugger all and buy Blaise Matuidi, for those with a glint in their eye and a geordie ex, I suggest appointing Ross Kemp as manager and Perry Fenwick as director of football while playing 'That old piano' before games.
2. Become a researcher for a political party, as the recent rapid rise of Georgia Gould has shown one doesn't even need experience to join the parliamentary gravy train. I'm sure Georgia is passionate aout the issues that trouble Labour members and a lovely woman, but is it worth fighting this seat this hard at 22? Georgia I'm sure you'll make a great MP although I think your old man's definition of labour is as ludicrous as a frog arguing for a hosepipe ban. I would gladly debate the future of Labour with you, but i think better men than I should hone your skills before you represent people who may well be your ideologoical enemies.
3. Be Tony Blair, take money from Jewish think tanks corporate bastards, and generally do what even thatcher was shameless enough not to do. now, I know all of you are decent human beings, instead of bailing out the banks let's give Tyson $1Biliion to fight blair and hunt him down.
next three tomorrow
Thursday 16 April 2009
My post in honour of Susan Boyle says little, what a beautiful example of humanity's decency personified in one woman. All I have to say apart from that is that I hope that the lump in Piers Morgan's throat was as a resullt of Susan forcing a poison arrow frog down his throat. For lovers of Piers, please check page 94 of Private Eye, lovers of poison arrow frogs should check the reptile/amphibian house at London Zoo. Trust me it's the best Valentine's day ever!
Blairigion: the route of all evil?
I had the unfortunate pleasure of listening to a certain man being interviewed while traveling in the car for a brief period on Tuesday evening. Due to my utter fatigue of the Chelsea-Liverpool saga (got that one right!) I continued listening to the interview with one Mr T Blair and it reignited all the contempt that I have for the man. First of all there is the sheer arrogance of the man, not content with turning the Labour Party into a populist shell he seems to want to do the same to Catholicism. My first issue though is not with his attempts to 'reform' the Catholic Church, it is with the idea which he propagates that faith is somehow an essential part of what we as a country in our case, or the world in Mr Blair's case, can do to promote values that give us the peace, soundness of mind and cohesion that we all desire. Not withstanding the fact that Mr Blair lecturing on how to promote understanding between faiths as a way to a more peaceful and prosperous world is like a syphillitic old man writing a manual on the virtues of chastity, I take issue with the idea that this is the role of religion. As I earlier mentioned pretty much all of us share the values that we want order, tolerance and (at least for those on the left and centre right) a more egalitarian society. When listening to the likes of Mr Blair spouting about how religion plays a 'crucial role' in achieving this one is struck by the fact that it implies that somehow those that do not believe in some sort of deity somehow lack the wherewithall to possess human empathy, still less the drive to achieve it. Well I hate to break it to Mr Blair and his messiah complex but many people either do not believe in God, or do not hold him/her as crucial to their lives and yet still hold the moral values that he wants to espouse.
Before it seems as if I am being anti-religious I would say that although I personally am an athiest the same theory would apply to agnostics, or even to those for whom religion is a private matter. We have a universal code that promotes tolerance to all, even those whose views we disagree with, that holds that certain things are right and certain things wrong and that, when adhered to seeks to increase the pleasantness of the whole human experience. Of course our morality is not perfect, it is a strange mix of what were originally religious tenets, the work of various philosophers as well as plain biological common sense, but the important thing is that religion no longer plays a 'crucial role' in it. This should be our basis, not religion. One only has to look at the members of Mr Blair's own church, despite his 'modernising' efforts, and others who discriminate against homosexuals, and often in some denominations of Christianity those who do not believe that their exact word is the truth (Islam and other faiths have these tendencies too) . This to me shows that it is not religion to whom even the religious should be looking towards but universal humanist values, that some religions may share, but as often as not don't. In fact relying on our religious beliefs for moral guidance and understanding is a regressive step, we can get along without religion as a guiding force due to our greater understanding of science, politics, phhilosophy and ethics. It is time to relegate religious belief to the status it should have, that of personal belief. Our values may have come from religious practice but as Nietzsche said, first we sacrificed animals, then ourselves, now we must sacrifice God, at least when it comes to drawing up a worldview. So Tony, don't claim a special place for yourself or religion, and I can honestly say that you are below Didier Drogba on my radio preferences, and that does take some doing.
I had the unfortunate pleasure of listening to a certain man being interviewed while traveling in the car for a brief period on Tuesday evening. Due to my utter fatigue of the Chelsea-Liverpool saga (got that one right!) I continued listening to the interview with one Mr T Blair and it reignited all the contempt that I have for the man. First of all there is the sheer arrogance of the man, not content with turning the Labour Party into a populist shell he seems to want to do the same to Catholicism. My first issue though is not with his attempts to 'reform' the Catholic Church, it is with the idea which he propagates that faith is somehow an essential part of what we as a country in our case, or the world in Mr Blair's case, can do to promote values that give us the peace, soundness of mind and cohesion that we all desire. Not withstanding the fact that Mr Blair lecturing on how to promote understanding between faiths as a way to a more peaceful and prosperous world is like a syphillitic old man writing a manual on the virtues of chastity, I take issue with the idea that this is the role of religion. As I earlier mentioned pretty much all of us share the values that we want order, tolerance and (at least for those on the left and centre right) a more egalitarian society. When listening to the likes of Mr Blair spouting about how religion plays a 'crucial role' in achieving this one is struck by the fact that it implies that somehow those that do not believe in some sort of deity somehow lack the wherewithall to possess human empathy, still less the drive to achieve it. Well I hate to break it to Mr Blair and his messiah complex but many people either do not believe in God, or do not hold him/her as crucial to their lives and yet still hold the moral values that he wants to espouse.
Before it seems as if I am being anti-religious I would say that although I personally am an athiest the same theory would apply to agnostics, or even to those for whom religion is a private matter. We have a universal code that promotes tolerance to all, even those whose views we disagree with, that holds that certain things are right and certain things wrong and that, when adhered to seeks to increase the pleasantness of the whole human experience. Of course our morality is not perfect, it is a strange mix of what were originally religious tenets, the work of various philosophers as well as plain biological common sense, but the important thing is that religion no longer plays a 'crucial role' in it. This should be our basis, not religion. One only has to look at the members of Mr Blair's own church, despite his 'modernising' efforts, and others who discriminate against homosexuals, and often in some denominations of Christianity those who do not believe that their exact word is the truth (Islam and other faiths have these tendencies too) . This to me shows that it is not religion to whom even the religious should be looking towards but universal humanist values, that some religions may share, but as often as not don't. In fact relying on our religious beliefs for moral guidance and understanding is a regressive step, we can get along without religion as a guiding force due to our greater understanding of science, politics, phhilosophy and ethics. It is time to relegate religious belief to the status it should have, that of personal belief. Our values may have come from religious practice but as Nietzsche said, first we sacrificed animals, then ourselves, now we must sacrifice God, at least when it comes to drawing up a worldview. So Tony, don't claim a special place for yourself or religion, and I can honestly say that you are below Didier Drogba on my radio preferences, and that does take some doing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)