Layer 382 . . . Denmark, Civilization, Education, Rousseau, Emile, Racism and Inequality

.
Denmark.

Oxzen has decided to visit Denmark for the first time, and would appreciate Danish readers suggesting places to visit and places to stay in Denmark. Having said many positive things about Danish schools and Danish teachers in these blogs, Oxzen would also like to meet some teachers and visit some schools.

Oxzen reckons that Denmark is probably one of the most civilised places in Europe, and it's time to get out there and enjoy some of that civilisation.

Denmark, with a mixed market capitalist economy and a large welfare state, ranks as having the world's highest level of income equality. Denmark has the best business climate in the world, according to the U.S. business magazine Forbes. From 2006 to 2008, surveys ranked Denmark as "the happiest place in the world", based on standards of health, welfare and education. The 2009 Global Peace Index survey ranks Denmark as the second most peaceful country in the world, after New Zealand. In 2009, Denmark was ranked as one of the least corrupt countries in the world according to the Corruption Perceptions Index, ranking second only to New Zealand. In 2010, Transparency International ranked it as least corrupt country in the world, in a three-way tie with New Zealand and Singapore. - Wikipedia

.......................................................................

Moving on from the previous Layer's focus on Montaigne and his ideas on education, it's time to take a look at one of his fellow countrymen, who had some very similar ideas on education and pedagogy.

Rousseau

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (28 June 1712 – 2 July 1778) was a major Genevois philosopher, writer, and composer of 18th-century Romanticism. His political philosophy heavily influenced the French Revolution, as well as the American Revolution and the overall development of modern political, sociological and educational thought. - Wikipedia

One of the great things about France is its national maxim - Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

One of the worst things about France is its current adherence to a system of formal and didactic education, with a rigid national curriculum. Very similar to the UK, the USA, etc.

Rousseau's novel, Emile: or, On Education, which he considered his most important work, is a seminal treatise on the education of the whole person for citizenship. - Wikipedia

In Rousseau's philosophy, society's negative influence on men centers on its transformation of amour de soi, a positive self-love, into amour-propre, or pride. Amour de soi represents the instinctive human desire for self-preservation, combined with the human power of reason. In contrast, amour-propre is artificial and encourages man to compare himself to others, thus creating unwarranted fear and allowing men to take pleasure in the pain or weakness of others.

In Discourse on the Arts and Sciences Rousseau argues that the arts and sciences have not been beneficial to humankind, because they arose not from authentic human needs but rather as a result of pride and vanity. Moreover, the opportunities they create for idleness and luxury have contributed to the corruption of man. He proposed that the progress of knowledge had made governments more powerful and had crushed individual liberty; and he concluded that material progress had actually undermined the possibility of true friendship by replacing it with jealousy, fear, and suspicion.

Perhaps Rousseau's most important work is The Social Contract, which outlines the basis for a legitimate political order within a framework of classical republicanism. Published in 1762, it became one of the most influential works of political philosophy in the Western tradition. It developed some of the ideas mentioned in an earlier work, the article Economie Politique (Discourse on Political Economy), featured in Diderot's Encyclopédie. The treatise begins with the dramatic opening lines, "Man is or was born free, and he is everywhere in chains. One man thinks himself the master of others, but remains more of a slave than they."

Rousseau claimed that the state of nature was a primitive condition without law or morality, which human beings left for the benefits and necessity of cooperation. As society developed, division of labor and private property required the human race to adopt institutions of law. In the degenerate phase of society, man is prone to be in frequent competition with his fellow men while also becoming increasingly dependent on them. This double pressure threatens both his survival and his freedom. According to Rousseau, by joining together into civil society through the social contract and abandoning their claims of natural right, individuals can both preserve themselves and remain free. This is because submission to the authority of the general will of the people as a whole guarantees individuals against being subordinated to the wills of others and also ensures that they obey themselves because they are, collectively, the authors of the law.

Education and child rearing

Main article: Emile: or, On Education

“ ‘The noblest work in education is to make a reasoning man, and we expect to train a young child by making him reason! This beginning at the end; this is making an instrument of a result. If children understood how to reason they would not need to be educated.” –Rousseau, Emile. ”

Rousseau’s philosophy of education is not concerned with particular techniques of imparting information and concepts, but rather with developing the pupil’s character and moral sense, so that he may learn to practice self-mastery and remain virtuous even in the unnatural and imperfect society in which he will have to live. The hypothetical boy, Émile, is to be raised in the countryside, which, Rousseau believes, is a more natural and healthy environment than the city, under the guardianship of a tutor who will guide him through various learning experiences arranged by the tutor. Today we would call this the disciplinary method of "natural consequences" since, like modern psychologists, Rousseau felt that children learn right and wrong through experiencing the consequences of their acts rather than through physical punishment. The tutor will make sure that no harm results to Émile through his learning experiences.

Rousseau was one of the first to advocate developmentally appropriate education; and his description of the stages of child development mirrors his conception of the evolution of culture. He divides childhood into stages: the first is to the age of about 12, when children are guided by their emotions and impulses. During the second stage, from 12 to about 16, reason starts to develop; and finally the third stage, from the age of 16 onwards, when the child develops into an adult. Rousseau recommends that the young adult learn a manual skill such as carpentry, which requires creativity and thought . . .

Rousseau's detractors have blamed him for everything they do not like in what they call modern "child-centered" education. John Darling's 1994 book Child-Centered Education and its Critics argues that the history of modern educational theory is a series of footnotes to Rousseau, a development he regards as bad.

Good or bad, the theories of educators such as Rousseau's near contemporaries Pestalozzi, Mme de Genlis, and later, Maria Montessori, and John Dewey, which have directly influenced modern educational practices do have significant points in common with those of Rousseau.

Common also were attacks by defenders of social hierarchy on Rousseau's "romantic" belief in equality. In 1860, shortly after the Sepoy Rebellion in India, two British white supremacists, John Crawfurd and James Hunt, mounted a defense of British imperialism based on “scientific racism". Crawfurd, in alliance with Hunt, took over the presidency of the British Anthropological Society, which had been founded with the mission to defend indigenous peoples against slavery and colonial exploitation. Invoking "science" and "realism", the two men derided their "philanthropic" predecessors for believing in human equality and for not recognizing that mankind was divided into superior and inferior races. Crawfurd, who opposed Darwinian evolution, "denied any unity to mankind, insisting on immutable, hereditary, and timeless differences in racial character, principal amongst which was the 'very great' difference in 'intellectual capacity.'" For Crawfurd, the races had been created separately and were different species. Since Crawfurd was Scottish, he thought the Scottish "race" superior and all others inferior; whilst Hunt, on the other hand, believed in the supremacy of the Anglo-Saxon "race". Crawfurd and Hunt routinely accused those who disagreed with them of believing in "Rousseau’s Noble Savage". (The pair ultimately quarreled because Hunt believed in slavery and Crawfurd did not). "As Ter Ellinson demonstrates, Crawfurd was responsible for re-introducing the Pre-Rousseauian concept of 'the Noble Savage' to modern anthropology, attributing it wrongly and quite deliberately to Rousseau.”
 

In 1919 Irving Babbitt, founder of a movement called the "New Humanism", wrote a critique of what he called "sentimental humanitarianism", for which he blamed Rousseau. Babbitt's depiction of Rousseau was countered in a celebrated and much reprinted essay by A. O. Lovejoy in 1923. In France, fascist theorist and anti-Semite Charles Maurras, founder of Action Française, “had no compunctions in laying the blame for both Romantisme et Révolution firmly on Rousseau in 1922." - Wikipedia

Wow! "Scientific Racism", eh? Who knew?

In the news today - a report on the activities and effects of the English Defence League:

English Defence League demos 'feed Islamic extremism'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11787839

Right wing groups like the English Defence League are turning parts of Britain into recruiting grounds for Islamic extremists, police have said. The EDL emerged last year and has held demonstrations in a number of towns and cities against radicalisation. But the West Midlands Counter Terrorism Unit has told BBC Radio 5 live there is evidence EDL events can encourage extremists.

 ...........................................

Immigration: Far-right fringe exploits European coalitions
 

In the first of a series on the politics of immigration in Europe, Ian Traynor reveals how mainstream European parties appear paralysed by populism, unable to halt the rise of the far right
 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/15/europe-immigration-far-right-threat

.............................................................

Ministers accused of 'not caring' about equality

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9204000/9204015.stm

The government does not believe it has a responsibility to create a "fairer society", Labour has claimed following Home Secretary Theresa May's decision to scrap part of the Equality Act 2010.

On 18 November 2010, shadow equalities minister Fiona Mactaggart condemned the decision and claimed the government "just doesn't care about socio-economic inequality".

Not that New Labour showed a fat lot of caring, either. It was only thanks to Harriet Harman that the Equality Act belatedly saw the light of day.

............................................

Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality  [This Land Is Your Land]

“ The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody. ”

— Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, 1754

Rousseau argues that "another principle which has escaped Hobbes" is man's compassion. This quality of man also motivates him to interact. Finally, man possesses the quality of "perfectibility," which allows him to improve his own physical condition/environmental situation and develop ever more sophisticated survival tactics. The increasing regularity and convention of man's contact with other men transfigures his basic capacity for reason and reflection, his natural or naive love of self (amour de soi meme) into a corrupting dependency on the perceptions and favor of others. Natural, non-destructive love of self advances gradually yet qualitatively into a state of amour propre, a love of self now driven by pride and jealousy rather than merely elemental self-preservation. This accession to amour propre has four consequences: (1) competition, (2) self-comparison with others, (3) hatred, and (4) urge for power. These all lead to Rousseau's cynical civil society. But amour de soi meme also suggests a significant step out of the state of nature. - Wikipedia

.

Layer 327 . . . The World Cup Runneth Over, and Lessons We Must Learn

.
Two weeks in, and it's half way house. The group stages are complete and we now know the 16 teams that will compete during the next two weeks en route to the final.

Not France (disgraced and shambolic). Not Italy (out-played - and serves them right for electing Berlusconi). For the first time ever the two previous finalists have been knocked out at the group stage.

England have come through by the skin of their undeserving teeth. Played three games against very average opposition and scored only two goals. And it's not like the Slovenian team were markedly worse.

The commentariat have been stupidly positive about England's efforts against Slovenia. The truth is that apart from Milner's superb cross that led to Defoe's shinned goal there was still a complete lack of wit, imagination, creativity and originality, let alone skill, in their play. It's all very well going on about greater effort and passion, but these alone won't win anything.

I heard an interesting theory that pre-tournament training at altitude (especially at the end of a long and tiring season?) can actually make your players MORE tired and LESS sharp in the short term. Let's hope this is the explanation for the complete uselessness of the likes of Rooney, Lampard and Gerrard, and that they'll now begin to re-acclimatise and return to whatever passes for normal, given that Rooney hasn't actually scored for England for literally years.

In boxing they talk about fighters losing their "hunger". Young boxers invariably come from mean city streets where use of the fists and physical strength are the sole means for many young men to guarantee a sense of self-worth and self-esteem - as a means of enforcing their will and desire.

England's footballers - this 'golden generation' - have never been 'hungry', either literally or metaphorically. Over-paid, over-coached, over-praised - their biggest issues are fearing mistakes and remembering what they've been programmed to do. Footballing robots. Hence lack of initiative, lack of spontaneity, lack of creativity.

Even as school kids they're over-coached and taught to follow orders. They fear being dropped from the team if they disregard the coach's instructions. Older readers might remember some notable players who hardly ever played for England because they were deemed to be unreliable and eccentric. It's a question of balance.

Nowadays you step out of line at your peril, even if you're John Terry. Pay attention kids - look and learn. Keep your mouth shut. Your ideas are not wanted, not welcomed, not needed. Industrial management has come to international football. Systems are all. Management strategies and policies rule - OK? England's manager gets £6m a year. It's City culture versus the spirit of the game.

Even the Brazilians seem to be suffering. Their game against Portugal was a disgrace. 0 - 0!!

And so sad England stagger on, with a desperate commentariat doing their best to see positives where there are currently virtually none. Today's the day of the Big One - England v Germany. Again.

Have England recovered from their altitude training? Will Rooney rediscover his mojo? Will Capello be smart enough to play Crouch and Joe Cole? Will Johnson and Milner fulfill their potential?

Maybe England should learn from the Japanese. Oxzen has already commented on the Japanese ( Layer 320). When England played them in a warm-up game last month it took a couple of unlucky own goals to defeat Japan - since England were completely unable to score a goal for themselves. It's worth repeating:

"The (Japanese Samurai) idea seems to be that with genuine effort, experience and application anyone can become good at performing skills and arts that demand high levels of fitness, balance, coordination, anticipation and flair. The Japanese football team seem to have taken hold of this attitude. Shame about the English."

In their last group game the Japanese team scored not one but two superb goals direct from free kicks - the only country to score a spectacular goal from a free kick in this World Cup. Honda managed to smash his kick through a narrow gap created by a Japanese player moving out of the wall, and Endo curled his kick beautifully right around the Danish wall later in the half, after Honda had faked the Danes into placing their wall too far to the left. And this was with a ball that's supposed to be unbendable and practically uncontrollable. It was wonderful to behold.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n46e-2IHStg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2010/matches/match_43/default.stm

Here's another Honda special:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lOZ-n-afY0

The other outstanding thing about Japan's play has been their ball control, again with a ball that's supposedly hard to control. Towards the end of the game against Denmark Honda in particular showed a staggering ability to take the ball in his stride and do things with it that only the likes of Ronaldo are supposed to be able to do. The way he created the third goal, and handed it on a plate to his colleague, was an absolute joy.

My conclusion is that if the Japanese can go from nothing at all to such high levels of skill in just a few years then England should take note and start asking how they can begin to emulate the Japanese.

How to stay calm in a tight spot? How to maintain full concentration? How to play without fear? How to apply imagination, spontaneity and creativity, and add them to discipline, effort, application, skill and determination? How to create empathy between team members? How to improve physical coordination?

Forget Total Football. Bring on Zen and the Art of Football, or Taotal Football.

PS Oxzen is sick and tired of listening to Eurocentric commentators being patronising about Asian and African teams, in a kind of watered-down Ron Atkinson way. Someone should pay attention to their comments and really take them to task about it.

PPS On Desert Island Discs this morning - Tony Adams - "As a young player I didn't know how to deal with life outside of football. The outside world was scary. So I drank." Spiritual Intelligence?

To his credit, Big T now talks about being an 'emotional cripple', and praises others for being emotionally intelligent.

"I now try to live usefully and walk humbly".

He also chose as his favourite track, "Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life." Good man.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qnmr

...............................................................

Don't forget the return of I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00srjdl#synopsis

Half a day left to listen to the previous programme.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00srjdl.

Layer 209 . . . Diversity, Equality, Social Justice, the BNP and Anti Racism

.
So the leader of the BNP finally made his appearance on the BBC's Question Time last night and thereby brought about television's political event of the year. He came across as what he undoubtedly is – a not very bright, sweaty, shifty, smarmy, evasive, appalling toad of a human being, full of nasty and half-witted ideas and ambitions. It was interesting the way he claimed he was now hated by the real Nazis in this country because he's now holding back from any overtly racist speeches and provocations, and now confines himself to trying to be the man who stands up for the white working classes whose welfare and wellbeing have been ignored by the 'multiculturalism' of the mainstream parties.

Gary Younge wrote a superb column in yesterday's Guardian on this issue:

When you watch the BNP on TV, just remember: Jack Straw started all this
To set New Labour against Griffin is simply putting the cause against the symptom

Three years ago this month Jack Straw argued his case for urging Muslim women who attend his MP's surgery to remove their niqab. He said that he wanted to start a debate. In this, at least, he was successful.

The French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy said "the veil is an invitation to rape"; the Daily Mail columnist Allison Pearson said women who wear "nose bags on their faces ... have no place on British streets"; the then shadow home secretary David Davis argued that Muslims were encouraging voluntary apartheid.

And so Muslim women passed, in the public imagination, from being actually among the group most likely to be racially attacked to ostensibly being a primary cause of social strife . . .

There is little doubt that once the BNP is on Question Time, Jack Straw – or indeed anyone in the New Labour hierarchy – is in no position to take the fight to it. The same is true for most of the rest of the British political establishment that will be represented on the panel – they have either actively colluded or passively acquiesced in the political trajectory of the past decade.

But it is no accident that this happened on New Labour's watch and no small irony that Jack Straw should set himself up as Griffin's opponent.

Economically, its neoliberal policies have resulted in growing insecurity, rising unemployment, child poverty and inequality that have alienated the poor and made the middle class feel vulnerable. Politically, its lies over the war, stewardship of the expenses scandal and internal bickering have produced widespread cynicism with our political culture.

Meanwhile New Labour's race-baiting rhetoric gave the state's imprimatur to the notion that Britain's racial problems were not caused by racism but the existence of non-white, non-Christian and non-British people. This provided little material solace but plenty of vulnerable scapegoats.

Having inflated racism's political currency, New Labour vacated the electoral market so that others with a more ostentatious style might more freely spend it. Once they had made these ideas respectable it was only a matter of time before a party reached a position where it too would earn sufficient respectability to appear on prime time.

New Labour marginalised the white working class, assuming they had nowhere else to go, only to find some of them rush into the arms of the far right.

New Labour extinguished all hope of class solidarity and singularly failed to provide principled anti-racist alternatives, leaving a significant section of the white working class to seek cheap refuge in racism and xenophobia. In their identity they see not the potential for resistance against corruption and injustice, but only a grievance. They don't trust government and don't see any alternatives. The coming election simply provides the choice between two parties that share the intent to slash public spending, after the gift of billions to bankers.

Under such circumstances setting Straw – and the rest of the political class – against Griffin is simply putting the cause against the symptom without any suggestion of an antidote.

This has been New Labour's problem all along. While they have long recognised that racism is a problem, it never seemed to occur to them that anti-racism might be the solution.

The BNP's victories are a product of our politics. Its defeat, when it comes, will necessarily be a product of a change in our politics. But since New Labour's politics enabled the BNP, it is in no position to disable it. The BNP is a bottom feeder. But the system is rotting from the head down.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/21/jack-straw-bnp-griffin-hain
….................

The most interesting contributions made to the programme last night came from the Conservative party representative, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion and Social Action. How clever of Cameron to have given this post to this particular individual, who even retains a trace of a Yorkshire accent. And I mean clever in a good way.

http://www.sayeedawarsi.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayeeda_Warsi,_Baroness_Warsi

She was the only one who seemed alert to the fact that, as Gary Younge so rightly says, the white working classes have plenty to be angry about after 12 years of New Labour. Namely, “growing insecurity, rising unemployment, child poverty and inequality that have alienated the poor and made the middle class feel vulnerable”. Add to that list inadequate, expensive, unafforable and scarce housing, too many inadequate schools that alienate and frustrate their children, a minimum wage that's not only too low but is also seen as a maximum by far too many employers, inadequate State pensions, fewer and less well funded job pension schemes, the threat of a higher retirement age, repressive trade union representation, billions blown on becoming a surveillance society, billions blown on illegal wars and support for the the Bush regime, etc, etc. All of this alongside the well-off and wealthy sections of society becoming even more wealthy as a result of this government's business-friendly and laissez-faire policies, allowing the property bubble to inflate, and so on.

So the Baroness is right – there are plenty of legitimate grievances to address in order to deal with the anger of the working classes in general, and the lower middle classes as well – not just the white sections of those who are less well-off and downright impoverished.

These working class people are hardly likely to turn to the Conservatives, or even the Lib Dems to address their problems and express their anger. So who do they turn to?
….................................

Deborah Orr also had an excellent piece in the Guardian [G2] yesterday:

Diversity and equality are not the same thing

Racism, homophobia and sexism are on the wane, but Britain is more unequal than ever

The progressive agenda may have faltered in many respects over recent decades. But in challenging the evils of racism, homophobia and sexism, fantastic success has been achieved. Mainstream British attitudes, in the last 30 years, have been transformed. David Cameron, consummate public relations man that he is, recognises that a Conservative party that seems too male, too white, too straight, has an image problem.

Except that diehard critics of the Conservatives – people who would never vote for them – tend to dislike Cameron's party because it is seen as representing the interests of the privileged, whatever their race, gender or sexual orientation may be. Identity politics may have set out to promote equality. But the Conservative leadership has embraced not equality, but diversity.

This is social progress, of course. But it is not the progress that the left once envisaged. On the contrary, in the same time as the argument for diversity has made such strides, the increased equality that was assumed to be part of its goal, has not materialised at all. Instead, inequality in Britain is now much greater than it was prior to the success of its various "equality" campaigns.

Increased inequality is rightly understood as a consequence of the enthusiastic adoption of neoliberal economic policies, by both of the governments of the mainstream parties. But less honestly acknowledged is the fact that diversity is entirely compatible with neoliberalism. The growth stimulated by the promotion of skilled female employment, the economic advantages of immigration, the consuming power of the "pink pound" – these are the aspects of "liberation" that have been most amorously embraced by the political mainstream, in part because they chime so fortuitously with neoliberal economic goals.

Does this matter? Is it important to understand that diversity and equality are different things, and that they are sometimes even at odds with each other? After all, the rooting out of discrimination achieves social justice, whether in the name of diversity or equality.

It matters very much indeed, because the strange fruit of the confusion can be seen on Question Time tonight, personified by the leader of the British National party, Nick Griffin, who deliberately utilises the general increase in inequality to advance his anti-diversity, racist agenda. And even the very people who abhor his crude and frightening racism most find it hard to rebut his central thesis – that the white working class in Britain has had a raw deal over the last 30 years.

Rebuttal indeed is pointless. The important thing to remember is that the black working class, the female working class, the gay working class, the disabled working class and the elderly working class, have had a similarly difficult time, under Labour and under the Conservatives. Certainly all of those other groups have been lavished with attention under Labour in the form of legislation that protects their minority rights in the name of diversity, in a way that the white working class has not. But the real reason why the BNP is able to make capital out of racist assertions is because immigrants are the only group that has been overtly utilised as a tool to promote economic inequality. That's the link.

Since the Empire Windrush arrived in 1948 – the year Griffin promotes as the point when Britain's prelapsarian idyll ended – immigrant labour has been deliberately used to keep unskilled wages low. While the promotion of diversity has successfully staved off some of the most socially catastrophic consequences of such a divisive economic strategy, it has also ushered in a wrong-headed belief that immigrants are the actual cause of inequality, rather than merely part of the means of creating that highly competitive, fear-of-failure motivated, neoliberal economy that is such a splendid motor of empty "growth".

Many commentators have pointed out that under the strictures of "political correctness" the only group that can any longer be unabashedly despised is the white working class. A number of well-meaning critics suggested that with the character Vicky Pollard, the creators of Little Britain were doing just that. Some surprise was expressed when rightwinger Ferdinand Mount took up this general thesis, in his book Mind The Gap: Class In Britain Now.

But there is nothing in this to be surprised about. The application of the mores of identity politics cannot help the white working class. Even if the idea that the white working class is a special-interest cultural group that needs to be "respected" were successfully promulgated, this would advance only "diversity", and legitimise extreme economic inequality as an inescapable fact of life such as skin-colour, gender or sexual orientation.

This is exactly why the Daily Telegraph, before Karen Matthews was exposed as the kidnapper of her daughter Shannon, was at  pains t to portray Dewsbury as a vibrant community chock-full of Blitz-spirited decency, rather than an economically abandoned hellhole teeming with poverty-induced depression, mental illness, substance abuse, ignorance and desperation. It's just a sophisticated and identity-politics-informed reworking of that old saw: "The poor will always be with us."

Sure, some people will always be less rich than others. But less of a gulf between rich and poor should be a social goal because it makes us all happier, as a plethora of statistics have been marshalled to illustrate in Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett's important new book, The Spirit Level.

Yet who in the political mainstream is advancing this argument? Even Barack Obama, the world's most potent embodiment of the advance of diversity, has trouble setting out, let alone winning, the equality argument.

.

Layer 199 . . . DID, Rooney, The Rover Four, Right Wing Hate and In Our Time

.
An interesting question in the Guardian's 'Notes and Queries' last week: Has anyone who has been on Desert Island Discs ever not selected at least one piece of classical music? Respondents came up with Louis Armstrong and Philip Larkin, but I can well remember Greg Dyke coming up with the best and the most interesting set of choices I've heard so far -

1. Born to Run
Performer Bruce Springsteen

2. It Doesn’t Matter Anymore
Performer Buddy Holly

3. Strawberry Fields Forever
Performer The Beatles

4. Like a Rolling Stone
Performer Bob Dylan

5. Summertime
Performer Ella Fitzgerald & Louis Armstrong

6. Bat Out of Hell
Performer Meat Loaf

7. Great Balls of Fire
Performer Jerry Lee Lewis

8. Country House
Performer Blur

Record: Like a Rolling Stone
Book: Complete works of Dylan Thomas
Luxury: A guitar with a guide to playing it.

It's not a perfect list, and the only one of these tunes I'd have in my top 8 is Like A Rolling Stone, but it's by far the best list so far. Greg Dyke is terrific, and it was such a relief to have such an interesting set of good tracks instead of the usual muck.

It's interesting to consider the correlation between celebrities/castaways and a complete lack of taste when it comes to music. The majority of these people haven't got a clue. I sometimes wonder whether they ever pay any attention to music at all. Either that or there's a huge failure to offer people any sort of education in music in this country. Probably both.

Womad took up residence in the moat of the Tower of London this weekend – to very good effect. In an ideal world there would be a permanent stage and ongoing musical workshops on the site all year round.

Last week I finally got round to starting "Like A Rolling Stone" by Greil Marcus - a book that should be owned and read by everyone who's interested in music, in the history of blues, folk and rock, and of course interested in the Sixties, and especially Bob Dylan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2005/may/13/bobdylan

"July 24 1965 was the day Bob Dylan's Like a Rolling Stone went into the charts. It was on the radio across the US and heading straight up. When drummer Bobby Gregg brought his stick down for the opening noise of the six-minute single, the sound - a kind of announcement, then a void of silence, then a rising fanfare, then the song - fixed a moment when all those caught up in modern music found themselves engaged in a running battle for a prize no one bothered to name: the greatest record ever made, perhaps, or the greatest record that ever would be made.

That first drum shot is what seals it. "The first time I heard Bob Dylan," Bruce Springsteen said in 1989, inducting Dylan into the Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame, "I was in the car with my mother listening to WMCA, and on came that snare shot that sounded like somebody had kicked open the door to your mind."

Rooney

The papers were full of digs at Rooney last week, again, because after being substituted he took off a boot and flung it down as he sat down in the dugout. It was a very minor display of petulance, and possibly just venting his frustration with the opposition's fans taunting him rather than with his manager, but of course he got slagged off in the press. Having praised him in a recent blog for his tremendously improved attitude and anger management I have to defend him and say – credit where it's due! The guy's trying hard, and playing better than ever. Leave him alone! It's the emotional and spiritual intelligence of the press that needs greater scrutiny.


The Rover Four

I don't think I've mentioned 4 guys who hit the headlines recently – the four bastards who bought MG/Rover for £10 and milked fucking millions from it before it crashed again. These were people who'd been lauded as the saviors of what remained of the British motor industry! 

MG Rover: how the Phoenix Four hit the jackpot

Report into demise of car manufacturer reveals owners bought software to wipe clean hard drives and ran tax avoidance schemes

This has to be on record – how these arseholes went about making themselves rich at the expense of a workforce, and an entire community.

"Evidence Eliminator" computer software, a tax avoidance plot called "Project Slag", six-figure bribes and an office affair were just some of the more outlandish ingredients revealed today by the long-awaited investigation into the MG Rover scandal.

The 850-page report lays bare the breathtaking lengths to which its former owners, the so-called Phoenix Four, went to enrich themselves before the company – Britain's last large car manufacturer – collapsed in April 2005 with the loss of 6,500 jobs.

The four local businessmen and former MG Rover chief executive Kevin Howe paid themselves a total of £42m during their five-year ownership of the company, which they bought for a token £10 and left with more than £1bn in debts. The report concluded their financial rewards were "excessively large" despite the fact that the businessmen invested no money in the group after they bought it and took risks which were "relatively insubstantial".

The inspectors also criticised how one or more members of the Phoenix Four made business decisions on an ad hoc basis, with no board meeting being held or minutes produced. They also criticised them for employing Dr Li, who received £1.6m in consultancy services over 15 months before MG Rover collapsed, even though one of the Phoenix Four – Nick Stephenson – had a "personal relationship" with her. Inspectors said that her fees were "excessive" and that apart from translation, she "didn't seem to add much".

But the Serious Fraud Office, which examined the report last month, decided that it did not reveal enough evidence to justify criminal proceedings against the Four. The only likely sanction they face is being disqualified as company directors.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/11/mg-rover-phoenix-four

Discussions on how the Phoenix Four businessmen could extract millions of pounds from MG Rover began the day before the deal to buy the car company from BMW for £10 was officially announced.

While John Towers was being given a hero's welcome on 9 May 2000 as he met workers in Longbridge, his financial advisers were already hatching a plan which would allow the four executives to take £75m out of the business.

The government report into the salvation and collapse of Britain's last volume carmaker highlights many occasions where the Phoenix Four appear to have put their own interests ahead of the MG Rover car company, which collapsed in April 2005.

Scumbags.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/11/mg-rover-phoenix-four1

Right Wing Hate, Racism, Fox and Glen Beck

“Despite having accused President Obama of possessing "a deep-seated hatred of white people" and being "a racist" – which one might think would contravene Beck's much-vaunted "patriotism" – he remains employed by Fox News. Of course, seeing as the channel seems to have confused the words "news" and "propaganda", it's perhaps not that surprising that it might also mix up "talkshow" and "excuse for wackiness". That 50 advertisers have pulled out of his show has not dimmed Fox's love for its self-described "rodeo clown" because, as the channel pointed out, the advertisers have simply moved to different time slots, not other stations – so, as long as the hate speech doesn't cost them, meh.” - Hadley Freeman

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/16/hadley-freeman-glenn-beck

Jon Stewart in his Daily Show programme is also continuing to highlight the way in which the militant Right is becoming ever more hateful in its vilification of Obama – accusing him of being a socialist, a communist, un-American, a reverse racist, unpatriotic, etc.

Obama is pressing ahead with his proposals for health care reform, and now he's also announced his intention to scrap the installation of so-called anti-missile missiles in Poland. The man is admired and appreciated right around the world, and yet the level of hatred for him within his own country is incredible. These people are just indescribably vile, and crazed. They've had things their own way for so long under Bush and throughout the conservative ascendancy, and they can' t abide the fact that they now no longer hold the levers of power and completely rule the roost.

In yesterday's Observer Keith Richburg wrote a column on this subject.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/20/jimmy-carter-barack-obama-racism

“Jimmy Carter has always been one to speak bluntly – irritatingly so, to some of his critics. Even at 84, the former president continues to show his willingness to raise the most indelicate topics, often at the most inopportune time. This time, the topic is race and, more specifically, the racism that underlies some of the ugliest, most vociferous criticism of President Obama.

"I think people that are guilty of that kind of personal attack against Obama have been influenced to a major degree by the belief that he should not be president because he happens to be African-American," Carter said.

Obama-hatred among a certain segment of the extreme right has crossed a line into something else – it borders on the pathological.

Republican and conservative leaders rushed to the microphones to condemn Jimmy Carter for playing the race card. Too bad that when it comes to condemning the racists – the ones carrying the signs and questioning the country of the president's birth – those same "leaders" have offered only a deafening silence.

Take a close look at the numbers. Obama won 53% of the vote overall, but he won just 43% of the white vote – McCain beat him by 12 percentage points among whites.

This fact is the really devastating one – 57% of whites who voted in the last election were too fucking dumb to understand that Obama is America's best hope for a decent future and for intelligent, enlightened leadership – an outstanding individual in every way. They were also so dumb they also didn't understand that McCain and the Lipstick Pig would have been a national disaster.

It's true that these fuckwits were, and are (see above), the victims of overwhelming and relentless right-wing propaganda over many years, but you can't help feeling that the majority of them were either the fatcat rich who support Republicanism for reasons of greed and ideology through thick and thin, or the kind of poor whites who really can't tell their arse from a hole in the ground. 

In Our Time – Melvyn Bragg

Bragg's back!

St Thomas Aquinas

Melvyn Bragg discusses the life, works and enduring influence of the medieval philosopher and theologian St Thomas Aquinas with Martin Palmer, John Haldane and Annabel Brett.

St Thomas Aquinas' ideas remain at the heart of the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church today and inform philosophical debates on human rights, natural law and what constitutes a 'just war'.

Martin Palmer is Director of the International Consultancy on Religion, Education and Culture; John Haldane is Professor of Philosophy at the University of St Andrews; Annabel Brett is Lecturer in History at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge.

A radical form of Christianity - Dominicans and Franciscans - challenged the wealth of the church. They were vilified as a cult - denying themselves all the advantages of the established church. Their attitude was characterised as like a 'dumb ox', as they went about preaching to the poor.

In a sense this movement was an intellectual revolution. Albert the Great of Cologne engaged in a project to incorporate philosophy into Christianity. However, the secular clergy – the established officers of the church – were hostile to Aristotle, whose philosophy of nature believed in establishing secure scientific foundations for how the world works.

At that time there was considerable success on the part of 'the commentators' within the Arabic world in developing a workable model of science that could be taught at a university.

Autonomous enquiry into nature and 'natural being' was a challenge to the established church, which challenged over 200 Aristotelian propositions and their temporal framework. Aristotle had said we are dynamic agents seeking our own ends, which didn't sit well with people who believed we are all subject to “God's will”.

In the Platonic scheme the action happens in the intellectual sphere. Aristotle believed you have to look at what actually goes on in the word in order to understand it – the 'danger' here being that God drops out of the picture. Such thinking was also a threat to Islam.

Teleology (Greek: telos: end, purpose) is the philosophical study of design and purpose. A teleological school of thought is one that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result, that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists. - Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology

This belief says the world is a system of interacting substances, but ultimately things are not self-explanatory. St T used the archer and target analogy – with God seen as the archer or conductor.

He argues that by observing the world we can draw conclusions that still lead us towards God - we have to conclude that before things are able to move there is that which moves them, which itself is immovable and initiates movement.

But what happened before anything happens, and therefore what is God?

St T was more interested in establishing the idea of the 'first cause' than in describing God – linking the material and the spiritual. Yet he continued to believe in Revelation - something beyond reason.

St T did not think there's an innate desire for God, as such - only for 'our highest good'. So what is our highest good? We need to discover out our highest principles.

St T said we participate in God's reason - it is of our essence to share in God's governance of us, and exercise self-direction towards the good. This rational being needs to live in a society that is governed by reason and adherence to God's will.

[Check out Blair and Bush here . . . and their supporters in the fundamentalist Christian movement - an eye for an eye etc.]

There was a delicate balance between the sphere of human reason and the sphere in which rulers should take their direction from the Pope, who spoke as God's messenger.

St T raised the question - what if you personally think the king, the ruler or the emperor was wrong? He was condemned for this. However, he ended up in theologically orthodox positions - though at the time he seemed like a revolutionary. Some of us can identify with this.

Post-Reformation the Council of Trent turned to St T for an idea of synthesis. Political heads may have to lead through the power of reason, but their political philosophy must be formed by God and adherence to His will. Amazing.

Eventually St T says ' there are no more words'. 'After all my writing, I am speechless.'

Which is pretty much in line with Zen! Words can only do so much, and there are spiritual realities and truths that are beyond words.

"Reality is something of which we have only a dim sense." "Our completion is something that words cannot begin to describe." And of course it's the pursuit of the nature of reality that Zen sets out to address – chiefly through use of the senses combined with silent meditation and the use of intuitive, not logical, intelligence – i.e. spiritual intelligence, and not use of the 'intellect'.

So my own interpretation is that St T was in favour of intellectual flourishing, but also metaphysical engagement and understanding. Not that a programme devoted to science and to the intellect would use a word like metaphysical!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00mkd63/In_Our_Time_St_Thomas_Aquinas/
.

Layer 198 . . . Mansfield, Empathy, Duncan Smith, Work, Benefits, and Happiness

.
Mansfield, Identity and Empathy

What makes an outstanding individual? (see also blog on Maslow - Layer 20  Fully Evolved Human Beings)

Michael Mansfield QC on Radio 4's Midweek today was promoting his autobiography and talking about the need to 'identify' with the people he's representing in court, as Libby Purves put it. He spoke about 'being able to get inside someone's skin”. Actually this isn't identification – it's empathy. You can empathise with someone who may be a completely different sort of character, living a completely different lifestyle, with very different attitudes and behavior, without needing to feel any sense of common identity, providing you have the ability to imagine what it might be like to be that person and providing you can understand why and how they do things.

Words are very precise, and we ought to make an effort to use them properly.

Empathy is the essential component of social intelligence – the ability to relate to others, to understand their feelings and motives, and to form positive relationships. Mansfield is highly successful in what he does, partly because he's able to make positive relationships with his clients, partly because he is able to empathise with them, partly because he has a strong sense of compassion, and partly because he has a burning desire to see justice done, and to make sure it's seen to be done.

He's also an effective, persuasive, convincing and fearless communicator. It's a powerful combination of social and spiritual intelligence that makes Mansfield outstanding in his field. No-one doubts he also has a very clear grasp of the complexities of the law, and all the professional knowledge that goes with the territory, plus first-class thinking skills and powers of analysis. But no-one even knows or cares about how successful he was academically. Education policy makers please note.

http://www.city.ac.uk/whatson/2009/9_sep/100909_mansfield.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/michael-mansfield-meet-britainrsquos-boldest-barrister-821976.html
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article6818799.ece
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mansfield


The Quiet Man, Empathy and Social Justice

"On 7 December 2005, Ian Duncan Smith was appointed Chairman of the Social Justice Policy Group which was facilitated by the Centre for Social Justice. The group's aim was to "study the causes and consequences of poverty in Britain and seek practical ideas to empower the least well-off."

There was an amazing interview with Ian Duncan Smith in the 8.10 slot on the Today programme on R4 this morning, in which he talked convincingly with passion and conviction about the need to invest more money in the process of getting unemployed people into work. His point was that there's a tipping point that arises when someone is considering taking on a job and declaring earnings, since the system as it stands allows people to take home virtually no more when they take on a low-paid job than when they were unemployed but free and time rich. What does it take to make people go beyond the tipping point? At least that's my interpretation of what he was saying.

I've been thinking about this very thing for some time now. Our stupid politicians say they're desperate to get the unemployed into the habit of paid work, but they totally fail to take into account, and to factor into the equation, the loss of freedom and the reduction of time for personal and family pursuits when someone takes on a poorly paid and possibly boring job. Those things are actually worth something to the unemployed, and must be taken into account.

The answer therefore, if I heard IDS correctly, is to not ìmmediately reduce all of a claimant's benefits when they start work, so that their income becomes significantly boosted even when they're working for a minimum wage rate. I can hardly believe I heard a Tory saying this. I must go immediately and look this up on the internet, assuming IDS has published these thoughts elsewhere.

My own solution is along slightly different lines. When someone takes on a new job, especially if it's a dull and poorly paid job, neither the worker nor the employer knows whether they're going to be suitable and successful in the job, and during that period of uncertainty, when both are making up their minds whether the employment is going to be long-term, the benefits the individual has been receiving should not be cut. Neither should the new earner be taxed at the standard rate. There should either be a period of exemption from tax or the tax should be at 10% of earnings.

After a suitable transition period the new employee would lose the benefits income, since you can't expect double bubble indefinitely. By that time, though, relationships in the workplace will have been established, job prospects checked out, new workmates become pals, and the habit of getting up in the morning and commuting acquired. When faced with the financial, social, emotional and spiritual benefits of the new lifestyle versus returning to the old one, the vast majority are going to opt to stay in the job and not go back on unemployment and jobseeker benefits.

In a sense we'd be rewarding the unemployed just for making the effort to go out and start work, for giving up time for themselves, and for getting into the work habit – and why not? As things stand there's very little in the way or incentives or rewards for giving up one's liberty and taking on crappy, low status, poorly paid jobs, ie becoming a wage slave.

Faced with a choice of being a wage slave (and a very poorly paid wage slave), and a dropout, is it so surprising that so many choose to just drop out? Especially if they can make some money by ducking and diving. We clearly need to pay people to give up ducking and diving, or being a drug user, or being a slacker and a slob, or someone who just can't face the hassle of 'signing off' and losing benefits when they suspect they might be very quickly back on them but having to face a period of no income whatsoever whilst a new claim is processed.

I suspect very few politicians have bothered to look very closely at the predicaments and the lifestyles of the poor and the unemployed, let alone feel able to empathise with them, so respect! to IDS for spending time thinking of ways to actually help such people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Duncan_Smith

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Social_Justice

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/sep/03/conservatives.uk

--------------------------------------------

Sarkozy and the Quality of Life

"A great revolution is waiting for us," [Sarkozy] said. "For years, people said that finance was a formidable creator of wealth, only to discover one day that it accumulated so many risks that the world almost plunged into chaos."

"The crisis doesn't only make us free to imagine other models, another future, another world. It obliges us to do so," he said.

Measuring well-being would make France's economy, famous for its short workweek and generous social benefits, look more rosy.

"If leisure has no accounting value because it's essentially full of non-market activities like sport or culture, we put productivity below human fulfillment," Sarkozy said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/09/14/2009-09-14_president_nicolas_sarkozy_wants_happiness_used_as_economic_indicator.html

It was interesting that Keith Floyd, as a bon viveur, and having written a brilliant book on French cuisine, bought a house in France and chose to spend a lot of his time there.

"Endorsing the recommendations of a report given to him by Nobel prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen, Sarkozy said governments should do away with the "religion of statistics" in which financial prowess was the sole indicator of a country's [or an individual's!] state of health.

"For years statistics have registered an increasingly strong economic growth as a victory over shoperation and Development. "We need better measures of people's expectations and levels of satisfaction, of how they spend their time, of their relations with other people in their community."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/14/sarkozy-attacks-gdp-focus

http://www.canada.com/Sarkozy+looks+bright+side+life/1995470/story.html

http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=1992519

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jD5xKXpv1EwzOwaST9Hphv8GD0AQ

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/09/15/sarkozy-wants-the-french-to-pursue-more-happiness.aspx

Layard and the Greatest Good – Tackling the Happiness Question 

Lord Layard is at it again this week:

"What is progress? That is the question President Sarkozy of France has posed to a distinguished commission. It is exactly the right question, and the future of our culture depends on the answer.

GDP is not the answer, and the Stiglitz commission – whose report, What is Social Progress?, is published today – is clear about that: progress must be measured by the overall quality of people's lives. At this point the commission identifies two possible approaches. One is to focus on how people feel: are they happy and contented? (This idea goes back to philosophers of the Enlightenment, such as Jeremy Bentham.)

The other is to focus on people's objective circumstances: do they have the capabilities (as Amartya Sen calls them) that are conducive to human flourishing? The commission does not choose between these approaches, and both are infinitely superior to GDP. But it matters greatly which way we choose.

It would obviously be convenient if we could identify one overarching good and, together with many Enlightenment philosophers, I believe that good is happiness.

There are many things that are highly desirable: health, freedom, love, and so on. But if we ask why they matter, we can have a discussion: if you are ill, you feel bad. The same if you are enslaved or unloved; it makes you unhappy. But if we ask why it matters if you feel bad and unhappy, there is no answer. It is self-evident.

So it is time to reassert the noble philosophy of the Enlightenment. In this view, every human being wants to be happy, and everybody counts equally. It follows that progress is measured by the overall scale of human happiness and misery. And the right action is the one that produces the greatest happiness in the world and (especially) the least misery. I can think of no nobler ideal.

So I propose a campaign for the Principle of the Greatest Happiness. This says that I should aim to produce the most happiness I can in the world and, above all, the least misery. And my rulers should do the same. This principle would lead to better private lives and better public policy. We desperately need a social norm in which the good of others figures more prominently in our personal goals. Today's excessive individualism removes so much of the joy from family life, work and even friendship."

I can't be bothered at this point to go over again the arguments in favour of making Zen enlightenment (as opposed to 'Enlightenment' enlightenment) our goal, and not the pursuit of happiness.

I'll just say this – people pursue money and material things because they believe those things will make them happy. Governments pursue the generation of money and the production of goods because they believe people need lots more of those things in order to be happy. It all depends on what you think is going to make you, and other people, happy. Chasing after happiness is dumb behaviour. There – I've said it.

Still, Layard's thing is 'happiness' – and it's his hobby horse, his political franchise. No point in arguing with him.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/13/happiness-enlightenment-economics-philosophy


Stiglitz and Wall Street

Nobel prizewinning economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote an excellent piece this week, on the anniversary of the Lehman Brothers collapse. It's worth taking time to read it in full.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/14/lehmans-one-year-after1

What went wrong? Have the right lessons been learned? I fear that our collective response has been mistaken and inadequate – that we may just have made matters worse.

Lehmans was . . . a consequence of flawed lending practices, and of inadequate oversight by regulators.

Bailing out the US banks need not have meant bailing out the bankers, their shareholders, and bondholders. We could have kept the banks as ongoing institutions, even if we had played by the ordinary rules of capitalism which say that when a firm can't meet its obligations to creditors, the shareholders lose everything.

Unquestionably we should not have allowed banks to become so big and so intertwined that their failure would cause a crisis.

[Our government] has failed to take adequate steps to restrict institutions' size, their risk-taking, and their interconnectedness. Indeed, it has allowed the big banks to become even bigger – just as it has failed to stem the flow of profligate executive bonuses.

After the fall of Bear Stearns, with rumours that Lehmans was next, the Fed and the Treasury should have done a serious job of figuring out how to manage an orderly shutdown of a large, complex institution; and if they determined that they lacked adequate legal authority, they should have requested it.

They appear, remarkably, to have been repeatedly caught off-guard.

After saying that they did not want to bail out Lehmans because of a concern about moral hazard, they extended the government's safety net further than it had ever been. Bear Stearns extended it to investment banks, and AIG to all financial institutions. Perhaps they were doing the best they could at the time; but that is no excuse for not having anticipated the problems and been better prepared.

Lehman Brothers was a symptom of a dysfunctional financial system and regulatory failure. It should have taught us that preventing problems is easier, and certainly less costly, than dealing with them when they become virtually intractable.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/14/lehmans-one-year-after1

........................................................

Carter – Obama – Racism

"The former US president Jimmy Carter has condemned as "dastardly" and "based on racism" a southern Republican's outburst during Barack Obama's big healthcare speech to Congress last week. Carter said the "You lie" interjection by Joe Wilson showed there was "an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president".

The 84-year-old said the case was part of a disturbing trend directed at Obama that has included equating the president to Nazi leaders. "Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national programme on healthcare. It's deeper than that."

In an interview with NBC News, Carter attributed much of the conservative opposition to Obama to his race. "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man.”

Dick Harpootlian, a former Democrat party chairman in South Carolina, said he did not believe Wilson was motivated by racism but added that his actions encouraged racist views. "I think Joe's conduct was asinine, but I think it would be asinine no matter what the colour of the president." Harpootlian, who has known Wilson for decades, said: "I don't think Joe's outburst was caused by President Obama being African-American. I think it was caused by no filter being between his brain and his mouth."

Surely they're both correct in their assessments.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/16/jimmy-carter-you-lie-racist

..........................................................................
Interesting comment on the Guardian film blog on David Lynch:

“There are too few living directors out there who can successfully translate the craziness inside their heads into compelling movie-making. Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock and Fritz Lang still inspire devotion from beyond the grave. Lynch, at 65, is only getting started.

Which is why it worries me that he's so stuck on meditation. I don't want his silence. I want his noise. So if anyone out there finds his voice, could you please hand it in?”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2009/sep/10/david-lynch-tribute-films-art


Chavez and South America

“I would be worried if they spoke well of me.”

Hugo Chavez –  Oliver Stone - South of the Border

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep/03/oliver-stone-south-of-the-border-hugo-chavez

Retirement

Max Mosley shared some interesting thoughts in an interview with Donald McCrae in the Guardian yesterday. He's agreed to stand down from the presidency of the FIA and his leading role in F1 at the end of this season, after being put under huge pressure by the F1 teams to do so, following the revelations in the New of the Screws about his sex life in S & M cellars and dungeons. (has anyone turned it into a Playstation game yet – Dungeons and Dragracers?)

He's a fascinating guy, and you have to say very gutsy (and wealthy) to fight back against the Screws and win his right to privacy case. His family background is unbelievable – Oswald and Diana Mosley as parents, involvement in his father's post-war Union Movement (successor to the British Union of Fascists) from an early age, and the loss of his only child, Alexander, from a drugs overdose, just a few months ago.

In the paper he's quoted as saying,

“Retirement will be a big relief. The work is absolutely non-stop and I always feel I haven't really done what I should've done. And I am tired of the battling. It's more or less, in different guises, the same problems with the same people and you're never going to finish. At a certain point it's time to stop. You've only got a limited amount of time left before you drop off – and do you really want to spend it solving other people's problems?"

“I'm dying to have a bit more time for myself. There are so many books I want to read and maybe I will write a book myself – because there is so much to tell."

That could be a book worth reading. I seem to be developing a strange regard for high-profile right-wing characters – IDS, Sarkozy, etc. Worrying.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/sep/15/max-mosley-formula-one-fia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Mosley

Today's musical treat, for no particular reason, is Seasick Steve:

http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/seasick_steve

click on the 'Live on Jules Holland' video. Doghouse Blues Boogie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUzmZvwMNsw&feature=related

This version is probably even better, apart from the quality of sound on the voice PA.

Steve decided at the age of fourteen that the quality of life he had at home was so piss poor he'd do better to hit the road and go out on his own. There's never been a lot of money in playing the blues and boogie, unless you get very lucky. Steve's been materially poor most of his life, but rich in spirit and attitude.

Taoist Thought for Today:

Free of self-focused expectations, one is free of disappointment.
Free of self-focused motivation, one is free of regrets.

.

Layer 180 Woodstock, Hendrix, Political Egos, Religion, Faith and Humour.

.
Woodstock

This weekend was the 40th anniversary of Woodstock. On Saturday night the 'Director's Cut' of the movie was shown on TV, and it was quite difficult to watch. The whole thing, apart from some of the music, was quite a shambles. Now that I stop to think about it I realise that a) I never bothered to buy the album of the event, and b) I didn't even enjoy the Woodstock movie when it first hit the cinemas - just as the era of peace and love (and anti war demos) was drawing to an end.

My outstanding memory of the film was the Santana section – full of pulsating music from a band that was at that point unknown in Britain. Superb throbbing bass guitar, thundering drums, pounding percussion and wailing Hammond organ. And of course the incredible Carlos and his brilliant guitar.

As for the rest of the event . . . That ridiculous chain-link fence that was so easy to break down or climb over! Sheer amateurish idiocy on the part of the organisers. The rain, the appallingly muddy ground, the lack of food and water, the incessant tannoy appeals to share food . . .

It seems completely incredible that Jimi Hendrix didn't get on stage till the Monday morning – till it was all over, and all that remained in front of the stage were a few bedraggled, wet and stoned stragglers, squelching through the mud and the piles of garbage.

I wonder what Jimi thought of that, as he cranked out his electric blues version of the Star Spangled Banner, which remains stunning to this day in its sonic invention, its painful intensity, its emotion, its sheer audacity and its implicit judgement on a country that was still embroiled in a war in Vietnam that continued to shock the rest of the civilised world for its barbaric conduct, its incredible cost, and its determination to impose the American state's wishes and authority on the people of a small country, all in the name of fighting Communism.

By sheer coincidence my ex-wife is currently enjoying a two week holiday in Vietnam, and the daughter of a friend has recently returned from an activity holiday in Vietnam, learning how to scuba dive. Had a great time, apparently.

According to Wikipedia, “Hendrix got into trouble with the law twice for riding in stolen cars. He was given a choice between spending two years in prison or joining the Army. Hendrix chose the latter and enlisted on May 31, 1961.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimi_Hendrix

Imagine that – two years in prison for just riding in a stolen car – not even stealing it. Two years, mind you. Either that or incarcerate yourself in the army. Jimi chose the army. The army threw him out after less than a year.

Check out three different versions of 'Machine Gun' on Spotify. Also Star Spangled Banner. Play it loud.

And 'All Along The Watchtower'. The greatest song by the greatest songwriter, played and sung by the greatest musician, ever recorded. I've said it before and I'll say it again - get some good headphones, and crank the volume right up.

-----------------------------------

Minister of Defence.

Mr Ainsworth says, “I can't keep helicopter crews permanently in theatre. I have to bring them home. I have to train them.” If it were me, I'd train them beforehand.

This kind of language reveals perfectly the mind set of our current politicians. Egocentric and elitist language. I, I, I. Me, me, me.

Check this. WE have to do certain things. WE have to look after our armed forces personnel. WE have to train them. He's doing what he does on behalf of US. It's US that matter. Not him. We're still SO far away from having a government that understands ministers are public servants and do things for US, on OUR behalf.

They may be political leaders, but they still need to understand that they lead in the directions that WE want to go in, and work for the benefit of all, including non-voters and children.

I've just discovered an excellent website that monitors the actions and views of MP's -

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/

It also reports on MPs' 'interests', their voting record, their expenses, etc.

It seems Mr Ainsworth, MP for Coventry North East:

Voted strongly against a transparent Parliament
Voted very strongly for introducing ID cards
Voted very strongly for introducing foundation hospitals.
Voted strongly for introducing student top-up fees.
Voted very strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws.
Voted very strongly for the Iraq war.
Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war.
Voted very strongly for replacing Trident.

I think this gives a pretty clear impression of where he stands on the political spectrum. Pretty much four-square with the Tory party, and, of course, the leadership of New Labour.

“In the 2009 Parliamentary expenses scandal, in which some MPs were criticised for their expense claims, it was revealed that, in 2007-8, Ainsworth had allegedly claimed the maximum permissible amount of £23,083 for second-home allowances, making him the joint highest claimant in that year.” - Wikipedia

------------------------------------------------

“Religion is of the soul. Faith is of the spirit.”

This is a quote by someone taking part in a Sunday TV programme yesterday, and it's the first time I've heard the divide between religiosity and spirituality expressed in this way. This may well be a cliché in religious circles. But still, I think it's true – if we equate religious needs and religious tendencies with emotional needs and desires, and if we agree that emotions emanate from the soul, then religion is of the soul.

To belong to a religion, and to let your life be directed and shaped by the rituals, beliefs and dictats of a priestly caste and 'holy' scriptures, must be because you feel the need for a set of simple (or complicated) rules to abide by, because you feel an emotional need to put yourself and your life in the hands of some 'Superior Being' (or beings), and because you don't trust yourself to be able to grapple alone with life's challenges and a search for meaning and purpose.

'Faith' is an interesting word. To have faith. Mmmmm. How, exactly, does that work? Self-hypnosis?

On a different programme about religion yesterday the leaders of the major 'faiths' in Britain were asked how they knew that God existed. “It's faith”, said the Hindu guy. You take it on trust. You believe it because you believe it. Or not.

Interestingly, there were no interviews with any Buddhist leaders. Surely that can't be just because Buddhists don't believe in God?

When asked what God actually IS, the Archbishop of Canterbury said, “Something greater than I can conceive of, or put words to.” So that's fair enough then. He can't imagine what God is, and he can't describe God either. That's not what's called copping out, is it?

Apparently Hindus also believe there's one Supreme Being, but they also like to have lots of little Gods as well. Why not? The more the merrier.

There's an exhibition on at the British Museum at the moment called Garden and Cosmos. Don't bother going to it unless you really, really like Hindu art, or you don't mind parting with £8 just out of curiosity. The pictures on the website pretty much do the job for you. Check out painting number 9. What's that guy going to do to all those women with that strange-looking instrument?

http://www.britishmuseum.org/whats_on/all_current_exhibitions/indian_summer/garden_and_cosmos.aspx

The most interesting part of the exhibition for me was about the Naths, whom I'd never heard of, and who use hatha yoga and meditation to become like the “great perfected beings”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nath

"Our aims in life are to enjoy peace, freedom, and happiness in this life, but also to avoid rebirth onto this Earth plane. All this depends not on divine benevolence, but on the way we ourselves think and act."

Here's an interesting blog, which I've just had a quick look at.
http://www.nathsociety.org/lalitas-blog/

----------------------------------

My Big Decision
BBC Three

From the website of Love Productions:

“This series follows girls, on the cusp of womanhood, on the brink of making huge decisions. Each week two girls wrestling with the same issue embark on a road trip across the UK. There's just one catch... They're taking their mums and grans with them. A week of family "bonding" is the last chance for the older women to influence their daughters' decisions.”

In fact this week's (repeated) programme was about just one young woman, her long-suffering mother, and her mum's mum. The young woman is not so much 'wrestling' with an 'issue' as living a lifestyle of binge drinking, casual sex and terminal selfishness.

She says she loves her mum, and she clearly does, but it's obvious to viewers that her over-tolerant and loving mum is desperate for some respite from her daughter's “evil” attitude and constantly obnoxious and challenging behaviour.

After a lifetime of being unable or unwilling to say 'No' to her daughter, this mother, who's clearly a lovely woman in every way, is considering the downside of giving and desiring 'unconditional love'. This seems to be something that a lot of women, and a lot of mothers, need to think about. As well as 'tough love' and 'anything for a quiet life love'.

After a week of activities such as observing alcohol casualties in A & E, talking to the victims and parents of victims of drunk drivers, and talking to long-term alcoholics, the girl has to decide whether or not she will change her lifestyle, in response to the pleas and urgings of her elders.

Three months later the film crew go back to interview the family and find them completely changed. Everyone looks happy and positive. It's like someone's waved a magic wand and filled young miss with emotional, social and spiritual intelligence. She's only been out on the town drinking and partying on one occasion, and she's had no casual sex. She's cut right down on the alcohol too. She's started speaking to her mother respectfully, considerately, and appreciatively.

It looks like her week's 'road trip' has worked a miracle, and she's been brought to her senses by her experiences, and her reflections on her 'issues'. And then the voice-over casually mentions the fact that six weeks ago she met a young man and started seeing him regularly. Er . . .

So she now has an intimate, affectionate and loving relationship with a guy she seems to spend a lot of her time with. They go shopping, they talk, they hold hands, they go for long walks, they gaze into one another's eyes and they experience hitherto unknown natural 'highs'. Or at least we can assume they do, if we've been there and done that ourselves.

Question – what does this tell us about the real needs of teenagers and young adults?

--------------------------------------

How to explain to my Japanese friend the stuff on a repeat of The Fast Show?

Anna Gestapo, on 1970's 'Spanish' TV?
Surgeons snogging whilst carrying out a transplant?
“This season I are wearing mostly no pants.”
“Drill Bit” perfume, by Taylor Woodrow, 'for particularly manly men'. What's funny about an Africaaner perfume sales lady?
The Twelve Ronnies, on Spanish TV?
Ron Manager on 'Match of the Day'?

------------------------------------

This week's Celebrity Wife Swap featured Ron Atkinson and Tessa Saunderson. After spending a few days with Tessa's husband, Ron's wife finally 'got it', and was subsequently able to explain to Big Ron why it was really, really unacceptable and inexcusable to call someone a “fucking lazy nigger”. On or off microphone.

-------------------------------------

Heard on radio -

“Richard Prior said it took him 15 years as a comedian to really find his 'voice'.”

What lessons are there here for our education system, and the need to enable our young people to find both their spoken and their written voices? If we value self expression, self-knowledge, authenticity, etc, that is.
.