Layer 453 . . . International Women's Day, Angry and Unafraid

.
It's International Women's Day, and the good old Guardian has made sure that all six of its opinion page articles today are written by women. Also, the whole of G2 is filled with pieces on the "100 Most Inspiring Women".

Fair enough. Except . . . the cover of G2 includes a photo of  . . . Margaret Thatcher.

And there's another, even bigger, photo on Page 5, along with a column of text that contains stupidities such as, "Like her or loathe her, Britain's first female prime minister made her way in a man's world and changed the way we think of women politicians."

Emine Saner (?) - what are you thinking of? "A man's world"? What ridiculous cliches.

So how did we used to think of women politicians before Thatcher? Personally I thought very positively about Barbara Castle, for example. She was a brilliant example of a thoughtful, decent, compassionate, well-balanced, sane, non-prejudiced politician. Did Thatch have any of those qualities?

Even Emine Saner has to admit that "Thatcher froze child benefit and refused to invest in affordable childcare . . . she promoted no women to her cabinet and no women above junior minister . . . " As if these are the worst of her crimes and misdemeanors!

So what positive things does Ms Saner have to say about Thatch?

"And yet she is an inspiration, partly for showing that the daughter of a greengrocer could progress through education, determination and hard work."

Really? What about if the daughter of a greengrocer didn't go to Cambridge and didn't marry a millionnaire? As for "progress" through education, determination and hard work - who'd have thought before Thatch came along that that such things could be helpful to an individual? Revelatory.

Mind you, I reckon I've also had a decent education, plus I've shown plenty of determination and I've worked hard. And so did our old mate David Miliband, for that matter - but I can't see either of us two making it to PM any time soon.

Anything else, Emine, luv?

"Having a woman in the most important job in the country for the first time changed the cultural idea of what was possible for women. Thatcher was ambitious, tough and uncompromising, qualities rarely associated with, or admired in, women before her. She may not have done much for the careers of individual women, but she changed the way female politicians were thought of – her decisions, such as waging war on the unions, or in the Falklands, may have been ruthless, but nobody now questions whether women politicians can be strong."

Strong? Ambitious? Tough? Uncompromising?

Ridiculous buzz-words, meaning absolutely nothing. As if "uncompromising" is a good quality in a politician. Hitler was uncompromising. As was Stalin.

As for "ruthless" - that word alone ought to have made Thatcher ineligible for inclusion in this supplement about "most inspiring women". Who needs to be inspired to be ruthless? Candidates/contestants to be The Apprentice?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/08/margaret-thatcher-100-women

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

This, on the other hand, is an excellent piece by Selma James, who has clearly been inspired by the events in Egypt -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/08/international-womens-day-sexual-division

International Women's Day: how rapidly things change


Women in Egypt have called for a million women to occupy Tahrir Square today. Who would have predicted that a month ago?


Feminism has tended to narrow its concerns to what is unquestionably about women: abortion, childcare, rape, prostitution, pay equity. But that can separate us from a wider and deeper women's movement. In Bahrain, for example, women lead the struggle for "jobs, housing, clean water, peace and justice" – as well as every demand we share.


The revolution is spreading.


New boldness allows us to face what Marx and Engels called "our real conditions of life and our relations with our kind". Women refusing to be trapped at home, and demanding that men not be trapped out of home, takes us immediately beyond the market, which only considers work that leads to profit for others, not to equity nor to happiness nor even to survival.


To undermine once and for all the sexual division of labour, we – women and men – must aim to work less. We can then begin where we all began, with children. What do they need? First of all, adults (not just parents) who love them and work to make a relationship with them. That is after all what caring is. We need time for this. Prime time.


We cannot be punished for our involvement in this civilising life process. Nor can we allow men to be excluded from it. So this International Women's Day, we must at least consider claiming the money from banks and wars to pay for the society of carers that only we together can devise. Taking the lead of the women in Tahrir Square, we can change the world.


• Selma James is organiser of the Global Women's Strike Mothers March

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

I've blogged about previous Nina Power columns in the Guardian. This one is also excellent -

They're angry and unafraid – and terrify middle England


When young women feel they are no longer held back by their gender, one outcome is an increase in political confidence


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/08/terrify-middle-england-young-women


In the buildup to what looks likely to be the biggest trade union demonstration in recent history, on 26 March, the role of women in organising and participating in protest will continue to be central. Nevertheless, for the usual suspects the participation of so many young women – in the education protests in particular – has given rise to a certain moral panic. See, for example, the hilarious Daily Mail cover: "Rage of the Girl Rioters".


The attempted pillorying of these young women – accused of "lacking respect" – by the Mail is the latest in a long line of attacks on women who campaign directly against the state: the suffragettes; women involved in the 1926 general strike; the miners' protests in the mid-80s; those who fought for reproductive rights and against domestic violence. Just as with the attack on "ladettes" in the 1990s, what looks to be a moral criticism frequently masks a deeper political and economic fear – what shall we do when young women are academically successful, economically independent, socially confident and not afraid to enjoy themselves? Could there be anything more terrifying?


Whatever the 1990s tried to tell us was over – from inequality to political commitment – has most definitely not gone away; and the idea that one would simply have a passive, ironic or otherwise disinterested stance towards the brutal and brutalising policies of a government hell-bent on removing any vestige of a social bond now looks historically outmoded.


Many of the schoolkids who played truant to attend anti-war protests have grown into articulate and politically passionate adults, rightly incensed that education is being transformed into something insanely expensive, increasingly exclusive and socially divisive.


The explosive mix of single-issue campaigns (such as UK Uncut), broader anti-cuts struggles and a growing worldwide recognition that the corruption and complicity of governments are no longer tolerable means that everywhere men and women are realising that what unites them is far greater than what divides them.


When young women feel they are no longer held back by their gender, that they can take on any job, that they are more likely to do well in education than their male peers, that they don't have to think of themselves as wives and mothers first, one outcome is an increase in political confidence. If you tell women they can be and can do anything they want, and then let them down – by taking away their education maintenance allowance, by making university prohibitively expensive, by forcing them to stay in poverty – they, along with their male peers, will make you pay for your lies and hypocrisies.


While the Mail presumably thought that "girl rioters" would terrify its middle England readership, this should only serve to encourage us to recognise that female emancipation – and political emancipation more generally – will start with those most angry about its incompletion.

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

Jayati Ghosh is a professor of economics -

Big Oil wins in the latest price spurt. So why don't we take our share in tax?


War in Libya and protests across the Middle East are exploited by companies too quick to pass costs to vulnerable consumers

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/07/oil-price-rise-tax-big-oil

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

A Guardian editorial today takes up the issues I wrote about a couple of blogs ago - whether the LibDems rank and file will finally take a stand against the appalling policies of their leaders and their Tory coalition partners:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/08/liberal-democrats-coalition-nick-clegg

Liberal Democrats: Call for a lost voice


If the Lib Dems, of all parties, will not fight back and make the case for rights, who can?


The Lib Dems are not making their voice heard on issues where their voice ought to be. If the party is true to its liberal roots, as well as alive to its own self-interest, it must be willing to stand up for the values that helped raise the party to a position of power in the first place. If not now, when?
.

Layer 366 . . . Pink Floyd, David Gilmour, Sheer Genius, More Rooney, Zen, Spiritual Intelligence, Stupid Bankers, Regressive Cuts and Hitting the Poorest

.
Michael Mansfield was on Desert Island Discs this week, and chose a Pink Floyd track as his number one record. Someone's like or dislike for the Floyd is a very good indicator of musical taste and intelligence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vc504#synopsis

This week on Sky Arts there was another showing of "David Gilmour: Remember That Night - Live at the Royal Albert Hall." I've seen this 90 minute programme several times now, but what struck me this time was the sheer joy that his fellow musicians get from playing alongside the genius of Dave Gilmour. There's a quality to his playing, and a quality to his guitar tones and sounds, as well as the quality of the melodies and his singing, that brings smiles to the faces of the other band members when Dave's in the middle of one of his long solos. And they're not just smiles of enjoyment - there's a kind of disbelief and a delight that someone can be so brilliant, so expressive, so able to command your whole attention and send your soul & spirit soaring into another dimension. Comfortably Numb has arguably the best guitar solo of all time.

From Layer 138 -

Having just listened to an hour and a half of David Gilmour and Rick Wright and co on Sky Arts 1, Remember That Night, performing Pink Floyd classics such as High Hopes and Comfortably Numb, cranked up loud through the hi fi, I’m Zenned and blissed out . . .

See also Layer 45.

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

Rooney's still in the news. His biographer, Hunter Davies, said on the radio yesterday that he clearly needs "therapy". Not quite, Hunter. As Oxzen was saying a few days ago, he needs to take time out to start working on his soul and his spirit through relaxation, contemplation and meditation. He needs to find his Tao, and a Zen approach to life.

Back in 1961 Alan Watts published a book called 'Psychotherapy East and West'. In it he describes two different approaches to achieving beneficial changes to consciousness and attitudes to self and society.

"The disciplines of Buddhism and Taoism are concerned with changing the consciousness of normal, socially adjusted people. It is increasingly apparent to [Western] psychotherapists that the normal state of consciousness in our culture is both the context and the breeding ground of mental disease. A complex of societies of vast material wealth bent on mutual destruction is anything but a condition of social health.

Buddhism, in common with Taoism in China, is not a culture but a critique of culture, and an enduring non-violent revolution or 'loyal opposition' to the culture with which it is involved. [The aim is] to help the individual to be himself and to go it alone without giving unneccessary offence to his community; to be in the world (of social convention) but not of the world. A Chinese Buddhist text describes the sage in words that strongly suggest Riesman's 'inner-directed' or Maslow's 'self-actualising' personality:

He walks always by himself, goes about always by himself;
Every perfect one saunters along one and the same passage of Nirvana;
His tone is classical, his spirit is transparent, his airs are naturally elevated,
His features are rather gaunt, his bones are firm, he pays no attention to others.

Maybe this is the special magic of Dave Gilmour - 'His tone is classical, his spirit is transparent, his airs are naturally elevated'. To the Nth degree.

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

There was a discussion about bankers and banking, and about imposing some new special taxes on them, on an R4 Today programme this week in which someone said, "We shouldn't penalise an industry in which we excel". Penalise! Excel!

It's incredible, really. Our 'excellence' in banking has brought this country to the dire state it's in. Our entire banking system was only saved from bankrupting itself and from crashing and smashing our entire financial system thanks to the injection of billions of OUR money into the coffers of the very people whose "excellence" caused the crisis. These people now expect to carry on paying themselves even more billions in bonuses, and they regard any attempt on our part to recoup our 'investment', as it were, as an outrageous interference and an unjustified 'penalty'!

They clearly don't give a shit about any aspect of our society other than what they can get out of it for themselves, and they also have the nerve to threaten to fuck off to Switzerland and take their businesses with them if we even attempt to get them to contribute towards the national wellbeing. Can anybody say why we didn't nationalise the lot of them - at the point where their shares were worth next to nothing? We could have done it so easily.

Harry Enfield and Paul Whitehouse did a brilliant sketch on their BBC programme this week in which two stupid bankers sell to one another several times over a single worthless piece of paper - eventually raising it's 'value' to several million pounds - before finally finding some other sucker (banker) who can be conned into thinking it's worth what they say it is and who then agrees to buy it. That's the way to do it! Sheer excellence. Investment banking at its very best.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00v36y1
.........................................................................

Spending review: banks appear to have wriggled off the hook

Government accused of 'going soft' on banks with a charge that would raise no more than £2.5bn from the industry

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/22/spending-review-banks-off-hook

The day after George Osborne announced swingeing cuts to public services and welfare benefits, the government was expected to announce payback time for Britain's banks – blamed by many for the country's parlous economic state.

But despite unveiling details of a levy on bank balance sheets, the government was yesterday accused of "going soft" on the banks with a charge that would raise no more than £2.5bn from the industry.

Unions were swift to attack the plans, dismissing it as "a pathetically small amount" to demand from the banks.

Labour MP Chuka Umunna, who sits on the Treasury select committee, criticised the government for "going soft" on the banks and having a lack of ambition on the bank levy. "In the spending review, there were no new measures to ensure that those who caused the crisis pay their fair share towards paying down the deficit and the draft bank levy legislation published today falls far short of the decisive action we need and is an insult to those losing benefits and local services", he said.

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

As for the coalition's claim that they have spread the misery 'fairly' and 'progressively', and that the wealthy will pay more than the less well off - anyone with half a brain can see that this is complete crap.

It's true that the wealthy will pay more - both in total and as a percentage of income - but so what? Someone who's already extremely well off will feel no pain whatsoever from a slightly higher tax bill and a loss of child benefit. We're talking here about people who already have extremely comfortable lives, who own their own homes, have a couple of nice cars, plenty of holidays, possibly own more than one property, etc.

Whereas someone who has no money and no assets, who's possibly trying to live on £65 a week, will feel plenty of pain if they lose even £10 of benefits or tax credits.

It's one thing for the coalition to implement policies which favour the already wealthy - but it's outrageous for them to claim that they've spread the pain of the cutbacks fairly and that everyone is having to share in the pain and the hardships.

Spending review cuts hit poor hardest, says Institute of Fiscal Studies

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/21/ifs-spending-review-cuts-poor-hit-hardest
Britain's leading tax and spending experts today flatly contradicted the key claims made by George Osborne and the coalition over the fairness of its £81bn austerity programme.

In a move that forced the government on to the defensive, the highly respected Institute for Fiscal Studies challenged the chancellor's contention that his plans for four years of belt-tightening would be progressive, safeguard frontline school spending, and require smaller savings for departments than Alistair Darling would have demanded.

Angela Eagle, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said: "George Osborne's smoke and mirrors have well and truly unravelled. On any measure his plans hit the poorest hardest. And the IFS have all but called him a liar for his ridiculous claim that he is cutting less than Labour planned."

In its detailed analysis of Wednesday's comprehensive spending review, the IFS said the £7bn of fresh welfare cuts, together with public spending reductions, reinforced the regressive nature of the changes introduced by the coalition since it came to power. Families with children would be the hardest hit by the changes and only by including the increase in the top rate of income tax introduced by Labour could the coalition justify the claim that the better-off were being hit more than the poor.

"The tax and benefit changes are regressive rather than progressive across most of the income distribution. And when we add in the new measures announced yesterday this is, unsurprisingly, reinforced," said the acting director of the IFS, Carl Emmerson.

"Our analysis continues to show that, with the notable exception of the richest 2%, the tax and benefit components of the fiscal consolidation are, overall, being implemented in a regressive way."

.

Layer 309 . . . Economic Competence, Social Justice, Housing, Education, Working Class Votes and Fairer Voting Systems

.
The real test of the new government will undoubtedly be its economic competence and whether it implements the usual reactionary and recessionary measures put forward by the extreme slashers in the Tory ranks.

Oxzen said this in response to today's Guardian editorial:

The economist David Blanchflower has again said, in no uncertain terms, that any drastic government cuts this year will send the economy back into recession. Presumably Vince Cable hasn't given up this belief either. So now it's down to David Cameron. Does he listen to these individuals - who were effectively the only senior figures who predicted the financial catastrophe - or does he ignore their views and go along with Osborne and co and their simplistic Thatcherite household economics, and their threats of 'the markets'? It's a make or break moment for a man who's recently shown he's capable of rational and balanced thinking, and capable of ignoring the foghorn voices of the extreme right.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/14/ghost-of-christmas-future-editorial?

Cameron must surely understand that he now has an opportunity to show the working classes that he's no Thatcherite who's prepared to create mass unemployment in an attempt to balance the economy. If he can convince the electorate that's he's doing all he can to prevent the loss of jobs and the destruction of industry then he'll create some credibility with low paid working class and lower middle class voters. If not, then a revived Labour party [or the BNP] will again claim the right to speak for them.

In fact Cameron and Clegg have an incredible opportunity to show they're more concerned about the least well-off sections of society simply by doing the following:

1) Make the first £10,000 earned tax free [Already agreed, thanks to the LibDems]

2) Restore the 10p tax band for earnings between £10,000 and £15,000 [Or £20,000?]

3) Follow Boris Johnson's lead and implement a living wage instead of a 'minimum wage'.

4) Implement the recommendations of Iain Duncan Smith's Centre for Social Justice - no immediate loss of housing benefit when claimants begin new jobs; removal of disincentives to work, etc.

It's worth paying a visit to the website of the CSJ:

http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/

5) Address festering housing issues, and also show they can revive the economy through an emergency programme of house building - decent houses and flats at affordable rents. Cameron needs to come out and say that one of the main mistakes of Thatcherism was allowing the sell-off of social housing without encouraging councils to create more and better social housing. Housing could be a huge vote winner for the new government - everybody wants a decent and affordable home above all other things.

New Labour completely screwed up on these key issues. Clegg and Cameron would be completely stupid not to pursue their stated intentions of greater fairness and social justice by picking up on these crucial matters.

If they can also show that they're determined to get the rich and the super-rich to pay their fair share for a decent society, then they'll be on to a real winner. The new Labour leadership could decide it also wants to do this, but if Clegg and Cam can actually DO IT then they can say, with justification, that Labour failed to tackle these issues in the past, when they had an opportunity, whereas the coalition actually achieved it.

New Labour completely bungled a decade of opportunity to create greater social justice and greater equality. Working people aren't greedy, and don't expect a great deal from governments, regrettably, but they DO want jobs, decent wages, decent homes and decent schools for their kids.

Don't get me started on what New Labour did to education. I've been very fearful of what Michael Banana Gove has in mind for schools, but he's made a decent start by writing a personal letter and letting teachers know he's changing the name of his ministry to - ta ta-ta tah - the Department for Education!

What's more, I'd bet they'll keep this name for the next five years. They must know that teachers were completely pissed off by having to remember some new stupid name every other year. Gove should tell us how much money was wasted on consultants, new logos and new stationery every time New Labour implemented an unnecessary name change.

Check this summary of Gove's letter:

There is, I believe, nothing more important to the fairness of our society and the future prosperity of our country than getting education right.

Improving literacy, raising pupil attainment, extending parental choice, freeing teachers from bureaucracy, improving discipline and closing the widening gap between the richest and the poorest should be our shared goal.

To help us achieve the radical reforms that we will need, I want to refocus the Department on its core purpose of supporting teaching and learning.

In the weeks ahead, I want us to offer all schools the chance to enjoy academy-style freedoms so that heads and teachers across the country can be liberated.

We will also work to allow charities, parents and teachers' groups to open a new generation of small schools with smaller class sizes; introduce a new pupil premium which will ensure more funding is targeted to the most deprived pupils; give schools greater freedom over the curriculum; radically reform our exam system so that all schools can offer a wider range of qualifications; and support our great teachers by giving them more powers to ensure higher standards of discipline.

What's not to like there, providing the new schools don't cause the removal of funding from existing schools? I can even live with the removal of some of the more academically able kids from existing schools providing schools are no longer being judged purely on test and exam success. In fact, the reduction of pupil numbers in existing schools could even be a pre-requisite for creating smaller class sizes in existing premises.

If someone can now convince Gove that schools should be places where pupils enjoy learning for its own sake, and places where the multiple intelligences that children possess are all developed in balance and harmony, and places where children learn to be creative and imaginative, then I for one will be his biggest fan. Can't quite see that happening though.

Then again, I didn't foresee the coalition we now have, with its talk of fairness, social justice and greater equality.

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

As for the Labour party, here are two good letters from the papers this week:

As the Lib Dems finalise their deal with the Tories (It's Cameron and Clegg, 12 May), my ire is reserved for the senior Labour tribalists like David Blunkett who so forcibly expressed their displeasure at efforts to forge a progressive alliance. There is not a shred of recognition that traditional Labour voters regard the New Labour project, in which he played a major part, as an act of betrayal of everything we believed the party stood for. The disastrous foreign policy, the sucking up to the City and big business, the widening wealth and income divide, the squandering of our civil liberties and failure to engage in serious constitutional reform. A pact with the Lib Dems might just have salvaged the party's reputation. Gordon Brown created the opportunity, but you spurned it. You will not lightly be forgiven.

Rod Morgan

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/13/new-labour-past-and-future?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

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

Diane Abbott's criticism of her Labour colleagues for exploring the possibilities of a "progressive coalition" with the Liberal Democrats is based on a series of outdated assumptions, and her reference to 1931 is way off-beam (Comment, 11 May). She is wrong to imply that with the collapse of Lib Dem-Labour talks a near disaster has been averted; in fact, tragically, a golden opportunity for democracy and the left is being missed.

Labour's rightward drift meant the recent Lib Dem manifesto was markedly to the left on a range of issues, including taxation, the renewal of Trident, immigration and Heathrow expansion. Plus, any "rainbow alliance" would have been dependent on the votes of Scottish and Welsh nationalists and the one Green MP, all of whom have put forward social democratic policies that appeal to many former Labour voters. If we are to strengthen the power of the people to resist the demands of the money markets, it is essential that the left pushes for democratic reform now more than ever.

The introduction of a fairer voting system would have needed to be the basis of any Lib-Lab arrangement. This would have broken the stranglehold of floating voters in Middle England marginals over the political centre of gravity, and would have rewarded Labour for mobilising support in its working-class heartland seats. There was every chance that Labour's own policy would be drawn to the left as a consequence. And the green and radical left could have developed a stronger voice of its own.

Michael Calderbank, James O' Nions and Hilary Wainwright

Co-editors, Red Pepper

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/12/end-of-the-rainbow-alliance

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

Unfortunately, as Dianne Abbott made it clear on television last night, neither she nor the majority of her colleagues in Parliament will ever contemplate a fairer voting system or give up their attachment to FPTP. Bastards.
.

Layer 277 . . . Saying Yes, a General Election, 50% Tax, Education (again) and Turning to Zen

.
Today's hate word/expression is "absolutely!"

Whilst it's OK to use the word as an adjective, as in "it tasted absolutely vile", it's not OK to use it as a stand-alone response to someone when you ought to be saying "yes" or "I agree with you". This is something I've done myself - quite often - and it's time to stop. Habitual users might find this quite difficult.

Why do people do this? It's like a sentence on its own  -  "Abb so lute lee!" Aaarrggghhh!

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

General Election

The race is on, and it's every bit as stupid as you'd expect. Brown parading his entire 'team' outside No 10. Cameron rushing around gobbing off to the masses, pregnant wife and donkey in tow.

Though credit to Clegg for appearing with just Vince Cable at his side - a message that this election is about finance and the economy above all. He also said some sensible things about his priorities - including education and smaller class sizes, scrapping Trident, reforming Parliament, breaking up the big banks - on the Today programme.

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

Tax Matters

Yesterday there was talk on the radio about the 50% tax band coming into effect for those earning above £150,000. "It could force some people to leave the country!" said someone.

FORCE? Good! If people really think that having to pay another 10 pence for each pound they earn above 150K is enough to make them up sticks and go to live elsewhere, then good fucking riddance. There are plenty of good reasons for not wanting to live in this benighted country, but that's not one of them. Especially as most of these people have got stinking rich out of our willingness to tolerate them being overpaid and undertaxed these past 30 years - years in which they've also got even more stinking rich out of the property bubble and under-regulation of the City. Especially as a lot of these greedy bastards and their pals actually caused the financial catastrophe. Can't manage on £150,000 plus 50% tax? Oh dear. Fuck right off.

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

Turning to Zen

And on that note of lovingkindness, I'd like to turn to Zen, since a lot of yesterday's Layer was concerned with Christianity.

Last week my good friend Y bought me a lovely little book on Zen from the British Museum. Here are some extracts.

(It's by Manuela Dunn Mascetti, and published by Evergreen.)

Zen Buddhism is the path by which all dualistic distinctions like you-I, subject-object, are eliminated in meditation. The burning of duality is the ultimate Zen experience. Zen emphasises the importance of this experience, of enlightenment or samadhi. In its unique style, Zen rejects religious practices and the intellectual study of doctrine as utterly useless in the realisation of enlightenment, preferring other methods that allow the grasp of enlightenment with an instantaneous shock of the ultimate truth.

The three traditional methods of Zen Buddhism are haiku, koan, and sayings & stories of Zen masters.

Haiku enlightens in the space of a breath.

Koans are an invitation to leap to another level of consciousness, where ultimate reality resides. By making clear the limitations of thought . . . an inner realisation occurs that transcends dualistic thoughts. The realisation of a koan is enlightenment.

A monk once asked his Master, "No matter what lies ahead, what is the Way?" The Master replied, "The Way is your daily life." This concept is at the very centre of the Way of Zen. The principles that govern the Way are directed toward all of our existence, not just the part that takes place in meditation . . .

The challenge of Zen is to meet each day, each moment, with a clear mind and a cleansed spirit, so that the moment to moment union with existence becomes the highest teaching.

Sitting silently,
Doing nothing,
Spring comes,
And the grass grows by itself.

Osho

In the rains of Spring
An umbrella and raincoat
Pass by, conversing.

Yosa Buson

A single petal
Of the cherry blossom fell:
Mountain silence.

Kenneth Tanemura

My mother's soul
Viewing the plum blossoms,
Returning at night.

Nobuko Katsura

What a long Spring day!
Catching yawns from one another
We go each our way.

Natsume Soseki

Casting away the traditional paraphernalia of Buddhism, its scriptures and deities, Bodhidharma succeeded in establishing a school in China where monks practiced the seated, cross-legged meditation advocated by him, and focused their goals not upon the learning of sutras, but upon the realisation of their true nature. This practice was called dhyana - literally meaning 'meditation' in Sanskrit - which was pronounced Ch'an in China and, later, Zen in Japan, where it eventually reached its full flowering and development.

The task of early Chinese Zen masters was to bring Buddhist teaching to life in the here and now, and to show that enlightenment was not a super-human goal to be achieved over eons of time, but a state of being that could be revealed through awareness in everyday life. In order to accomplish their role as transmitters of Buddha's original experience, Chinese masters invented a number of devices, such as koans, to give their disciples an immediate taste of Buddha's enlightenment.

Koans are a living memory of a time long past but still essential to our soul, when mind and logic did not rule people, but intuition and oneness with nature [instinct] were the essential ways of expression and understanding. Koans are like resonating echoes of a part of ourselves that we need to call back to the surface in order to taste enlightenment.  Koans are the art of turning to our own light and being illumined by it.

The Zen masters carry on the vital work of adapting the timeless teaching to the specific needs of times and places. They were the ones who communicated the dharma at the intimate person-to-person level, seeking out people whose sincerity and capacity made them suitable candidates to carry forth the torch of Zen. Analysed as a body of wisdom, the koan collections form a careful and unique study of consciousness, and of the transformation of consciousness into wisdom.

The sound of one hand clapping? . . . Training through repartee? . . .

The study of koans as a system of education would be shut down immediately by government inspectors in today's world: no curriculum; no time limit; above all, no success guaranteed, even to the committed and the intelligent.

The Gateless Gate

The great path has no gates,
Thousands of roads enter it.
When one passes through this gateless gate
He walks freely between heaven and earth.

Case 7

A monk said to Joshu, "I have just entered this monastery. Please teach me."
Have you eaten your rice porridge?" asked Joshu.
"Yes, I have," replied the monk.
"Then you had better wash your bowl," said Joshu.
With this the monk gained enlightenment.

The ordinary Way is samadhi; it is peace of mind. When you are in samadhi, you are simply in Samadhi; there is no searching after the Way. It is an experience, not a conceptual understanding. Samadhi is vast and boundless and beyond right and wrong.

Case 38

Goso said, "A buffalo passes by the window. His head, horns and four legs all go past. But why can't the tail pass too?"

During the practice of zazen our thoughts, emotions and sensations all pass through consciousness as though they were clouds travelling across a clear sky. Consciousness dies away when one enters samadhi during meditation, zazen. The tail is a metaphor for samadhi, or enlightenment, or peace of mind, which can't pass because samadhi itself never passes away.

When you are in samadhi, every day is a good day. You don't ask about the past, nor wonder about the future. You are here, you are now.

People who live with Zen tend to resemble those described in Layer 20.

http://oxzen.blogspot.com/2008/04/layer-20-fully-evolved-humans.html
...............................................................

Our Narrow, Antiquated, School System . . .

. . . is the heading for George Monbiot's column yesterday.
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/06/climate-change-emails-science-humanities

I had a passionate interest in literature, history, foreign languages and the arts, but at the age of 15 I'd been forced, like all students, to decide whether to study science or humanities. From that point we divided into two cultures, and the process made idiots of us all.

The incomprehension with which science and humanities students regard each other is a tragedy of lost opportunities. Early specialisation might allow us to compete in the ever more specialised labour market, but it equips us for nothing else. As Professor Don Nutbeam, the vice-chancellor of Southampton University, complains: "Young people learn more and more about less and less."

We are deprived by our stupid schooling system of most of the wonders of the world, of the skills and knowledge required to navigate it, above all of the ability to understand each other. Our narrow, antiquated education is forcing us apart like the characters in a Francis Bacon painting, each locked in our boxes, unable to communicate.

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

Our Stupid, Messed Up Education System . . .

Three more sad commentaries on Britain's pathetic mess of an education system, as reported in yesterday's Guardian Education:

Are 'smart drugs' safe for students?

Students are increasingly taking neuroenhancing drugs to fight fatigue and help them concentrate. But how safe are they – and is it cheating?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/apr/06/students-drugs-modafinil-ritalin

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

In search of a fair secondary system

We could turn all secondaries into academies, says Peter Mortimore, to deal with the unfair competition

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/apr/06/secondary-schools-academies

Say what you like about PM's ideas about teaching and learning, but he's consistently good on fairness and equality, and the causes of injustice in our education system -

Pecking order keeps class system alive

Poverty is not an excuse for under-achievement; it is a factor that contributes towards it, says Peter Mortimore

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/feb/03/mortimore-class-system

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

Sats tests limit children's education, says teachers' leader

Government interference in education and the imposition of national tests deny children a well-rounded education

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/apr/06/nut-conference-sats-tests-blower

Ministers are stripping primary school children of their basic human right to a well-rounded education, a teachers' leader warned today.

Christine Blower, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, said national tests for 10- and 11-year-olds, formerly known as Sats, contravene the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Under the Convention, which Britain signed in 1991, children are entitled to a broad education which develops their "personalities, talents and abilities to their fullest potential".

Blower told the NUT annual conference in Liverpool that Sats only gave children the right to pass exams, not the right "to be educated in the round". They reduced children to "little bundles of measurable outputs trained in a mechanistic model of education," she said, repeating words used last month by the children's commissioner, Maggie Atkinson.

Blower said: "The NUT says 'yes' to risk-taking and exciting approaches to learning and 'no' to children as little bundles of measurable outputs."

Which is all pretty much what Oxzen, amongst others, has been saying FOREVER! So how come it's taken the NUT this long to speak up for the rights of children? Let alone DO SOMETHING!!!

Well done Christine Blower and Maggie Atkinson for finally waking up to the fact that our factory schools and our testing system deny our children their basic human rights and fail to properly develop their personalities, talents and abilities "to their fullest potential". What a pity that it's taken so long, that so many children have suffered from what's happened to our schools, and a pity the teaching unions have utterly failed to protect children (and teachers) from the politicisation and industrialisation of education.

http://oxzen.blogspot.com/2008/10/layer-78-education-regulation-and.html

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

And one from the Observer:

Educating children should not be for profit
Learning has always been separate from the forces of the free market. And that's how it should stay

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/04/editorial-hybrid-schools-business
.

Layer 259 . . . Michael Foot, Political Activism, Wellbeing, Truth, Ashcroft, Anger and Education

.
Some interesting links this week.

Michael Foot died yesterday at the age of 96.

An article in the Guardian this week highlighted a linkage between political activism and wellbeing.

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

Political Activism

Brain food: does activism make you happy?
Who'd have thought it? New research shows there is a link between being politically active and wellbeing
by Aditya Chakrabortty

Political activism is hardly a barrel of laughs. And yet it makes you happier.

So find two university psychologists in new research that looks for the first time at the link between political activity and wellbeing. Malte Klar and Tim Kasser started by interviewing two sets of around 350 college students, both about their degree of political engagement and their levels of happiness and optimism. Both times, they found that those most inclined to go on a demo were also the cheeriest.

The groups who involve themselves in political debate were far and away the strongest on the "vitality" scale: they felt more alive and enriched than those who merely complained . . .

The study flies in the face of the popular wisdom that happiness resides in creature comforts and relative affluence. Perhaps activism gives people a sense of purpose, or of agency or just a chance to hang out with other people. Most likely it does all of the above.

"I will fight for what I believe in until I drop dead," Barbara Castle told this paper in 1998. "And that's what keeps you alive."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/02/brain-food-activism-makes-you-happy

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

A Radical Conscience

Michael Foot has been described as the radical conscience of British socialism. He was a man of principle, an idealist, an internationalist and an anti-colonialist. He was a man with values and convictions. He believed in justice and equality. He pursued big causes with great passion.

Michael, and his nephew Paul, were major figures and role models for radicals, students and activists back in the Sixties. Both of them were well-informed, great speakers, and often very amusing.

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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/03/michael-foot-appreciation-michael-white?CMP=AFCYAH

Michael was an anti-fascist and he was in favour of nuclear disarmament. He was pro-peace, pro-democracy, and in favour of winning debates and arguments through the force of logic and truth.

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

Some quotes regarding truth:

Ỳe shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:32

The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear.
Herbert Agar

False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.
Plato, Dialogues, Phaedo

Chase after truth, and you'll free yourself . . .
Clarence Darrow

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer

These are all taken from the preface of a book by John R. Talbot called The 86 Biggest Lies on Wall Street (2009) - currently on sale in W H Smith for a very reasonable £4.49.

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

More Tory Lies

The Tories have again been caught out telling big lies. It's now official - William Hague knew perfectly well that 'Lord' Michael Ashcroft had not complied with the undertakings that he'd given (regarding becoming a permanent resident and paying full taxes) in order to be eligible for a peerage.

And it's utter bullshit for Cameron and co. to say that his residential status and tax affairs were private matters for Ashcroft and the Inspector of Taxes, and were no business of the Tory party, as such. The question for New Labour is  - how have they allowed the Tories and Ashcroft to get away with this for so long? If this man made certain promises in order to get a peerage then the least we, the people, can expect is for both the Tory and the New Labour leadership to follow through and make damned sure the bastard had done what he promised he would do. NOT to do so is unbelievably negligent. For TEN years!

William Hague hid Lord Ashcroft's tax status for months
Former leader's disclosure reveals peer kept financial affairs secret from senior Conservatives for a decade

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/03/william-hague-lord-ashcroft-tax-status

The turmoil at the top of the Tory party over the tax affairs of Lord Ashcroft escalated last night as the former leader, William Hague, admitted he had known "for a few months" that the peer had renegotiated the terms under which he took his place in the House of Lords.

Hague's disclosure put pressure on himself and the party to explain why they have repeatedly evaded questions about the matter in a succession of recent interviews. It also highlighted how Ashcroft, the Conservative deputy chairman, kept his tax status secret for almost a decade from his closest Tory ally and the man who lobbied hardest for his peerage in 2000.

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


Why David Cameron's schools policy is out of date

The Tory leader says uniforms and pupils standing when an adult walks into the classroom help define a good school. He must be joking

by Francis Beckett

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/01/david-cameron-education-policy

We can stop worrying about how to improve schools. It's simple, according to David Cameron. It's a good school if it's got a uniform, and children get up when an adult walks into the room, and teachers set and teach by ability. That clear? Good.

School uniforms are a British obsession. In most of Europe and America, they don't bother. It always seems to be the apostles of economic liberalism who are keenest to dictate every inch of what our children wear.

Politicians have a key role in state education – to make sure it is properly funded, supported, and accountable. But pronouncing on whether children should stand up or sit down? Come off it, Dave.

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

Lambeth is Britain's angriest borough
by Deborah Orr

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/01/lambeth-britain-angriest-borough

London, according to a new survey, is the angriest city in Britain, and Lambeth is the angriest borough in London. What's it like to reside inside this hotbed of throbbing, Brownite disgruntlement? I've lived in Lambeth for almost a quarter of a century, and let me tell you, it's extremely infuriating.

Surveys are sometimes silly. But this one is not. Commissioned by the British Association of Anger Management, which sounds like something from a Chris Morris satire, it does make the right connection. Its director, Mike Fisher, says: "I believe that issues such as crime, violence, domestic violence, road rage, addiction, eating disorders, depression and many other mental health issues all stem from our inability as a culture to handle or express our feelings, especially those of anger."

Lambeth isn't only the angriest place in British, it also boasts one of the highest incidences of mental disorder. GP records for 2009 suggest that about 1.4% of the adult population suffers from a severe mental illness. That's nearly three times higher than the average expected from national surveys. Go figure.

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

Affluenza, Greed, Anger and Ways Forward

And why, as a culture, are we unable to "handle or express our feelings, especially those of anger"?

"Crime, violence, domestic violence, road rage, addiction, eating disorders, depression and many other mental health issues" stem directly from a general spiritual sickness and a shocking lack of emotional and social intelligence in our society. Need we say more?

From the lies and obsessions of politicians and bankers, to the general culture of greed, inequality and materialism that's been created in this country, it's clear we're a sick society. It's not that everybody is afflicted by affluenza and a lack of these key intelligences, but when a critical mass of people and the media in general become afflicted then everybody suffers. Virtually nobody really sees the truth, nobody understands what's happening, and nobody sees the way out.

The only way out is for adults to seek enlightenment, and for schools to begin offering opportunities for children to develop spiritual, emotional and social intelligence. Just like they do in more enlightened countries and societies.

Sadly this is unlikely to happen when our leading politicians still cling to the idea that the most important things in education are uniforms, getting children to stand up when an adult comes into the room, and making sure the (allegedly) most academically able kids are split off from the less able, both in terms of the schools they attend and within each school.

What Cameron and his ilk desire is the militarisation of education. Put the troops in ranks, make them wear uniform, make them salute their superiors by standing to attention whenever one appears in their vicinity, break down any semblance of disobedient or disorderly personality or conduct, fill them with the drills and skills they'll need to be either foot soldiers or members of the officer class, and then we'll have an orderly and disciplined society - which is just the way the traditionalists like things to be.

This approach is the polar opposite of an education system that stresses the need for children to become confident, self-disciplined, self-motivated, autonomous, creative individuals who march to the beat of their own individual drum; who live and learn in the ways that they prefer, and speak in their own individual voices. Such individuals define the common good in their own terms, rather than the status quo, and need to be convinced that something is right before they'll accept it as right. They're critical thinkers rather than uncritical pawns in someone else's games.

More on this in the next blog.
.

Layer 217 Chomsky, Hutton, Hyde, Toynbee and One To Avoid.

.
A couple of friends have recently said they often read the magazine The Week as a good way to keep up with what's happening in the world. I agree - it's well edited and it gives a clear digest of current events, interesting topics and the best media reports.

In the spirit of The Week here's a mention of some recent pieces in the papers, beginning at the genius end of what's being said:

'US foreign policy is straight out of the mafia'

Noam Chomsky is the west's most prominent critic of US imperialism, yet he is rarely interviewed in the mainstream media. Seumas Milne meets him

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/07/noam-chomsky-us-foreign-policy

Noam Chomsky is the closest thing in the English-speaking world to an intellectual superstar. A philosopher of language and political campaigner of towering academic reputation, who as good as invented modern linguistics, he is entertained by presidents, addresses the UN general assembly and commands a mass international audience. When he spoke in London last week, thousands of young people battled for tickets to attend his lectures, followed live on the internet across the globe . . .

Chomsky is America's most prominent critic of the US imperial role in the world, which he has used his erudition and standing to expose and excoriate since Vietnam.

Like the English philosopher Bertrand Russell, who spoke out against western-backed wars until his death at the age of 97, Chomsky has lent his academic prestige to a relentless campaign against his own country's barbarities abroad – though in contrast to the aristocratic Russell, Chomsky is the child of working class Jewish refugees from Tsarist pogroms. Not surprisingly, he has been repaid with either denunciation or, far more typically, silence.

Chomsky supported Obama's election campaign in swing states, but regards his presidency as representing little more than a "shift back towards the centre" and a striking foreign policy continuity with George Bush's second administration. "The first Bush administration was way off the spectrum, America's prestige sank to a historic low and the people who run the country didn't like that." But he is surprised so many people abroad, especially in the third world, are disappointed at how little Obama has changed. "His campaign rhetoric, hope and change, was entirely vacuous. There was no principled criticism of the Iraq war: he called it a strategic blunder.

The veteran activist has described the US invasion of Afghanistan as "one of the most immoral acts in modern history", which united the jihadist movement around al-Qaida, sharply increased the level of terrorism and was "perfectly irrational – unless the security of the population is not the main priority". Which, of course, Chomsky believes, it is not.

He argues that since government officials first formulated plans for a "grand area" strategy for US global domination in the early 1940s, successive administrations have been guided by a "godfather principle, straight out of the mafia: that defiance cannot be tolerated. It's a major feature of state policy." "Successful defiance" has to be punished, even where it damages business interests, as in the economic blockade of Cuba – in case "the contagion spreads".

He describes himself as an anarchist or libertarian socialist, but often sounds more like a radical liberal – which is perhaps why he enrages more middle-of-the-road American liberals who don't appreciate their views being taken to the logical conclusion.

But for an octogenarian who has been active on the left since the 1930s, Chomsky sounds strikingly upbeat. He's a keen supporter of the wave of progressive change that has swept South America in the past decade ("one of the liberal criticisms of Bush is that he didn't pay enough attention to Latin America – it was the best thing that ever happened to Latin America"). He also believes there are now constraints on imperial power which didn't exist in the past: "They couldn't get away with the kind of chemical warfare and blanket B52 bombing that Kennedy did," in the 1960s. He even has some qualified hopes for the internet as a way around the monopoly of the corporate-dominated media.

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

Will Hutton

Discarded mobiles, wire-taps and Mr Bigs. Welcome to Wall Street

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/08/will-hutton-wall-street-corruption

Imagine The Sopranos, The Wire and Gordon Gekko's Wall Street all rolled into one. You don't have to: the FBI has just broken one of the largest-ever insider dealing rings in Wall Street. It wire-tapped its way into a seedy world of secret tips, kickbacks and disposable, pre-paid mobile phones. A network including staff of New York law firms, hedge funds and share-trading companies, with links extending to top Plcs, investment banks and consultancies has been revealed. Five people have pleaded guilty, while others maintain their innocence.

The reputation of the financial markets is already at rock bottom. The crash, the bailouts and the extravagant bonuses have convinced ordinary Americans as much as us ordinary Brits that morality and fair play are not values much  found in the financial markets. And now there is this.

In 1720, the London stock exchange was a minor casino that represented a fraction of Britain's GDP.  Now, the value of the assets traded outstrips world GDP many, many times. The financial markets and their values have become the most dominant economic force on the planet. They give capitalism its culture. If London and New York financiers are part of a casino that is crooked, only fools and the naive continue to play by the rules.

Financial services now constitute a kind of tax on the real economy as well as distorting its priorities; short-termism and the search for impossibly high returns are rife. The culture, of which systematic insider trading is part, is having a growing impact on business ethics.

Most people in the financial markets start with a working moral compass, but retaining it becomes ever harder. Capitalism had its origins in a Protestant commitment to saving and investment, along with the Enlightenment commitment to truth. Great companies still have a strain of moral purpose; they seek to do something great from which they make profits. Today's financial markets mock such sentiments. Their destructiveness and awesome power goes well beyond the credit crunch. This culture of amorality reaches everywhere . . .

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

Marina Hyde

Sit back and await the joy of Simon the singing canary

With its top-class cast and horribly fascinating location there could scarcely be any more to love about the Mann saga

In the supermarket yesterday, I wondered how many enforced bathroom visits Mark Thatcher had rushed to make since hearing the news that the organiser of the failed Equatorial Guinea coup in 2004 had been pardoned – he's out, and he's still singing like an amphetamine-charged canary! – and I almost had to sit down in the canned goods aisle at the gorgeousness of it all.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/06/await-joy-simon-singing-canary

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

Polly Toynbee

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/10/brown-tax-convert-hard-believe

Brown, a tax convert? Hard to believe, but let's hope so

A Tobin transaction tax would be a bold, sensible, social democratic move – so it's a shock to hear the prime minister backing it

After the crash Brown needed a public reckoning, a time to say: "The world has changed and so have I. Like other leaders and most economists in the boom years I got things wrong. I should have regulated more, not less. Our new industrial policy acknowledges that I relied too much on the financial sector. When the facts change, I change my mind. As everyone should, I learn from experience, and now I see what must be done. Not only was the whole economy unbalanced by the dominance of finance, but the rewards were too unfairly shared in the boom years; we must ensure the pain of these hard times is born by the broadest shoulders."

Without some explanation of his intellectual journey, any change of direction will be seen as the frantic opportunism of a drowning man. Proposing a Tobin tax just doesn't fit the Gordon Brown story. As chancellor he did not conduct a progressive tax policy. He eased tax for the richest, while taxing the middle more.

Brown thought it enough to use the proceeds of tax for progressive purposes, without redistributing tax itself. As a result Britain became less equal, and income and wealth were shared less fairly. Instead of shifting attitudes to appreciate the social value of tax, he colluded with an anti-tax ideology that calls all tax a burden.

That is why his sudden espousal of the Tobin tax looks unconvincing. It doesn't belong in his back story – unless he redefines that story as a journey of rediscovery of lost social democratic tax ideas. Then he might take people with him: because his Tobin tax should be a roof-raising, banker-bashing, debt-defying, public-service-saving, rabble-rouser of a political winner.

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

And here's One To Avoid . . .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/08/football-education-childhood-school

The touchline timeline

Just as in my childhood, winning or losing together remains a basic lesson on the great field of life

It's Peter Preston, of course, who writes in a lazy little column this week about watching his grandson play football, and has some useless thoughts on . . . nothing really. It's writing for writing's sake. It's what he does. The only explanation for the continuation of his regular column in the Guardian must be that it was part of his retirement package from his editorship of the paper, and essential to maintaining his self-esteem and ego – that his thoughts are still read and appreciated. Well they're not. At least not by anyone with half a brain.

“Here I am, back on the touchline again.

That's one of my grandsons in the centre of the defence . . .

The world of the touchline is frozen in time – and your heart bleeds a little as you sample it again.

Ahhhh . . .Still the bleeding heart liberal, then?

The real fields of dreams have no stands, no roaring crowds – just a few dozen kids, with dads and mums doing their stuff . . . somehow showing they care.

And Peter really cares! So Pete – What is point? (I really miss the Paul Whitehouse character in Down The Line.) We're back on one of Pete's old favourites, of course - smack the teacher. All teachers. Cos they're all the same really, are they not? The regular common or garden State school variety of teacher, that is.

Earnest teachers – invoking the policies of two decades ago that saw school playing fields sold off to supermarkets and competitive games shunned because they involved losing as well as winning – will wince over even a trickle of testosterone. Some 72% of kids on the latest government research don't get a regular chance at teamwork, 81% will never play anything against another school. Yoga and juggling are much in individual vogue.

Well we all know how useless yoga is! Never catch Pete and his pals doing any bloody yoga. Or their grandchildren, if he's got any say in it.

But the central pitch of existence still teaches many useful things. It shows you in a trice who's good and who never can be better than mediocre.

Does it? Once a crap footballer, always a crap footballer? Here's a man who always thinks in absolutes – you're either 'good' or 'bad', or 'never better than mediocre'. At anything, presumably.

Does it hurt, though, to know early on that you're an also-ran, that you'll never have the X factor that brings riches and renown in train?

No, not really, because that isn't the true point whenever little lads trot out to show what they can do; because being part of something is a quite different feeling; because winning or losing together, whatever teacher says, is one of the basic lessons for those on the great field of life – and for those strung out, shouting, clapping, cheering, above all involved, along its eternal touchlines.

Where to start with this bullshit? They're not 'trotting out' to 'show what they can do'. They're on the pitch to enjoy a game of football. Ideally they don't need to show anyone anything. Not even their grumpy old grandparents, or their over-ambitious parents.

Here's a man who perhaps wasn't able to amass what most people in his circle would call riches, but who was always chasing 'renown'. So clearly he had to have some kind of X factor to become a successful journalist and an editor of a newspaper, and so clearly Pete can't be considered an 'also-ran'. Whereas in reality he's just a pathetic has-been, except maybe in the kind of social circles where grumpy old men are the norm, and flailing around with reactionary and badly-informed opinions gets you some sort of status and 'renown'.

As a young teacher I used to spend at least one weekday after-school session per week and every Saturday morning coaching the school football team and taking them to matches. Brother J and I did it together, and he was always hugely enthusiastic, come rain or shine. In the summer we did cricket.

Preston doesn't realise – why would he? - that all over the country there are still lots of teachers who do these things, in spite of the fact that the demands on teachers are now massive in terms of preparation, marking, assessment,  record keeping, staff meetings, on the job training, curriculum leadership, professional reading & correspondence, and assorted meetings with colleagues, parents, etc. And how could anyone even suggest that teachers should feel obliged to involve themselves in sports (or any other extra-curricular activity such as drama, music and singing) when they're already working in the evenings and weekends at keeping up with their regular workloads? Work-life balance is a joke when you're just doing your regular job as a teacher.

What a lot of schools do nowadays, and what my old school still does, is employ specialist coaches to work with children on various sports – football, basketball, netball, tennis, cricket, volleyball, etc. Of course Preston knows nothing about any of this. “Wince over even a trickle of testosterone” indeed.

The man's a total ignoramus. Testosterone Pete. Not least because he's still stuck with the myth that because a few misguided teachers in a few places did make some waves about not liking competitive games, and argued the case for involving more children in collaborative rather than competitive games, that this somehow represented all teachers.

And it certainly wasn't the teachers that sold off school sports grounds. Of course you can't expect Fleet Street Pete to know any of this. He's the original Private Eye Lunchtime O'Booze, or one of them. At least that's what he shounds like these days. He's shurely got to go. Bleating into his cups about his childhood polio and his land of lost content.

In a way I feel bad about being so critical of someone who's so pitiful, but what the hell – he started it! He shouldn't talk such shit about subjects he knows nothing about. He should show some more respect  to teachers and to people who do more for kids than he's ever done. And it's not like he's going to read this blog anyway.

The truth is that if  “72% of kids on the latest government research don't get a regular chance at teamwork” then it's because of people like P Preston esq, who have beaten on about “the standards agenda” and raising test scores to the exclusion of practically all else. These days there are probably more kids in after-school “booster classes” learning how to perform tricks for academic tests than kids doing after-school sports, thanks to the fear of ruthless reactionaries like Preston and his gang who see life only in terms of successes, failures and also-rans; who think that getting to Oxbridge etc is the be-all and end-all, who think there's “no excuse for failure”.

And then they bleat on about the benefits of learning about collaboration and not getting “regular chances at teamwork”. That's right Mr Preston – make education and the learning process as individualistic and competitive as you possibly can and then rue the fact that kids don't develop social, emotional and spiritual intelligence, which is precisely what this “teamwork” amounts to.

Thank goodness there are some good teachers who see the benefits of allowing their pupils to actually learn collaboratively and don't rely on competitive team sports to develop these other vital intelligences. Roll on the day when we all realise that the gaining and expanding of human knowledge is best done as a collaborative effort, and one in which everyone can and should participate, whether or not we are intellectually gifted and academically  talented.
.