Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers

Reward -Dead or Alive - $5 million.

2010-07-09T08:43:00.000-07:00

First let me say the core content of this post has been extracted from Micheal Moores film CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY.

I would recommend its viewing.

According to the film several major American corporations have developed an entrepreneurial approach towards the values they place on their employees well being.

From memory these include, but probably are not limited to, around ten of America's biggest employers - Bank of America, Wall Mart, Proctor & Gamble etc. Seemingly, with thousands of employees, some management nerd in either the corporations or the insurance industry unearthed the statistics that some of those thousands would suffer premature deaths every year through natural or unnatural causes.

The film gives two examples.

The first is of a middle management husband and father who died of cancer in his late thirties. Shortly after his death, his wife received a cheque from a policy she knew nothing about for circa $1.5 million. The insurers had made a mistake in sending the cheque to her instead of his employers the Bank of America.

She, nor her children were not beneficiaries.

Subsequently, her representative found out the Bank had another policy out on her late husband which covered them for another $3.5 million. in effect her husbands death benefited the Bank by $5 million; she got none?

The second example was a young mother who worked as a pastry decorator in Wall Mart.
She died in her early thirties of asthma. Her husband and family had medical bills around $100k plus a $6k funeral bill to meet. Wall Mart had her covered for an amount that would have covered most of that but Wall Mart believe that charity begins and ends at Head Office.

Neither of the people referred to in these examples could be considered key executives of the corporations they worked for. As a middle administrator or a decorator of cakes the tragedy of their early deaths could not impose massive costs on their employers in filling the gaps they left in the corporate structure. This assumption would seem to be confirmed by less than pleasant name these policies are known under - Dead Peasant Policies - which makes the accusation of venality all the more tenable.

In fact for employees of American corporations it should raise doubts as to whether the cavalier attitude of corporate America towards health care is, to a large extent, down the diabolical practices such as these, when, to the balance sheet, their worth is more dead than alive?

In Britain it is supposedly illegal for a policy to be issued which gives an individual with no direct relationship connections a vested interest in the life, well being and property of another. Well and good, but does that apply to the corporates where the deals can be done globally from the inner temples of high finance?

Mr & Mrs Clucking Tosspots Part 4

2010-07-08T03:39:00.000-07:00

So why do placebos work for Tosspots and not for dogs?

Is it the price we pay, the downside of having a conscience, imagination, the alleged superiority of our intelligence that feeds us with desires, ambitions, that fuel our dreams and fire our fears. If it is, and this is the yolk evolution has placed upon us, isn't it time we got a proper handle on it, valued it and evaluated our responses and responsibilities towards it. Or should we leave it to the prescriptions of the Tosspots with their placebos and snake-oil alchemy's to control our future; perhaps even define our destiny and decide our existence. Do we have that luxury; and if we believe we do, is it one we can afford? Perhaps to be more blunt, what efficacy can we expect from a sticking plaster covering a malignant tumour?

So, who are these Tosspots; well we are in varying degrees writ large, but some have very large writs and substantially more aspire towards having large writs. While at the other end of the scale a substantial amount suspend the right to be included in the writ while the majority, covering maudlin through mediocrity to genius suspend their responsibility to question the right for the writ to exist.

Here is how it works.

Early in the 20th century the plutocrats realised the huge marketing potential the emerging advancements in technology would bring them. The first quarter of the century for the industrial world placed the emphasis on building the industries and products needed to meet the existing demands created by the new products and technologies. But once that demand was met a balance had to be found between production, advances in technology and markets in order to maintain profits. This proved difficult to do given the restraints of reality and led to the depression.

Some of the plutocrats went to the wall while others clung on in their industries, but the really clever ones saw that the real problem was the restraints, limitations and obligations reality placed upon them. They decided to manufacture a virtual world where wealth and its concomitant power could be controlled and enhanced with minimal risks, responsibilities (social and moral) and where their involvement gave the facade of solidity to their buccaneering make believe. Now these guy's are not fools. They are the ultimate in pragmatism. They'll compete to win and shed blood doing it -others preferably but their own if need be. They are guileful in the use of patience, relentless in their application and remorseless when they strike. They didn't want celebrity or plaudits, in fact the opposite. Preferring the role of kingmaker to those who wore or claim the crowns either sovereign, political or corporate. Their reasoning was simple, it was far better to loan the money to the person who paid the piper than to take the chance and commitment on being identifiable as the one who called the wrong tune. But first they had to give the mirage of substance to their virtual world and for that they invested in the art of advertising and the media. They had just begun to refine the potential developments this would have on their virtual world when a mad Austrian presented them with the gift of the century.

War to them was a win - win situation with infinite potentials far outweighing risk. Didn't matter who won or lost in Europe. The profits of the winners would cover the initial losses of the losers then reconstruction would invert the winners and losers. Russia had always been too risky and now was a closed shop so of little relevance to the emerging virtual market. And even with Japan poking its far eastern nose into the conflict it was inconceivable that America would end up on the losing side, either strategically or financially. And the Joe's, Jocks and Jeans of all nations who risked their blood and guts and who survived would return to claim their share and be ripe for the good life virtual or otherwise. War made rubble of any of the old parameters. War left America with 8% of the world population and 56% of its wealth. Of course it wasn't America as a nation which held the wealth. It had some but that wasn't spread throughout its 8% population. Perhaps around a tenth of that held a share, but the bulk of the wealth was held by a number of plutocrats who percentage wise put more noughts before the dot to have any statistical populace relevance. Now they could ratchet up their virtual world of media,marketing and gullible consumption up a gear and start sliding in the cogs that will eventually allow them to control the governing of nations.

That was a lot cheaper and potentially more lucrative. Buy a President or Prime Minister and you've hired an administration. Pump prime the media to either cheer or jeer to demand. Stock the legislative committees with aspirational tosspots who give free reign to markets that are free to exploit the majorities they supposedly represent while protecting the profits of the marketeers. While other committees use a euphemism called avoidance instead of fraud based on the mind blowing idiocy that these wizards of commercial and financial alchemy will take their magic balls and leave a nation in penury. No thought is ever given to the fact that probably five double deck buses would probably be enough to transport all of the balls and their appendages to whatever destination they choose; or that for every one who goes there will be ten of their erstwhile colleagues fighting to take their place.

Because Britain clung to the myths of its traditions and in some respects tried to expand the qualities and values of its democratic commitments, it was slow to adopt the critical path of the virtual world being scripted, directed and produced by America. Battling between fatigue and bankruptcy it tried to rebuild its industries from shoestrings of resources on a mountain of debt with plant and machinery that had the gut mashed out of them pounding out war products. Until that is, a Grantham grocers daughter came on the scene and applied for a supporting role in Reagans B rated virtual movie. We were in; we had hitched our waggon to this Western B rated star. Suddenly manufacturing was defunct, coal was crap and construction was a disposable industry unless it serviced the service industries. Purveyors of shitty advertising ditty's lead governments to victory or at least saved therm from defeat. Penitent ex miners and boilermakers donned hairnets and packaged airline meals for packaged holidaymakers. The media spun the news to highlight the fun and the feast of consumption while seductively introducing the victims as losers. The plutocrats loved that. Sure we were only a dubious forth or fifth, possibly sixth in the world league - depending on how you measured it, and we were a long way behind the major players with larger and more aspirational players ready to bounce over us - but we were hungry and to be offered the opportunity to create an industry manipulating a virtual product with lots of gain provided we caused it no pain was the temptation of heroin to an addict. In the 90s two other professional politicians hitched their waggon to the virtual star and confirmed our commitment to the principles of plutocracy. One of them, perhaps confused by the ability of any thing virtual to take substantial shape or form declared he'd exterminated the cycle of Boom & Bust.

The plutocrats laughed and decided to get rid of him. Time for a change, to range up new ranks of Tosspots giving the myth of democracy another airing before the masses might heed the rumbling of their gut and the neurons trying to blast their way through the desperation of their brains with the message that sometimes might is right and it's they in their exploited millions who hold that might.

The choice is yours; unless that is your happy as a Tosspot.

Afghanistan- Sponsorial Serial Killing.

2010-06-14T03:49:00.000-07:00

For a nation to create and equip a military force is legitimate for only two purposes; for the defence of that nation or to come to the aid of any other nation governed by a legitimate government which has legitimately requested such aid against an external aggressor.

For a nation to use its military might for any other purpose means it adopts the role of the mercenary, selling it's expertise and the lives of those under its control to the highest bidder.

Civilization like charity begins at home. It's a foundation built on by example, considered, absorbed then leading on to practice. Neither the bullet or the bomb have any place in this process other than to sell its integrity to the profiteers and undermine its legitimate purpose.

Five weeks into governance and Cameron has chosen to adopt the role of War Criminal.

Now, why am I not surprised.

THE SPIN OF MENDACITY

2010-04-27T12:50:00.000-07:00

On Subrosa's blog 25/04/10, I commented as follows.

"Just remember this - the Westminster stooges have allocated a debt of £1.4 trillion to be serviced by every man woman and child; and probably grandchild of this Island.

The cause was created by the venal greed of banks and money manipulators. And the government, politicians and bureaucrats had neither the wit, capability nor the integrity of due diligence to question or evaluate the potential results.

It floated their boat, allowed them to strut their stuff, and that was enough for them.

Now they want us to forget, forgive and trust them..... Oh yes, and still pick up the tab on the £1.4 trillion?"

Now I claim no particular talent or prescience in the fields of politics or economics, but it seemed pretty obvious one thing that wasn't being addressed by any of the Westminster parties was the real depth of the financial mess were in and what the costs are going to be to get out of it.

Notice, I haven't asked what their going to do about it, we're snowed under with scenarios of promises, but what the costs are going to be?

That, along with the idiocy in Afghanistan were quite simply being ignored.

Today the Institute of Fiscal Studies has highlighted the chasm between the three parties sales spin and the depth of the abyss the parties paper over. Even the IFS studies only partially plumb the depths up to 2015. We have yet to hear the duration or the final costs before this tab is wiped clean.

We are being lied to. Lied to by political parties who have reached an agreement; a joint tactic of veneered information while veering round the issues that really matter, and on which we should be hearing their plans, policies and time-scales to get us out of it - but they're not.

Why not - well given their incompetence in allowing the situation to arise, it surely isn't too harsh a judgement to conclude they haven't got a clue as to how they're going to get us out. In essence all three parties haven't got a strategy and are reduced to using blundering tactics and hoping something will turn up for the best.

Not much of a recommendation to base a choice of government with crises responsibility on? Not very assuring for that job, the new car, moving up the property ladder or even clinging on to the rung you're on?

But Westminster crises is Scotland's opportunity.

The SNP do have a strategy, it's their core value, the centre of gravity for the tactic that spoke out from that core of independence and the lies and denials of the Westminster parties are playing right into the SNPs hands.

Whatever the outcome of the pending Westminster election, you can be sure the cuts and taxes will all be taking their toll by 2011. The spin will be free fall, and the empty rhetoric of the three Tweedle's remembered, just when Scotland goes back to the polls in the election that really matters.

Salmond is a shrewed politician who seems quite relaxed almost avuncular at the moment. I wonder why?

Perhaps a reduced Westminster will be the petard the three Tweedle's are hung from.

Mr & Mrs Clucking Tosspots Part 3

2010-04-01T06:45:00.000-07:00

Well! What does that make us?

In every respect the only true answer to that is - Lucky! Lucky to be part of the 'US' that we are and, questioning as we do, our role in our community of US and its relationships and dealings with the other communities of US that populate our world. Fact is we're pretty lucky to have a world where US can exist.

Acknowledgement of that luck should be the humbling factor forming the foundation of our values. The fact that through the galactic roll of the universe dice this small, but pretty amazing planet, should be able to sustain, develop and nurture life as we are beginning to know and understand it. Add to that the part played by the casino of biology where one sperm from millions fertilises an egg from an egg bank developed in a female foetus. Taken together nature has made the fact of our existence Luck beyond the dreams of avarice. The luck nurture gives us has less odds, but smaller prizes.

Nature seems to expend a lot of resources in order to make its randomness and individuality viable; especially in the higher echelons of the species it has developed and up till now, has supported. Our specie, the US; as a relative newcomer to the evolutionary scene has, not unreasonably, regarded itself as the pinnacle of evolution and claimed the role of caretaker, controller and, very recently (in evolutionary terms) is developing the role of exploiter. It could be argued in the contemporary world we're beginning to impose our world on nature. You have to ask whether that's a wise move?

Because, while we may be the top dog to date it would be stupidly arrogant to believe we represent the end of evolution. And criminally arrogant to believe that we as a species have taken more than a few hesitant steps along the path of our own evolutionary process. Our diary of failures we call history shows how little progress we have made. Yet, to date, we are the only specie given the capability to recognise the existence of evolution and, in conjunction with that, to have the freedom to choose how to go about it. This is a choice we rarely consider and a freedom we rarely (or are rarely allowed to use)

Biologically it's generally accepted that all of US human specie have the same body parts. We know now that the heart doesn't break because of unrequited love; that the brain and its mind compose our moods, feelings and imaginings. Imagination on its own can influence the others, but, in everyday use they are a continual mix being added to by experience and knowledge. We know the traits of mood and feeling are pretty well shared with all the vertebrates. Imagination is shown to a limited degree by some but at a fairly primal level. Our imagination seems to have no limits other than the limits we don't yet know about and have failed to imagine. In the past it has dreamt up the concept for us of minor gods related to earth, wind, fire and water; then sub gods for war, love, health and just about every trial and tribulation life threw at us. Then, just as they were beginning to look a bit tacky and gormless, some bright spark imagined the One God - ethereal, omnifarious and omnipotent. This for a while was the answer to everything; until it proved to be the solution to nothing.

As a concept its genius was its supra - generallity and the amount of scope it allowed for the imagination. It couldn't be stained, blaimed or questioned but, and here was the first hairline fissure in its omnipotence - it could be negotiated with provided you used the offices of its proselytes and paid the fees and performed the rituals. Its problem was and still is, any limitation to the imagination is a oxymoron. Every step it yields to knowledge creates the next leap for imagination and in time concepts that have outgrown the usefulness or hinder progress wither on the vine of evolution.

We have one other capability which may be tied in with imagination and its sub-tracks of reason and morality, it may in fact be the engine of morality and the fuel for imagination; the name we have given it is conscience. That is a capability we share with no other specie.

Are these then the concepts, imagination and conscience that are our guide through the pathways of evolution? Because if they are, and this crude analysis has a toe to twirl on, we as a specie are adding another dynamic to the gap we're developing from nature.

The first of these is nature patience and investment in introducing random elements.

We haven't the patience or integrity to fully understand this process. Nature has no conscience. It doesn't need or have the scope for one. It doesn't recognise a single Bee, Horse or Elephant; doesn't recognise a specie or the lack of them, it merely accommodates them. It make no special provisions for us in this regard. Natures integrity is only claimed to be understood by the laws of physics - the laws of physics may change as our understanding grows; the integrity of nature will not change.

The second is natures generosity in allowing for the scope and investment necessary to create our individuality.

In one sense at least this individuality is measured in the capability of our conscience. Yet, in general our interpretation of it is processed in the imagining of positive or negative aspects of this in relation to tribal, community or governing controls where we apply morality. When it's used in the advancement of technology or knowledge it's only in their use that conscience plays a part.

The third is the failure to maximise the role and effect of conscience.

We actively submit our individuality to institutions and systems devoid of conscience. The conscience is the policeman of our imaginings, the judge of our actions and our custodian if we get it wrong. It is a unique and major player in our pathway of evolution. Yet our institutions of all persuasions actively avoid any format for conscience to be promoted within their establishments. There is a reason for this and it centre's round the simple fact that placebo's wont work on dogs.

But they work very well on the Mr & Mrs Clucking Tosspots. They in fact thrive on them.

Mr & Mrs Clucking Tosspots Part 2.

2010-03-26T05:11:00.000-07:00

In what way do the Tosspots endanger society?

Well governing a country competently must be the most difficult demanding role any human could be asked to do. To exceed mere competence by innovation and inspiration would require superhuman attributes of spirit, commitment and the courage to aspire and inspire others and the governed to gain the hoped for improvement. Now, for that to have any chance of happening, or for any secular messiah to announce their potential candidacy, it's necessary to suppose that having won the top governance job, he/she will be allowed to implement their innovative policies. But that wouldn't happen, because the oligarchs of global corporates don't want their freedoms challenged, regulated or their profits lessened by responsibility. This is where they advance their legions of Tosspots and their armoury of mediocrity.

To these Oligarch Moguls, mediocrity is fundamental to the control and growth of their empires. In the growth factors they'll demand and use, often in inspirational and courageous manner the shock troops and tactics of spirit. But once the battles won and the shock has settled mediocrity takes on the mantel of control. It's simply cheaper that way; less demanding of their time and less risk to their resources. By itself profit is an important but not the major factor in their considerations. Profit is like the weather; a movable goalpost left to the Tosspot they've placed in charge to either exploit or defend as a goad to the success or failure of the Tosspots career. No, their real interests, the lifeblood of their existence, is the freedom they're allowed to operate their markets and the size of the share they can hold in them.So perhaps we need to analyse what they mean by 'free market', and whether such an animal given the everyday usage and meaning of these words can, in any sensible way, exist or serve a useful purpose of benefit to society.

The Americans have a saying, "there's no such thing as a free lunch". This is true. At whatever level or in any circumstance the provider is looking for some gain from it. Whether its Mr Chairman Tosspot of a public body or trust being feted twice a week to black tie dinners by suppliers of services or materials in one way ot another the cost is eventually going to be charged to his organisation. Bonhomie is an offshoot of bullshit and both appeal to the braincells of Tosspots. So having got rid of any misconception that 'free' relates to no cost; we come to the alternative of 'free' relating to the facility to exploit without restriction. So how does that pan out?

In muscular terms it comes down to dog eats dog. That may be refined down to the position where it may not be the biggest, or the size of the dog in the fight that wins but the size of the fight in the dog. So in effect freedom for these Moguls is the right to carve up our world as much as they can between the lowest viable number of competitors. For it to be ONE appeals to their avarice, but sense tells them it would make the ONE too identifiable, accountable and possibly be held responsible for the failings of society. In truth that is only a restraint held in abeyance at the moment, should circumstances indicate their bastions of Tosspots would manage to retain control it could be reviewed. For example Murdoch's media empire reckon they're one of nine major players world wide. They expect that nine to be refined down to three and they'll be one of the three that have done the refining. Can you imagine the gains of having six media empires to carve up between the three and why the run of the mill administration and profits of their organisations can be left in safety to the mediocre hands of the Tosspots.

Take another example, which you may regard as being more current, the financial meltdown. Mr & Mrs Tosspots all over the world loosing money hand over fist for lesser Tosspots. Banks collapsing, institutions wavering and probity vanishing faster than a moon rocket. You have to think, given the trillions that flash their way round the financial markets daily, that the fall had to be a major setback to the Moguls. Probably it did, but not in the same way or degree that it effected the banks or other sections of the market where money is their core business. The Moguls still had their markets. Sure there may have to be a bit of readjustment, a couple of short falls to patch up. But what they lost in dividends from investments in the banks could be made up and more by the rates of interest earned on the loans to prop them up. And, because the governing Tosspots reacted in their mediocre way to the mediocrity of the banking Tosspots, their gamble on the banks was now covered by the magic fountain of public funds. Now all they have to do is to wait for the Tosspots to nudge the bank shares back up to the levels expected, while the government Tosspots, having raided the savings and resources of their citizens dry, while driving down in the process their expectations to a lower level of acceptable mediocrity. You could say in the case of banking, mediocrity brought its own mediocre reward.

What about global warming, you ask. ( or perhaps you don't? But my ego will let me assume you do.) Surely that must worry them? Perhaps it does, but I would hazard a guess that the worry won't be on apocalyptic qualities that bother us lesser mortals. Their concerns will be restricted to; have they maximised the exploitation and marketing controls and opportunities it presents them. If the forecast turn into fact, all well and good they can expand with the market. Should global warming turn out to be false, so what/ The Tosspots will have paid for most of the costs and will want to save face by retaining the market so they have another win/win situation with only a matter of minor degrees between the income and profit either way. And, just to rub salt into the wounds inflicted by the Tosspots, by the time that commodity becomes a charge on the consumer all the Tosspotting cost will be incorporated in it. With profits added before another brand of European Tosspots add tax to it.

"To them that hath, more shall they have." and true enough the moguls are major employers of Tosspots. But the biggest employer; way ahead of the Moguls, even with the inclusion of the minor moguls and their novitiate Tosspots is US.

Yes, we pay them to use, abuse, discipline, service, tax and govern us. We accept mediocrity as the benchmark of our society. So what does that make us?

The Mr & Mrs Clucking Tosspots.

2010-03-25T10:11:00.000-07:00

I don't know if its the same the world over, but they seem endemic in UK society and particularly rife in positions of authority.

These people have statistics coming out of their ears, can quote them chapter and verse and deduce from the resultant mash the precise constituents of cause and likely effects. Mr & Mrs Clucking Tosspots are the coroners for societies ills and the standard bearers for it's salvation. Who, from their statistical bag of averaged averages, produce the potions and prognoses we should all swallow and aspire to.

Don't know why, whether its down to a new awareness on my part or a growing commitment on their's, but it does seem as though there's been an exponential growth in the ranks of Tosspots in the last couple of decades. Though the growth by itself could be explained by the Tosspot pool contained in government nurturing and recruiting those of a similar disposition to NGO's, quasi committees, quango's and other positions of authority that are within the governments gift or remit.

Probably the Tosspot effect accelerated when their Clucking could be transmitted over the mass entertainment medias of radio, television and films. When popularity was morphed into marketing by the advertising gurus and the spin of ideal homes and whiter than white washes was spun into ideologies and doctrines of material illusionism. When marketing became a tool not just to promote products but to fertilise minds in the secular religions of free markets, of capitalism over communism - or any other 'ism that challenged or threatened capitalism freedom to manuevre and prosper. While the other ism's polluted their ideologies with despots, capitalism disguised its despots by philantrophy, better tunes and the mastering of marketing control of democracy. It's probably around this stage that, whether by design or happy accident, the market gurus became aware of the potential of Clucking Tosspots at, or near the top of positions of authority.

How else can we explain the likes of Reagan, Kissenger,Thatcher, Nixon, Ford, Bush Snr, Major, The Clintons, Bush Jnr, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Blair, Brown, Straw, Prescot???, Balls, Hoone, Byers et al; to name but a few of the top echelon, how such mediocrity could succeed to such high office unless some 'power' wanted them there. Of course the marketing myth is that we the people voted them in. But if the choice is limited amongst Clucking Tosspots any difference is no more than a whisp of irrelevence. But the mediocrity the Tosspots provide and practice is proving very dangerous to the welfare, wellbeing and future of our society.

The Price of Democracy

2010-03-02T06:01:00.000-08:00

The question that has to be asked is not so much what that price is, but whether apathy minimises or increases the costs of democracy to the extent that it first destroys the processes then on to corrupt democracy itself?

A few days back I commented on a poll Sub Rosa had on her blog. The poll asked what the remuneration should be for Westminster MPs. I commented that I hadn't voted on the poll because I couldn't find a value relevant to the job they had or hadn't done. Then, as an afterthought, I added that I wouldn't pay them at all - I'd let the party they represented pay them.

Tongue in cheek, or throwaway, as the comment had been I thought it might have created a few reactionary sparks. However none appeared, so, as is my wont, with a shrug of quiet humility I turned to other tasks. But the idea wouldn't go away; if nothing else the sparks had excited the synapses - it had some merit beyond the throwaway and, while it may not be a pearl it wasn't so much being cast before the swine as being used as a method to corral and weigh up their value. So here goes.

Lets say the purpose of this exercise is to strengthen our democracy; to give it real goals and accountability. We all know the failings, if not the methods and tactics used to exploit them, of the present system; which in one way or another can all be branded with systemic corruption. From the electoral cradle through governmental lifestyles to their parliamentary graves, corruption has many names but collectively its called the game and its primary purpose is to devalue your vote to beyond the start of infinity. In the process and as an exercise in power it has already demolished the foundation of democracy. How then do we go about getting a fair day's work by paying a fair day's wage to the keepers of our democracy?

For the sake of simplicity, let's assume we have a population of 15 million eligible to vote - on that figure we allocate a price per vote (PPV - everybody loves acronyms) Lets call it £30, so the whole allocation related to MP salaries, expenses etc., would be around £450m per annum.

Or it would be except for the fact that even at General Elections there's little more than 50% who bother to vote. That by itself is a serious blow to democracy and, without putting too much spin on it, a damning indictment on those who profess to govern and work within it. In fact it could be alleged that the practitioners of the present system encourage and benefit from this lack of interest, this self disenfranchisement by the citizenry. In a first past the post system, they've already got rid of half the problem runners, the pros and the thoroughbreds are still in the race but the cuddies, cob's and asses are fed up seeing arses, so they'd rather put a tenner on the tote as a hoof on the track.

This isn't good for democracy, so the need is there to encourage the disillusioned and disenfranchised to use their votes, and for politics to be tied in to that encouragement. So to this end if at a General ( or any? ) Election, only 10 million vote then the allocation for the term of that parliament is only £300m instead of the £450m.

This £450/300m should be allocated to the parties in proportion to their share of the vote?

Why?

Good question. But the way I see it is, while we may change a system and invigorate a flagging democracy we're not likely to change human nature. So taking that as a given, I'd let the parties haggle in their own mire on whether the Rt Hon gets X and Suffolk Twit Y while Dull from Hull get Z. We don't care, we want winners not runners. And the failing of the present system is that the RtHon doesn't give a hoot what Dull from Hull wangles in expenses. Since it's all drawn from the unlimited common purse its fair game, but were it to come from the party coffers and the amounts claimed by the dullards was limiting the scope and style the RtHon believed was merited then the fur would fly under the war cries of competence, commitment and ability.

We don't want the distortions of safe seats and stipends, of entrepreneurial nepotism and the hammocks of tradition. We want the bastards to fight tooth and nail for the privilege of representing us under the bastion of real democracy. We might then, like the citizens of Caesar's Rome, possibly profit and get some amusement out of the process.

So there you have it - possibly more an outline than a blueprint; but in the immortal words " salus populi suprema lex est." any method of governance that fails that test is not fit for purpose. The present democracy and governance we have wouldn't even be entitled to sit the prelims.

Pit Bulls, Poodles & Politics

2010-02-04T12:03:00.000-08:00

For Christmas 2009 I was given, by a dear and well meaning friend, Bob Woodward’s trilogy of Bush at War.

Bob Woodward is, along with Carl Bernstein, one of the Washington Post reporters who exposed the Watergate scandal and thrust Nixon into the halls of infamy. As a dissident I don’t particularly rate Woodward; categorising him more as a patriotic political policeman – a placeman who stays within the boundaries and know his place in them. However since this essay is not about Woodward’s strengths or failings as a wordsmith or analyst; as a piece of reportage, and treating the integrity and veracity of the trilogy’s contents are as factual as claimed, they do give a fascinating – disturbing – shocking – or downright frightening (you choose) insight on the intelligence and conscience quotas of the individuals who lord over the corridors of power in Washington and, in a very, very minor bit-part role, the poodle parlours of Westminster and Blair’s ambition to connive for himself and, presumably, future prime ministers similar presidential powers.

In a blurb attributed to the Daily Mail for the second book - Plan of Attack - it concludes “Whatever your opinion, for or against, about America’s invasion of Iraq, this extraordinary book will add weight to it.” I believe the reviewer was half right. I’m still looking for the ‘fors.’

Believe it or not, this is the latest version of many - and it may not be the last – drafts I’ve struggled with to convey with some measure of objectivity the incredible quantity of trust we place on the people who occupy high offices of state. Whether by chance or design, I think this is the major failing of the present political paradigm’s that are exposed by the books.

Bush at War (1st of the Trilogy) Deals with the aftermath of the Twin Towers. America’s understandable shock and anger and the White House’s reactions and actions to the atrocities. Which all boiled down to, this was al Qaeda; the bastard Bin Ladin, who they reckoned was holed up in Afghanistan, probably in Kabul, as guests of the Taliban.

What is surprising was, for all the years of political and media hooha on the war on terror preceding 9/11, how little the Americans actually knew. How little covert or overt intelligence they had gathered on either the Taliban or this terrorist elephant called al Qaeda, which seemed to exercise all their executive abilities to a superhuman extent in order to save us from Islam’s venal intent, even if it meant reducing their own citizens rights and freedoms and increased the states instruments of control.

Anyway, they eventually came up with a game plan; which was to put the pressure on the Taliban to capture and handover the al Qaeda elements. The Taliban nodded, shrugged their shoulders and got on with their tyranny. Plan B, was to shower the northern war lords with suitcases of dollars and give them logistical support to drive the Taliban out of Kabul and maybe flush out or, if they were very lucky, blow Bin Ladin into a minor sand dune. The plan didn’t pan out. Neither the Taliban nor Bin Ladin played ball. Instead of standing their ground and testing their ability to withstand the barrage of million dollar smart bombs on five-dollar tents, both Taliban and al Qaeda just stole off into the night, leaving a situation, which hasn’t changed much from nine years ago to this.

But Bush hadn’t secured his Prime Time Showcase revenge for Sept 11. He’d no heads in baskets, no terror trophies; all he’d achieved was possibly to expose Afghanistan to the next warlord who, flush with dollars, fancied his chances.

But there was always Saddam. He was always good for Prime Time and Cheney and Rumsfeld were both slavering to get him on it.

On the 12 Sept 2001, within 24hrs of the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, at a National Security Council meeting Rumsfeld had suggested they tie in the Iraq issue with al Qaeda.

Plan of Attack (Book 2) deals with the Iraq offensive and the formation of the coalition. We’re told on the 21st Nov 2001 Bush asked Rumsfeld, “What kind of war plan do you have for Iraq?”

The concise critique of this book would be that there were no plans. Oh there were plans to create plans, Pentagon plans, Secretary of Defence plans covering known knowns, known unknown’s, unknown unknowns; except they didn’t know for certain which category any of the above came under. And, even after years of surveillance, thousands of sorties policing no-fly zones, sanctions and weapons inspectors, the CIA had no real ‘intelligence’ of either the military deployment and capabilities or the mood, morale or aspirations of the people of Iraq. All the Americans knew was ‘they were going to kick ass.’

This is the book where you learn regime change was always the prime objective on the American agenda. That the claimed 45mins for activation of WMD’s was thrown out of the ballpark early on by Washington – though Blair still used it as the mantra he based his decision on.

It’s here you find out a British prime minister asked if he could please take part in this war. Jan 31st 2002, Blair said he needed the favour. Please.

In page 338 you are told Bush, concerned by the problems Blair may face getting the vote through Westminster, “If it would help, Bush said, they would let Blair drop out of the coalition and they would find some other way for Britain to participate.”
The interesting word here is ‘let’ – perhaps it helps define what’s meant by the special relationship? Except by now, you have already been disabused of such a relationship ever existing or even that democracy plays any part in either government.

However on 18th March the issue was resolved when Westminster, with the help of the Conservatives, got his vote through parliament. Why would the Conservatives do that? What is this thing with the Conservatives and war – has it something to do with their investment portfolios. Or is it merely a traditional yearning for the glory and spoils of imperialism? There’s no question of the leader of the opposition not being briefed as to the governments reasons for joining the coalition. Should he and any others who attended not be quizzed by the Chilcot inquiry as to what they were told that convinced them to back the government?

Saddam’s military organisation has never been shown to have any particular strategic or tactical skills, expertise or spirited commitment. Sure they could annihilate the unarmed Kurds with toxins and spend years and a fortune shelling and bombing Iranian sand without, as far as I know, gaining a foot of territory. But their enthusiastic foray into Kuwait was only exceeded by their panic to get out of it. So it shouldn’t have been too out of the box for the military and political planners in Washington to develop their plan of attack and to have some idea as to how they’d control the occupation.

They’d won the war, toppled a statue, had their prime time pyrotechnic display but, gawdammit they’d forgotten to drop the leaflets or commission the broadcasts that told the people of Iraq what their liberators intended to keep the countries infrastructures, services and administration functioning.

They had a force powerful enough to conquer but not to occupy, police and maintain stability. In effect they’d won the battle for Baghdad and toppled Saddam but had lost the war for Iraq.

State of Denial (Book 3) Deals with the aftermath.

By this time your numb with idiocy fatigue. Initiatives appear, then somehow or other mutates with another, then, having achieved nothing but chaos disappears. Only for the individuals involved to reappear with initiative N, or is it Z, and you realise a whole new industry has been created in Baghdad and Washington, creating initiatives. Hollywood comes to Baghdad. None of which helps the Iraq’s; where the Hell is Harrison Ford when you need him?

What you do find out is there were many more ‘incidents’ ‘collateral’ deaths and injuries than were reported by the Western media. Months on end the casualty figures exceed the death toll of 9/11. And on a partisan note, Basra, where the British controlled, was mentioned twice.

So, given that most of us already consider Iraq and Afghanistan to be failures, what, if any, impact or insight is contained within the books that would relate to Scotland’s independence?

Often supporters of independence are challenged that Scotland is too wee to matter and too poor to prosper. Keeping that in mind and knowing what we do about the costs these lap-dog policies have on the domestic front. Even, leaving aside for the moment the price in lives. The question has still to be asked what will be the final cost associated with that favour Blair pleaded from Bush and who prospered from it. As to stature, well a few mentions in dispatches isn’t going to strain the transient charity or good will of the special relationship and, if these books are a true reflection of Washington it’s a relationship struggling to keep hold of a corner of a thin blanket.

Can Britain afford the membership fees, ironmongery and pompous regalia needed in order to grab the crumbs from the top table? The self-evident fact is it can’t, though I fear it will try to, even if it bleeds itself dry and pawns its soul in the process. At least Canute tried to stop the tide coming in; Westminster is trying to keep the tide of history in and trying to shape the future from it.

That’s why Scotland has to unhitch itself from the yoke of the union and plough its own furrow

2010-01-07T08:50:00.000-08:00

A new year. Question is, will it be a different year?

There's no doubt some who will prosper in spite of the price we have to pay for the freedoms allowed to our financial knights, buccaneers and mercenaries. But, in the absence of any real measures in retribution, control, or the elevation of responsibility and social morality to be included as a factor in their wheeling and dealings, it's highly likely the financiers will form the vanguard of that some.

Others will prosper because of the effects caused by the recession. Most of whom will be the fringe predators whole sole reason for existence is to pick the cadavers clean of the victims who have succumbed to the effects of the melt down. At the top end they are receivers and liquidators - they like to be called administrators - but there function remains as it has always been, namely to cover their fees while manipulating some return to secured creditors (usually the bank, especially if its the bank who instigated the receivership).

Generally these liquidators! sorry administrators, are subsidiary sections of the main - the big five - accountancy firms. The big five who earned £51 bn in fees for 2007/08; a large part of which included their fees for vouching for the veracity of the major banks audited accounts and the booming profits they claimed to make. Profits that for some unknown reason or metaphysical financial jiggery pokery never seem to relate to the amount of their corporate tax liabilities? However that discrepancy could be explained by the fact another large section of their fees are earned by the employment of their expertise in designing the manipulative levers, derivers and avoiders that give lie to the fact of these audited accounts being an accurate account of the assets and liabilities of the firm they represent to merely being a jumble of figures they consider they can get off with. Nothing has been said about the failure of these probity policers, though given the paucity of action against their fraudulent clients there's little to be surprised by that lack.

At the bottom of the fringe we have those who take action against the gullible consumer who's been gulled by the plastic snake bonanza's of credits and the ladders of housing booms. Here we have the witless morons, the bailiffs, the sociopaths of a legal system that has removed any liability from cause and acts on effect, provided the esoteric i's and t's of its systems have been properly dotted and crossed. No doubt we can, with a fair degree of accuracy, assume they will enjoy a prosperous 2010 relevant to their status.

The other event we can look forward to this year is the general election.

In Defence of Anonimity

2009-12-15T07:17:00.000-08:00

As a matter of personal choice I am 100% in favour of Scotland gaining its independence.

There's nothing xenophobic in this reasoning. As an island race or as world citizens we share the same flaws and graces that gnaw and disturb the consciences of all human society. Scotland gaining its independence I see as granting five million people the opportunity to radically redefine the quality, competence, moral values and responsibilities of their democratic governance.

To this end, I often blog on related sites and occasionally on the Scottish newspapers which generally are biased beyond the tipping point of vitriol against independence. But with circulation figures below100k in total the two papers involved can no longer regard themselves as anything other than purveyors of establishment views. In a slightly different category and as a supporter of independence there is the weekly broadsheet the Scots Independent. Perhaps surprisingly it is an article in the latter that has led me to comment in the following manner.

The article in question is authored by a Mr Jamie Hepburn who I believe is a SNP member of the Scottish Parliament. It relates to recent events in the blogger sphere where some individual were 'outed' from the anonymity of their blog nom-de-plumes and, in one case at least, exposed as a peripheral employee of an SNP parliamentary minister. His critique of that case seems to be based on the exposure of inside knowledge to the free-for-all of the Internet is not the done political thing. Leastwise, while it may be done in the club, it shouldn't be aired outside it? Sounds a bit to me like Swinger Club rules - something not entirely compatible with open governance.

But, and in an even more patronising manner, he advocates that all bloggers of an independent persuasion should blog in a more circumspect manner! Why on earth should he want that when the very essence of the blogger sphere is the immediacy of the responses to whatever generates them. When a spade's called a spade, linguistically it's perfectly described with economic and pinpoint accuracy. Call it an instrument for the manual removal or redistribution of soil or loose compounds and your left with a confusion of possibilities from a spoon to an earth mover. Obfuscation is already well practiced and heavily employed in the political industry of Westminster; what possesses him to believe we want it employed in Scottish governance?

As to hiding behind anonymity. Our amateur status gives us a right to that. Mostly we seek to gain neither status, money nor celebrity but to put a shoulder to the wheel of independence. The glory we leave to you the professionals but we 're only too aware that often that professionalism sets as elitism instead of excellence and hides its failings behind the skirts of excuse.

So take us as you find us, elucidate where there's misunderstanding, remove the ache of frustration with objectives. But patronise, and you will be guilty of the same institutional hypocrisy as practiced by governments, unions and establishments throughout the life of this dysfunctional union.

Finally, while it has taken thirty years for the SNP to gain the ground it could have had with better intelligence, it has definitely earned the right to fight for Scotland's independence. As yet it has still to earn the right to govern an independent Scotland.

Democracy: Macaque Style.

2009-12-15T04:08:00.000-08:00

The Macaque connection came to me when watching, in my usual semi somnolent state, a recent BBC 'Life' programme.

Seemingly the Japanese Macaque Monkeys are the most northerly societies of any primate species other than man. But, not only do these choose to live in the Northern latitudes they seem to add masochism to their winter misery by adopting the Japanese Alps as their natural plot, where temperatures of minus 15c have to be endured and the ravages to the young, old and unfit were simply part of natures cruel selection.

Until, that is, the camera swung on to the hot pools. There in the same vicinity you saw Macaque's languishing in luxurious warmth. Faces basked in utter contentment; smug in their meditative comfort, their aristocratic birthright. No they don't share the pool. They have developed a hierarchy, a pecking order of haves and have not's. Those that are in the pool can come and go as they please. But their miserable cousins, huddled in their icy misery face death if they attempt to dip their toe in.

Strategically the numbers outside the pool were far greater than those in it - though that wasn't down to any lack of capacity - so the result of any attack would have seen the pool with new tenants. And, whether by arrogance or ignorance, the current occupiers didn't seem to be concerned by this potential threat. Perhaps their indolence will eventually expose itself as idiocy through self imposed interbreeding restrictions of the genes in their pool. Perhaps after another couple of thousand years of evolution the Macaques will be sharing the pool. Or perhaps not. Maybe the have not's will go on casting envious eyes; knowing what could be, but denying their ability to make it happen because its never been.

Perhaps the state of Macaque society is an apposite observation on the evolution of human society under democracy, Westminster, or even Western style with its hierarchical control of its power thermal pools. Or, is the acceptance of hierarchies hard wired into our primate genealogy?

2009-12-03T06:27:00.000-08:00

Today we call it lateral thinking. It is the ability to analyse, adjust and expand an observation beyond the matter which brought it to the observers attention and for its projection to be valued as to its purpose and possibilities.

Samuel Johnson was a lateral thinker. In his journey round Scotland he noted, 'the Scots were more frugal with their glass than were the English.' An observation more in the 'bland' than the 'eureka' category but nevertheless it was a catalyst that led to him adjusting his perspective on social progress as being truly measured by the small advances of the many.

Johnson writes,"But it must be remembered that life consists not of a series of illustrious actions, or elegant enjoyments; the greater part of our time passes in compliance with necessities, in the performance of daily duties, in the removal of small inconveniences, in the procurement of petty pleasures........ The true state of every nation is the state of common life. The manners of a people are not to be found in the schools of learning, or the palaces of greatness...... they whose aggregate constitutes the people, are found in the streets and the villages, in the shops and farms: and from them collectively considered, must the measure of general prosperity be taken. As the approach to delicacy a nation is refined, as their conveniences are multiplied, a nation, at least a commercial nation, must be denominated wealthy."

So, what is the true state of that common life today? And, if, and that's a questionable 'if', the quantity of glass has been equalised through the Union, has its quality or clarity?

We know that Gordon Browns premiership has been jinxed by failure. By choice, a political geek, he's climbed the mucous greased slopes of party politics only to fail in the two positions that held any real power. His, and the party he represents 'illustrious actions and elegant enjoyments' have had less substance or purpose than the proverbial fart in a ballroom. Unfortunately the precision of the toxicity meters have ordered the ballroom be emptied and decontaminated.

His, and his predecessors, time in office, have done nothing to raise the 'delicacies and conveniences of the common man' as Johnson put it. In fact, given that the 'common' man is considered Labour's core right to exist as a political party, it's arguable that in both their ideological role and their executive abilities they're not fit for purpose. And when you consider the resources, power, opportunities and diversities offered by helming the ship of state, that's a pretty damning indictment.

Of the Blair/ Brown era there's - the failure to radically amend the House of Free Loaders (TB) - the proliferation of stealth taxes(GB) - (The raid on pension funds, when it was already obvious few would meet their promises to the investors.(GB) An illegal war to back an idiot over a egomaniac. (TB) The removal of the 10p tax rate in a manner which increased the taxes of the lowest earners by 100%, while benefiting the better off. (GB) The Iron Chancellor who had banished Boom & Bust until the bust came back and chewed off his prudence, exposing his ignorance.(GB) You could add to that the expense scandal but on the scale of woes, that's more puke-making than terminal.

While by now we should all see Blair in his true colours - I'm a celebrity; get me into there - Brown, we thought, had a bit more going for him. Less spin and sin. More of the what you see and hear, is what you'll get idiom. But when you look back over the years from 97 and consider his record, you have to ask. Did he ever understand and command the responsibilities of the positions he held. Were the decisions his, or was he just a front man sipping from chalice's filled by his mandarins? It's a fair question, albeit without an answer favourable to Brown.

There is however one thorn Brown is desperate not to have to add to his crown of judgement. One that is cast as a minor irritant to a colossus of world politics and may yet prove to be his nemesis. That is the breakup of the dysfunctional Westminster union by Scotland declaring its independence.

To prevent that he will use every trick he and the establishment mandarins can think of irrespective of costs, legitimacy or legality, though hopefully short of war..... Here's an example.

It was soon emphasised during the meltdown crises the lame duck role's being allocated and heavily publicised to the two major banks that were unfortunate enough to have the word 'Scotland' included in their name.

While there's no doubt both of these banks were guilty as any of the others of being blinded by their own bullshit, there's no reason to believe they could be that much worse than the exposures of Barclay's, Lloyds or HSBC.

Barclay's we're told managed to refinance from sources in the far and middle east. Not only that

but Barclay's, having been refused permission to buy Lehman outright, managed to raise 1.5 bn to buy the viable part?

On the Lloyds and HBoS fiasco of cocktails over winks and nudges, we've listened to the script, but whether we find it believable time will tell.

HSBC have managed, until this Dubai wobble at least, to keep below the radar the charity offered or accepted from the public purse?

But the Scottish banks. Every billion invested in RBS and HBoS. Every problem the absorbtion of HBoS is causing Lloyds. Any outcry at bonuses are directed at RBS. We are told so desperate is the position at RBS that the new CEO is offered a £10m thank you if he can get it's share price back up around the £1?

Last week it was headlined throughout the mediocre media that RBS and HBoS got billions in secret bailouts. Turns out they were given bridging loans when the panic first set in and the loans were as much a saver to the governments position as they were to the banks, who paid dearly for them.

The pertinent question was put by the Channel 4 newsreader when he asked Lord Myners - "Were similar payments made to any other banks during this period?" Lord Myners refused to answer. Pressed several times he would neither confirm or deny; so given the usual position of government, we can take that as a yes.

So why the constraint in admitting there were funds loaned to the other banks. Is it for commercial reasons? Who were these financial angels who bailed out Barclay's? The world of finance is well practiced in fogging the maze of money sources and transfers. Could the funds enjoyed by Barclays, HSBC even Lloyds not have sourced from the same treasury pot under a false flag label?

Given that all the banks were in deep dodo and panic was the order of the day, were some allowed the luxury of options and others not?

Or was it simply the squeezing of the 'Scotland' word along with the mantra of - Now's not the time to bother with independence, we must concentrate on getting out of the recession - is the only remaining debris Labour could cling to from the wreck of the SS UK.

Today we are told by the National Audit Office the cost to date of the bank meltdown is £850bn - a figure likely to rise and it probably doesn't include the cost of welfare/benefits to the unemployed etc - how much of that £850bn went to RBS or HBoS, most, all or some of it?

Answers on a post card please. But don't put an X on any of them; Labour may use them to boost their postal ratings in order to award us with another five years of their illustrious actions and elegant enjoyments.

Heroes are cheap today -Perhaps even cheaper than yesterday?

2009-11-04T08:10:00.000-08:00

What part does Afghanistan play in the 'democracy' of the UK?

On the day that we hear of another five soldiers paying with their lives and, possibly, five others seriously injured by Taliban partisans who had posed as 'Government' soldiers, do we deplore the tactics adopted by the killers as 'unfair, inhuman or cowardly', or do we project our anger at the politicians who expose the lives of our service people for reasons that fail to reach the level of rhetorical tripe.

Supposedly, according to the rhetoric, our troops are there to prevent the Taliban? - or is it Al Quaida - or just anybody Muslim - from visiting our green and pleasant democracy and showing their envy of our materialist idyll and god given right to patronise, by attempting to indiscriminately blow us up.

For our part, our involvement in their affairs is, of course, purely benign- with the exception of the troops that is. And their arsenal's with all the profits they bring to the suppliers.

As a coalition of UN, US and NATO we are there to drum into their thick medieval skulls the benefits of our democratic process with all the trials, tricks, troubles and tribulations that corrupt it daily, if not hourly. Those being swept to one side as euphemism's of the democracy package.

However we have set them a good example of western double standards by organising a corrupted election to elect a corrupt president in order to maintain a corrupt purpose. We call this 'pragmatism' - a step seemingly in the right direction; which means absolutely nothing when those that are doing the stepping don't know which direction they should be heading on.

A couple of weeks have passed since I started this article, and since then the death toll has risen relentlessly.

To the families and loved ones of the soldiers, I'm sorry for your loss and shamed by the lack of ability to prevent it.

But take no solace from the words of politicians, generals or the media, it's empty rhetoric that only grieves for the effect it has on their dusty statistics.

Philosophy, Practice and Purpose.

2009-09-24T05:34:00.000-07:00

The difficulty of relating or trying to relate any one of the above with any combination of the others is down mainly to the nuances and varieties of circumstance we as individuals, communities, nations or continents find ourselves in. Sometimes the sheer confusion created by these labyrinthine neurons of cause and effects can crash the minds capability to reason by the simple expedient of its overloading with trivia, trash and truth tortured to oblivion. Caught in this situation we have to ask ourselves - is that a true and natural state for us to live our lives in this world? Or is it a condition created, either by chance or design - probably a combination of both - aimed at vastly benefiting the few at the expense of the many?

I suspect we all suspect we know the answer to that. We know the condition exists and, while we cannot isolate the prime cause or prescribe the eventual effects, we wrap our dissidence in the mufflers of frustration and limit ourselves to the cliche's of "All power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely." Or, "until the power of love overcomes the love of power, the epitaph of this world will be carved on misery." The damnable thing is, that while these cliche's may be the lazy answer, they are a refined truth. And truth of any nature is not a bad base point for any philosophy to be argued from.

Since I'm a simple bloke I would like to expand the cliche's into simple individual terms of the gut, the heart and the head and apply that to our everyday world.

At the moment my own little world is pretty evenly divided between the daily chore of keeping the banks blackmail and intrusion in my life to the absolute minimum and looking after and doing all I can to ease the osteoarthritis my five year old mutt has developed. The rest of my time, including this writing, is pretty much fun. Though the writing like the bank, but not my mutt, often - no, more like always - is unrewarding. So there we have the emotions of the gut and the heart for the dog, with the head recognising the symptoms but acting to the gut and hearts instruction, while the combination of head and gut reacts to the bank demands and rip-offs while the heart refuses even to acknowledge its existence. The writings a combination of all three. With all of equal status, but fluctuating involvement depending on the subject matter. So there you have it, a pretty average life for an average bloke living in the Western Lifestyle - I suppose you could argue the "work" routine or even the trauma of joblessness and or pending homelessness is missing from the equation. But they're both pretty routine for millions at the moment, so they can be balanced out by the lack of the few with millions and quaffing Champers that are also excluded.

Meanwhile on the national front, 1st world style, the fashionable word in our daily media rations is, we're told, the "C" word. "Cuts" is the cry of the politicians and their tame media pundits, is the answer to the profligacy awarded to the bankers who, while they were too big to fail, were unfortunately too scared to jump, too arrogant to apologise or show remorse and have then the cheek to threaten us with the denial of their expertise and presence if we curbed their pornographic greed. ( Here I've got to say, it has occurred to me their attitude offered a more legitimate use to the facilities at Guantanamo. This eventually could be used as a staging post for rendition to the Moon. But this is part of my concept for the incarceration of those psychologically addicted to the abuse of power and to disclose it in detail now may divert and distract from the present argument.) Which is, that the present cries for Cuts is no more than another diversion from the truth. The real "C" word is crises and while for the West in particular that may well be a financial one that the moderate rich or poor may feel in their pockets, the third world are going to feel that crises in their already clamouring and rumbling guts. But, in their usual blundering incompetent way our political masters want to perform their human resource function by socialising the costs while their global corporate masters, not only recoup but increase their capital base.

Unfortunately, while the grumbling guts and their consequences will be all too real, the financial pantomime has no more substance than the piece of plastic in your pocket has in real value other than for the convenience and profit to the institutions. So financial barrow boys and their worthless fringe acolytes apart, the financial crises has turned the alchemy of bluff into real gold for those who dreamt the hand and dealt it.

And not only is it a diversion from the truth but, just as it has diverted resources from the general well being of the nation and its aid to the developing nations, it has diverted resources and attention from the far more serious crises facing the world.

I would rate the first, or at least the most immediate, still to be the Middle East as the flash point for a nuclear holocaust. The situation in Afghanistan isn't helping Pakistan to maintain its own sovereignty and this won't be helped by the desperation caused by the financial crises adding to the woes of the poorer countries in the region. This combined with the arrogant aggression of Israel and the concerns of Iran to be able to defend themselves from the US/Israeli pact and the plainly stupid genocide being inflicted by the pact on the Palestinians should be enough for any government or institution truly committed to world peace to start working towards the bottom line of sense. But sense is rarely the bottom line for governments, unless the sense relates to the dubious gains of vanity, exploitation, tyranny and profit.

The second is of course, global warming. Again the financial idiocy has shoved that to the back burner. This will be denied by their political human resource departments(the governments). They will continue to give lip service to the problem, while they and their masters ways and means committees develop how they can keep the profit ratios rising by again socialising the costs.

Can we afford to rely on salvation from such a selfish group with their short term values and restricted and covert agendas?

If we take the financial meltdown as an indicator of the global conglomerates abilities on long term strategic planning and the emphasis they place on their implications on society as a whole, along with the morality they engender or advance; where and how do they factor this in or quantify their responsibilities? The answer is they don't. None, zilch, zero. A non sequitur completely missing from both above or below the line of their accounts. The sole agenda for their CEO's is to minimise costs and tax liabilities while controlling profits to a level that's balanced to keep their shareholders and the markets happy. Meanwhile their true surpluses wing their way throughout the globe in a swarm of secret financial vehicles and surreal havens of wizardry and all to suit there own purpose.

Is it wise for us to allow so much freedom to individuals, corporates and institutes whose aspirations are limited to the next quarters, six monthly or yearly results? Does it make sense for us to allow these corporations to become supra nationals capable of defining their own rules and responsibilities? Is such a limited concept a safe tack for civilisation to advance or the fast track to its end game?

How's our heads, hearts or guts feeling about that? Comfortable (employed and well remunerated by them?) Uneasy (perhaps still employed by one but less well remunerated and less of a company man?) Frightened/concerned( an inner voice believing itself to be in a wilderness when, while it might be a wilderness, it's one clamouring with millions of other concerned inner voices)

Or could it all be a game. One big confident manipulative lie that we've been fed and reared on. A lie that is often changed in its presentation but never in its purpose: namely the control, compliance and exploitation of the ordinary people. Nothing new in this process, the god concept has been used for this purpose for millenniums. In modern times we have just changed priests to reporters and churches to various forms of media. Both of which in their time have distorted and tortured truths in order to turn superstitious myths into whatever Mammon satisfies their power feasts.

Here are some of the modern examples when the lie technique has been used to shape the concerns of our daily life.

The Cold War. Almost forty years of the threat of Nuclear Armageddon, because Russia was "communist" and wanted to defeat the capitalist "freedom loving" West?

Well we know Russia wasn't really communists; that was simply a relatively civilised title for, initially anyway, a tyrannical dictatorship. However by sexing up the threats of the Reds sleeping in our beds they had the profits of the Western arms manufacturers and the Pentagons upwardly spiralling. Equally the PR fed paranoia of Americans with the concept of communism was stretched to include any government anywhere which threatened to take power from the wealthy few and give it to the people. No matter what form it took, it was interpreted by Washington as communism, and they were going to save the world from it and give us freedom through the magic carpet of capitalism. ( sometimes they use the word democracy instead of capitalism, but that's only when they're playing to a soft audience)

Then in the eighties Gorbachev comes along and has a word with Reagan. He says he'll drop communism and its crazy command economy for the panacea of the free markets and will allow Germany to re-unify, tear down the wall and dismantle its Stasi state and allow Germany to join NATO, provided Reagan agreed that no NATO force would ever be deployed in the former GDR. Bush senior confirmed this Clinton ignored it. What he wanted, and got, was a U.S. run global intervention force to expand and protect the Western model of capitalism - it was euphemistically listed as bringing peace and stability to the regions in which it was involved.

But thirty years earlier Khrushchev, approached America placing the re-unification of Germany on the table only for the offer to be ignored. Makes you wonder who the real instigators and beneficiaries were of the so called Cold War?

More recently we have had Iraq and WMD's that could wipe us out in 45 minutes?

And the war on terror which could from another standpoint be more accurately called the war of terror. After all, what is there to a manipulated name, provided it allows the "right" effect?

Could it be the necromancers and alchemists controlled by their free market capitalists who in practice have failed on every promise except in the hypnosis of most of the Western world into believing the big lie and who, irrespective of the risks, are the real harbingers of terror and the misery it brings in this world. If capitalism cannot feed the hungry, only abuse and exploit them it's stupid capitalism creating its own eventual nemesis. But here we have to remember we are dealing with short term profiteers.

These are the weird practices and some of the sad purposes that could emanate from them; philosophy's absent because it can only take form from truth.

A Tale of Two Idiocies.

2009-08-20T08:33:00.000-07:00

On the 20th of August 2009, Mr MacAskill the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, made his bid to be the 21st centuries version of the hand washing Pilate.

Not that, in my opinion, he was wrong to release Mr Al-Megrahi, the terminally ill Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie atrocity by an investigation, trial, verdict and subsequent appeal that, time has proven, did nothing for the integrity or reputation of the Scottish Justice system or its Judiciary. That was the issue he failed to resolve.

Perhaps justice was never intended to be part of the process. Not real, in your face, bang to rights, hard fact evidence that can be tested, argued, disputed, proved or disproved. That sort of justice - the benchmark of judicial integrity - being smothered by the fogs of political expediency and gunboat diplomacy. To the extent that while a centimeter sliver of evidence could be found eighteen miles downwind of the crash site, the truth has proved to be more elusive. Or was that the intention: to smother truth by a blanket woven from circumstance?

So, to the toll of victims and their relatives, can we add the consciences of eight Scottish judges? The last decade of a mans life lost to freedom? And, do we finally have to accept that truth to a politician of any and all creeds has the value and lifespan of an amoeba unless expediency says different? Because if we allow the latter. If we allow these jobsworths that amount of leeway and wriggle room we become both perpetrator and victim to the griefs and tribulations they foist upon us?

And I would like to say this to the relatives of the Americans killed in the atrocity. During the Civil Rights movement in the 60's one of the slogans was 'The Truth Would Set You Free'.

It's just as relevant today. Only by changing the perceived threat and their tactics, the people who are supposedly acting on you and your loved ones behalf have, by adopting the cause of might being right, either through blind ignorance or arrogance, failed completely to bring the possible costs and repercussions of their action into the equation. And, while by so doing they may have blindsided we lesser mortals to their real purpose, time and truth will expose the failure, foolishness and duplicity of their values.

Demand the truth from your government. Ask yourself if your loss is in any way different to that of the families of an Iranian flying home to Mecca, a Palestinian cowering in a concrete ghetto or a Libyan huddled under a night time bomb run? The rituals of grief may change but to try to measure that grief on some ritualistic scale based on creed, nationality or race is an application of apartheid taken to absurdity. If its only revenge that you believe will give you closure, then so be it: but make sure you have all the information necessary to give your vengeance some basis in fact and 'official' information can never be taken as fact on face value. Anything less and your 'revenge' is a euphemism for injustice.

It's that lack of trust and the insecurity it breeds that eventually destroys the creeds who implement the practices of dominance and aggression. The power game, by definition, can only have few 'winners' and is a complete anathema to the evolution and well being of the human race.

As a specie, we accept it as self evident that were are, for now, at the top. But it is self denial and utter arrogance to believe that we have reached the pinnacle of evolutionary progress. Taken on their own our failings in our compassion for our fellow beings are a clear indication of how little we have advanced in the last three thousand years. While technically, especially in the last two three hundred years we have advanced at a rate of breathless acceleration. But as a strategy the use of technical superiority as a bases for dominance by either ideology or aggression is short on gain and long in pain type thinking. Equally, while we as a biological specimen have gained from that technology the utilisation of our brains and mind has advanced little in the same period.

We recognise our world is a village in the vast scheme of the universe, perhaps a unique village but, if it is, that only makes it all the more precious and all the more reason for us to respect, conserve and maximise its potential and the time we're allowed to be the stewards of it.

Since time immemorial, history has shown one constancy which has blighted the development of humanity. It is the sublimation of conscience by apathy or dominance - the two idiocies. Governments and tyrants have used the dominance and nurtured the apathy to the extent our communal minds are riddled by the paranoia of what our neighbours intentions are towards us, instead of making sure the neighbours are getting the message we want them to get of our hopes and aspirations towards them.

It's time for the peace of our world and the lives of our children, that we remove the 'quasi' from our democracy and take responsibility for our governments by calling and holding them to account for their acts and omissions. The apathy of blind hate or material dominance is neither an answer or viable option.

Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dummer

2009-07-28T09:14:00.000-07:00

There's doesn't seem to be very much going for us at the moment.

We were promised a scorching summer, but that only lasted for a week.

Which is a pity, because having mortgaged the country for generations to raise the trillions necessary to save the banks for the 1% of the population who truly benefit from them, and possibly the other 9% who make a decent living by juggling the books to their benefit; along with the casualties and fatalities suffered by our troops hired out as mercenaries to the global conglomerates aspirations for Afghanistan. Allied to the revelation that our 'democratic' representatives were an even bigger bunch of incompetent carpet bagging free loaders than we suspected. Taken in conjunction with the Damoclean threat of swine plague. We could have done with the ten week summer break of hedonist living - deemed so necessary for our leaders - for us to recharge our batteries before the next onslaught of misconceived governance.

Considering the above pathetic concerns are only the deficits facing our current life accounts, our portfolios of investments for survival being beleaguered by concerns over nuclear Armageddon, global warming and population explosion, it maybe understandable that the pandemic of swine flue is preferable to the pandemics of cancerous lies we're living under. But the fact remains that every one of the above factors will by some magical osmosis and alchemy filter up to the benefit of the 1% Masters of the World. This is the essence - the big lie, of free market, unrestrained capitalism.

Capitalism of this sort cannot by definition serve humanity it can only enslave it. Reducing the common human herd to the level of consumer corpuscles nurturing and feeding its bloodline. This strain of capitalism, free of the tethers and concerns of morality, its limited conscience measured only by the bottom line fictions of their profit accounts and the balances of their power base, cannot fail to profit the few who benefit from it. It has no obligations, no costs to meet, other than the disbursements of corruption. Capitalism of this sort is as stupid, more destructive and a damn sight less sociable or eco friendly than the age of the dinosaurs. It is an insult to every concept of a humane society on this planet and is practiced and perpetrated by psychopathic tyrants and administered by sociopath governments, generally under the guise of democracy. Both of which may be wily and shrewd, but they're not the sharpest tools in the box when it comes to wisdom.

For any 'ism' that applies to the governance of man, to have such a narrow purpose and selfish short term profit for an elitist few as its goals, not only threatens society but places the civilization society depends on for its values and foundation on the edge of the abyss.

My understanding of the meaning of democracy is quite simple. Generally that a democratic society is one in which the public has the means - the right- perhaps the duty, to participate in a meaningful way in the management of their nations affairs, and the means of information is open and free.

Around 400 years ago when the 'Divine Right of Kings' were being questioned and the concept of a parliament was emerging into the light of enlightenment; the divine right of kings was considered diluted enough when it became the divine right of aristocrats, churchmen and merchants to govern. Little has changed. Today they still don't want their version of democracy to be polluted by the inclusion of an aspirational riff-raff. In short their version of democracy, the democracy we all struggle to understand let alone comprehend or willingly comply and identify with, is based on us being barred from exercising any meaningful contribution and the feed of information must be narrowly controlled by a tame media, malleable to obfuscation and disinformation.

We in fact pay for the doubtful privilege of being conned, confused and compliant by a sophisticated lie called democracy. Which only goes to show that, while we may be more sophisticated and worldly wise than our feudal ancestors we still haven't destroyed the myth propagated by our 'masters' to be regarded with the contempt due to riff-raff.

It's questionable whether the recent transfusion of cash and liabilities injected into the banks from our public purse was because they were too big to fail. (Or because their failure would have effected to many Mr Bigs? ) Perhaps the real reason behind the pawning of the nations future had more to do with papering over the cracks and crevices being exposed of a fatally flawed and crumbling Establishment.

As one wise commentator has commented, 'the next general election is a good one for Labour to lose.' But sadly the choice we are left with is only a mildly tweaked version of the Tweedle Dee's. Accept that limited choice and we confirm our role as contemptible Tweedle Dummers.

Lab-or-it-twa -garnia

2009-07-13T06:39:00.000-07:00

Crinkly doesn't know it yet, but we're about to launch a new 'product' on the vanity market that will net us billions. ( I've got to be a bit careful here not to offend Crinklys' finer tastes and intellect)

The 'product' in question will be in the form of a pill which claims to reduce the outward signs of ageing in a unique and spectacular way that I'm sure will be 'recognised' by the British - indeed the Worlds Skin Foundations (whoever they are?) provided we send them a leaflet and a letter to vindicate our use of the word 'recognition' as a substitute for recommendation when the latter may be beyond the scope of the total brain cell count of all the Foundations.

Any way, SHIT-A-WRINKLE will be portrayed as having the capability of removing at least one wrinkle over a five month cycle when combined by the natural constitutional use of the lower digestive track for at least five out of every seven days of that five month period.

Of course the details; indeed the ingredients, have all to be finessed (depending on the chalk market) - there is some pressure to up the ante with a catchy ditty along the lines of, - Dump a wrinkle a month and get rid of the slump- or, the slightly upmarket when accompanied in a sexy pseudo French accent - A merde a dui etc... But we think when combined with the usual soft focus alchemy and cartoon graphics the suggestion will be enough to create the form of the promise and we will be well on our way to joining the Nought Cons bubble.

Of course it pricks the philosopher aspect of conscience to degrade its ultimate purpose - the exercise and belief in intellect. Or that the aspirations of that intellect to transform and blossom into common sense should be lost for the sake of common coin. Yet it seems self evident that while insight can appear in milliseconds it cannot now breach the defenses of a 20 second attention span so assiduously served out for our consumption by the Masters of the Conglomerate, Governance and Media Markets (the order of the last two may be swapped) who having stumbled onto the formula through washing powder ads have refined it to the extent where it's gluttonously devoured by endemic consumers satiated to the slough of apathy.

So if you believe the grief of politicians over eighteen year lifespans for a 'war' scripted, produced and marketed for the benefits of the conglomerates, or the financial alchemists regret at the misery their greedy incompetence has generated, or that justice is blind to the pressures of the executive, or that there is any truth in the spin you're kept in - then please don't forget to get SHIT -A -WRINKLE into your shopping basket.

You may be pleasantly surprised. It, at least, is halfway honest

Bankrupt, Bewildered but not Bothered.

2009-06-29T07:59:00.000-07:00

Last week we waited with baited breath for Brown to put the thumbscrews on Hester of RBS for awarding himself a £10 million bonus if he lifts its share value on the stock exchange to 70p.

Not too aspirational a target when you consider the market's awash with funds looking for a profitable home and, as time has proved, the Banks can underwrite their risks at the taxpayers expense.

While the silence from the Government or its regulatory and treasury minions was deafening if not defining, it could be construed that the 70p share price is the price when the government sells our shares and allows RBS unhindered access to the club for free capitalists. All well, if not particularly good, in as much as while selling at 70p might show a profit against the £37 billion thrown in to the share pot it still leaves the £300bn the government has guaranteed under the asset protection scheme to fester its toxic way through all the systems except that of RBS. I'll bet that's a relief to Mr Hester - or is it possible he's got a scheme up his sleeve to get another bonus for handling the toxic trash RBS created in the first place?

Complicated business this world of high finance. Very confusing as to its values in moral, social or even the material terms it claims as its benchmark - the pursuit of profit created within a game of virtual reality.

It's this virtual reality that the UK plc has locked itself into. For governments it's the perfect product. It doesn't need huge development costs or massive filthy imports of raw materials. Research has almost instant access to investors, producers and consumers. Resource, production and marketing is global on a scale of 24 x 7 x 365. Its stock and storage requirements are minuscule and its distribution handled by the press of a keypad. For the 21st century its carbon footprint is almost as virtual as its product and, in spite of its players not having to deal with the daily buggeration factors of people producing a real product, they're paid mega-bucks for their commitment to the game and give employment to the experts in tax avoidance and the gurus of vanity products.

Yet the Telegraph tells us the cost to every family in the UK in 'real terms' for the virtual games played by these bird brained vultures and their sycophantical political followers is in the region of £203,350.00 per household. So somewhere between the stratosphere of high finance and the reality of earth this virtual world is supposed to develop substance. The Telegraph in its wisdom has even allocated costs to the various elements.

a)£144,000. to the virtual meltdown.

b) £5,600 To the Private Finance Initiative.

c) £1,000 To Network Rail?

d) £2,750 To Nuclear Decommissioning

e) £50,000 To Civil Servants Pensions.

Perhaps every household should send a 'virtual' cheque to the exchequer? However I've a feeling they would prefer us to accept a real mortgage payable for generations and that leaves a couple of questions I would like answered.

Why is it that any 'investment' by the government of our money for whatever purpose in private enterprise is so easily shed and at so little cost to the private enterprise.

And while I can understand capitalism's delight at its costs being underwritten from the public purse, why should it exclude that purse from it's equity or dividends or be removed from its moral responsibilities of and to society?

As it is now, the lack of moral fibre in Browns government to rein in and regulate the financial predators is akin to them handing responsibility for the NHS and the Social Services to the Barons of the Drug Cartels.

Not only do we have the imbeciles running the asylum, they can now prescribe their own drugs and decide their own remuneration.

For whom does Browns contrition toll.

2009-06-15T08:56:00.000-07:00

Last Monday we were told of Browns pleas to his parliamentary cabal of how he would be more open, more considerate in his strengths, more aware of his weaknesses, more of a democrat than a despot in his dealings with them and, if only they stayed with him, he would lead them through the sloughs of well deserved despond into the promised booty of income unearned and negative governance by negligence.

Mr Brown was contrite, as only a politician can be. He swore on everything he holds dear he would change, provided he could hold on to everything he does hold dear. His cabal sheathed their cardboard swords and agreed. Which effectively meant Brown could hold on to all he holds dear, namely his power base, and nothing will change.

A situation well exemplified by the announcement that the long awaited and much delayed, by reason of obfuscation, inquiry into the Governments commitment to and handling of the Iraq war will be subject to Westminster's umpireship.

It would seem Brown is once again hellbent in proving he's the master of the most cost for least useable return dictum of dictatorship.

To quote Howard Zinn,"In circumstances such as these civil disobedience is not our problem, it's our civil obedience." Shame on you Mr Brown - but I'm forgetting; as a Westminster politician you are immune to shame, which means by definition you are incapable of contrition. Sad really but we will just have to see if a 10% poll rating is an incompetent Quislings tipping point.

There's a Time for Everything Under Brown.

2009-06-10T11:22:00.000-07:00

I mean you've got to hand it to them, Labour couldn't create a coup out of chaos.

But there again why should our champions of democracy commit kazeekama when they can tuck another couple of hundred Ks under their belts by attending (at their leisurely discretion of course) to our democratic representation for another twelve months.

Meanwhile, our benevolent dictator, ever conscious of his paternalistic duty and shrugging of the heavy mantle of utter rejection behind the mask of denial has decided he, his cabal of jobsworths and the magnates of Labours hegemony are the best cure for the ills they've forced upon us. Call me cynical, but that seems too much like the mugged enquiring if his mugger has got enough cash to get safely home.

And this is from a man who has vanquished the cycles of boom and bust into a permanency of bust; who has tackled the challenge of the gap between the rich and poor by adding to the ranks of the poor and widening the gap; who's concept of probity is to remove the responsibility of corporates to provide a pension to their employees. In fact to remove any responsibility from corporates (provided they're large enough) towards their fundamental duties of contributing to the societies they use and exploit. The man who has denounced spin and adopted flap, while turning a blind eye to the flipping of the golden flats and the evasion of tax on the profit gained by investments paid for by the taxpayer. But, most damning of all, this man who has achieved nothing but failures during his term as Prime Minister- and some would add exchequer- now wants to add the reform of our democratic process to his portfolio?

I mean. to use Rumfelds dictum, this must be one of the known knowns as a recipe for disaster and a time for Brown to forget.

One Ball Too Many

2009-06-02T06:00:00.000-07:00

On Thursday of this week we're told we have to do our civic duty and vote for the MEPs of our choice. Except it's not our choice; at least not as far as the main domestic parties are concerned, merely a list of names of candidates they have chosen. Names that for the most part have been dragged from the anonymity bucket of party activists. Seems to me that's more akin to an act of blind faith than a legitimate democratic process.

Which leads me to question what exactly we're voting for; and, is there even a shadow of democracy in the whole European charade when the Council of Ministers and the Commissioners are appointed by the elites of the political inner temples of the member States?

In the UK alone we have developed a growth industry out of politics. We already have more layers of governance than an archaeologists could imagine in their wettest dreams. From parish, town, city and county we go on to the major leagues of devolved, commons and the Lords before bringing in the battery producers of Europe; all of whom seem incapable of creating anything with any real effect other than to lighten our wallets.

Why is it not possible for constituency MPs to represent us in Europe. Perhaps selected by their parties and offered alongside the smaller or dissident candidates. Who knows we might get some work out of them; or would that be one ball too many in the juggling act of keeping legislation tight, regulation light and their expenses at there height irrespective of the blight they inflict on democracy.

So what exactly are we voting for? Is it an undemocratic executive with no responsiblity or accountability or even the sham of a pretendy democracy, becuase that's how it seems to me.

The Calm Before The Repression.

2009-05-28T05:09:00.000-07:00

A pensive peace trickles through the empty halls of Westminster. A whiff of hope emerging that time - the political cure-all - will allow the fog of apathy to hide the torrent of corrupted sewage and calm the ship of state and its demented crew. Time enough at least to let the rhetoric of 'reform' set in before it steers towards the harbour of establishment, where reform, democracy and the rights of citizens become once again euphemisms for repression.

Me! I hope the Telegraph has kept the worst till last. That the silence of a conspicuous number of the political elite is to a greater extent down to the glass house syndrome rather than a miraculous conversion to honest and competent representation. But however it turns out, I'm sure they'll be frantically working to present the miraculous version - pity they don't work so frantically and frankly on the job we pay them to do.

That apart, I've just had an election pamphlet for Labour dropped through my door.

It tells me Labour is winning the fight for Britains future. Pity it got us into the fight in the first place.

It goes on to inform me there are 8 Labour candidates for my region and lists their names. Nothing else, just their names and the fact they come under the umbrella of Labour; and I've to put my cross in the box next to Labour. Now that's just stupidly arrogant enough for Labour to lose any vote it may or may not have got from me.

I've scrawled - It's called democracy stupid - across it's 'Fair' frontage and will invest 30p to post it back to them. Who knows, there might be a future leader in the post room who hasn't been lobotomised.

A Tale of Two Apathies?

2009-05-25T05:47:00.000-07:00

Crinkly is suffering from the resource curse. It's an honourable state of mind brought on by bewilderment fatigue at the chasms accepted as norms within societies, as opposed to those expected as acceptable norms by individuals. Basically governments have demands and decrees while individuals have wants and expectations; and, due to the imbalance of power between the two, normally it's the individual who loses out.

Perhaps it's that 'imbalance' that needs levelling out - and here I offer an observation which could be classed as verging on the optimistic. Every reference source referred to by Crinkly would be covered by a 2,ooo year time span. Not a huge wedge from the flux of civilisation let alone evolution and when you consider there's less than a hundred years since every strata of society in the UK was franchised with the 'right' to vote, is it possible that we're expecting too much too soon, or does the burden of integrity and its deficits rest with our governors for abetting but not aiding the development of the democratic process?

If we consider the last sixty years of democracy in Britain we have in the first thirty years the consolidation of the welfare state and the NHS etc, but for the next thirty years nothing. Not one progressive move to enhance democracy, but many to limit, divert or diminish its values. In fact democracy Westminster style is slowly being suffocated into fascism, where the electorate is granted a limited right within an inequitable system to elect a dictatorship. It's the only conclusion you can come to when thirty years of governance under our governors rules has failed to improve the lot of common man. But perhaps that thirty years of spin covering inertia has developed an energy they can no longer submerge with their arrogant apathy.

Which is why the quality of democracy we enjoy in this country comes down to the stronger of two apathy's. The apathy of those who believe they wield power by some circumstance of right, or the apathy of us, the governed, to allow them the belief of that right.

Belief they say is the final doubt to dispel. And, while in the recent past belief may have been a legitimate factor in the politics of democracy it cannot be now. Now it has to be a command democracy earned by the strength of our demands.

Crinkly ponders

2009-05-21T13:45:00.000-07:00

How is it that whatever form of governance mankind tries, however well-meaning, however butressed by philosphical thought, almost like the law of entropy the initial state gradually evolves toward a stratified condition where power is gained by the few and exercised at the cost to the many?
We are assured that our politicians went into the representation business with the purest of motives, and now we've seen the degeneration that has overtaken so many of them. That the morality expressed as "I acted within the rules" (the Nuremburg defence) seems acceptable to so many of them may perhaps be traced to the high percentage of them trained as lawyers rather than as moralists. (As Robert Burns' Tam o'Shanter perceived, "Lawyers tongues turned inside-out as black with lies as a beggar's coat.) But then, what about the Roman Catholic priests, nuns, found on such a scale to have been guilty of child abuse? Surely one ought to have been able to reckon on high moral standards from them with their vaunted Christian beliefs?
The ancient Israelites got fed up with the sons of their prophet Samual "who did not walk in his ways, but turned aside after gain; they took bribes and perverted justice". So they clamoured for a king like the other nations but were warned by Samuel that a king would take what he wanted and they would end up as his slaves.
From Luther's reformation, via the Cromwellian overthrow of the divine right of kings, to the French Revolution and the reign of terror, the twentieth century attempts at communism, we see the same degeneration of high principles down to overt exploitation. Perhaps the most disappointing has been the American experience that, starting from the high principles enunciated by the likes of Thomas Paine in the Rights of Man, has spiralled down to the neocons and GWB.
To quote again from Burns, in his epitaph on Lord Galloway, a grasping landowner, "Bright ran thy line O Galloway/Through many a far-famed sire/So ran the far-famed Roman Way/So ended, in a mire."
Somehow, we need to find a way of evolving social progress that does not involve these repetitions of high expectation followed by degeneration. Such an approach was suggested by Karl Popper in "The Open Society and its Enemies", spelt out further by such as A J Ayer and others, explored in "Towards an Open Society", a seminar organized by the British Humanist Association as long ago as 1971 and even more relevant today after the intervening disasterous Thatcher-Blair periods.
But where is the political will and what political entity would come forward to press this case? Like so many today, I personally feel effectively disenfranchised because there is not going to be anyone representing these views for whom I can vote.
Crinkly

Sadim Brown and Democracy

2009-05-21T05:02:00.000-07:00

Today the Guardian seems to be advocating the expenses corruption as a springboard for a new system of Westminster governance. A root and branch change but in the same old pot and with the tired old soil sustaining it.

Part of that soil are the leaders of the three main parties all humming the same tune if based on slightly different hymn sheets; with Sadim Brown as usual, slightly behind the beat and glottally humming catch- up. Why?

Why in the middle of catastrophes covering just about every gambit of democratic governance should three political leaders want to throw radical constitutional change into the mix? And why should Brown believe he's in anyway qualified to preside over these changes?

Mythology tells us that everything Midas touched turned to gold - for Brown everything he's touched has turned to dross. (Hence the Sadim)

His boom turned to dross. And, despite the ever increasing awards to education and the NHS the results of these expenditures have been lost in the dross of statistics. In effect making dross of the amounts invested.

During his term he has allowed the wealthy to increase their welfare benefits while allowing benefits and pensions to decrease in real terms and as a prime minister he's generated debt, downgraded duty and either colluded or been blind to downright dishonesty. Now what, out of that amalgam, gives him the qualifications to participate in any reforming of democratic politics

in this country?

As for the other two, let them go to the country on a one term ticket of a government of national unity and reform.

Lets get the financial mess with the banks properly assessed and sorted out to the public's benefit not the conglomerates. Along with the values the British people want to put on their place in the world and in the society they want to live in. After all the purpose of governance is surprisingly simple: To serve the people, and to achieve that, a government should be able to show the lives of the people it has served have improved for the majority during their governance.

We can hardly award Labour that plaudit, they're proven to be big on spin but poor on results. But there again, when they gained power in 97 it wasn't a change of political philosophy merely a management takeover. Time has proved that.

Corruption, corruption, corruption 21st century governance.

2009-05-20T06:45:00.000-07:00

The present crises of corruption emanating in the bowels of Westminster has all the ingredients necessary to be served up as a funereal feast. Marking as it should the end of a governance era exemplified by deceit, incompetence, the lessening of standards to suit sub-prime financiers by socialising costs to benefit privatised profits and all of it based on the pigswill of political dogma of power irrespective of social cost, party hegemony and individual gain.

In 97 we had our 'Obama' moment, when Blair promised change and to be whiter than white. In the end they've achieved neither. In twelve years of power what have they achieved that could truly be called a legacy. The Smoking Ban!!!!

Let's look at Britain's past 12 years.

G Brown told us he'd eradicated boom and bust.

We perhaps had our suspicions as to the validity of the boom - housing bubbles, monopoly money leveraged in pyramid finance schemes etc, accompanied by galloping personal debt while being squeezed by ever increasing stealth taxes which never seemed to generate enough income for the Treasury to allow them to lessen the gap between the rich and poor. Suspicions that were slightly bewildering when it was a Labour party claiming the poor weren't doing enough to help themselves.

Now of course we know better. Brown didn't understand the boom anymore than he could control or mitigate the bust. He's was, is and will continue to be, an empty vessel of some use to Goldman Sacs. Enough at any rate for him to acquire one of their luxury flats in Edinburgh the title of which has subsequently been transferred to Mrs Brown.

Then we have Iraq - and here we may as well throw Afghanistan into the pot. Blair told us lies - he knew he was telling us lies when he claimed Iraq had WMD, but by then he'd adopted the poodle pose for G Bush. Nobody knows why he did this. After all the whole world was against this move? Perhaps he wanted to increase his property portfolio or his pension plan- so after some discussion with JP Morgan and BP he threw his lot and our cash in, and subsequently the lives of around 180 service men and women so he could play with the neo- cons mastering the world. Not forgetting Bosnia and Afghanistan, this born again hypocrite has weighed the lives of at least 300 of our servicemen as a reasonable cost to maintain his lavish lifestyle.

Then we have a Labour Party who, with a massive majority in parliament, relinquishing any responsibility for governance or principles, decide to chill out and leave democracy to the combined talents of a 22 brained Cabinet. So much so, that when the great leader and ex chancellor prudence decide to remove the 10% tax they, the chilled out, applauded. Why shouldn't they - at the time they were riding high in the polls and Brown was about to become their new leader. However when the 10% was about to be withdrawn they upped and screamed foul. Why? Not because of the effect it would have on the poor; good lord no, but by then they were languishing in the polls and that could mean these free loading, incompetent, lazy, jobsworths would have to struggle in the maze of the real world.

In truth, while the people of this country have little to sing about since the end of the second world war the last twelve years have seen the pinnacle of mediocrity collapse into an abyss of cynical lies and corruption that greatly benefits one percent of the population; moderately benefits another nine and does nothing but add costs to the remaining ninety.

Hardly a worthwhile model of governance, even for fascism.

2009-05-15T06:35:00.000-07:00

In essence Crinkley's right but the monarchy thing is just a figurehead, a bit player in the theater of governance that's heavily invested in a play titled, or more accurately mis-titled as democracy.

When the chasm between 'official' (in either commercial or political terms) is so wide and deep between their rhetoric and the reality of both their purpose and the reality experienced by the world, democracy becomes no more than a title with no part in either the script or the plot.

That's exactly how the masters want it to be and they have no qualms whatsoever in charging us if their scams turn to dust as in the recent financial meltdown or screwing us when their Ponzi schemes are riding high.

Who are the 'Us'? Why we're the gullible consumers who's values are limited to our credit rating.

Bit of a bloody cheek when you consider our 'masters' have confirmed their sub-prime status in finance, government and as the electorates representatives.

We do need root and branch change and the first root to change is for sovereignty to be removed from parlaiment and rest with the people.

2009-05-15T01:17:00.000-07:00

It's not just the current crop of MPs that are the problem, it's the whole set-up derived from the monarchy/aristocracy thing, where those at the top make their own rules and live high on the hog while those in the great majority are milked of the fruits of their labour. Root and branch change is needed to create an open society with bottom-up democracy and "the greatest among you being the servants of all" as the man said.

Ragged Arsed Musings

2009-05-13T07:26:00.000-07:00

These are two ancient crustaceans to whom the experiences of life have imparted a deep cynicism about the powers that be, and a need to express their thoughts about all manner of current and past events - personal, social, political and you-name-it, we have an opinion or two!