大象传媒

How did Blair describe Brown...'a clunking fist'.

Now what's that an anagram of?

"Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has called his successor Gordon Brown "maddening", as he outlined tensions between them in his memoirs.

He called Mr Brown a "capable and brilliant" chancellor but added he had put him under "relentless" pressure.

Tonight David Grossman will be considering what the fascinating insights revealed in the book tell us about Blair's premiership"

Is this Newsnight, or is it HELLO, OK etc?

We don't live in a dictatorship. Politics is about policies not personalities and gossip. Keep this up Newsnight and you will be no more. The Treasury was run by Civil Servants. MPs are merely temporaries, just furniture for those who know no better. Does Newsnight know no better? Can Newsnight do no better?

#2

There are elements of Newsnight that are to do with 'hello, OK?''. That's precisely I do not watch it any more though, even if they are present when Paxo's on as well, I'm planning to watch it when he's back from his holidays from the programme. And it's.not because of his face. I appreciate him for many other reasons and there are quite a few of those.

As far as the actual plans for tonight are, excuse me', but after all both Blair and Brown, after all were the major figures of the British and international politics and are still active politically, plus the Labour Party is undergoing the process of deciding who should their next leader be, so I think it's perfectly justifiable for Newsnight to discuss Blair's book.

By the way, what do you think they should be talking about and do you consider yourself more important than any politician or journalist? If I may ask, what do you 'specialise" i'n. Do you work, for example? My impression is you don't as you seem to be blogging throughout day and night

I haven't really.kept abreat of all the news yesterday and am wondering whether the Nazi invasion of Poland, and effectively the beginning of World War II, on 1 September 1939 was marked at all i'n this country. Does anybody know?

mim

METHINKS HE DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH (#2)

Ho tab01. Your regular protests against 'personality' as defining 'the person', are puzzling. Blair and Brown were so manifestly a personality clash (rather than a policy clash) that I wonder what ELSE you have against personality - something internal? I have a good, working, measure of the personalities who regularly post here (including tabblenablle01) and have no problem 'owning' my own personality. Indeed, I often adjust my responses ACCORDINGLY (but not today).

So what's going on tab? As for OK and Hello: are not its stock-in-trade defined in their shallowness - lack of personality?

Thatcher - Major - Blair - Brown: all flawed personalities, exacerbated by acquiring power (need to keep it, and fear of losing it). If the part played by the Westminster Ethos is not exposed to public gaze, the pattern will repeat. We already have 'another one' in Cameron. Another TWO if you take the duo.)

4. go down the polish club and find out what they have been doing for the past 60 years. You know the polish free government held the symbols of office here till 1989 when ww2 finally ended?

Blair/Brown is a valid topic because the personalities determined polices. That the personalities are deeply defective explains the policies we get. They are a textbook example of how ambition makes people blind and stupid, ignorant and arrogant?

Guardian of the nation class they are not. They have no society building science other than the idol worship of 'fairness' which has little good in it.

#5 Brossen

comment on



Guardian now has the original of 'Sir David's' climate change / terrorism risk assessment. The problem was he never cited me as the original source so anyone could read the it in its true context. The argument got reduced to a soundbite.

/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2009/11/monday_23_november_2009_the_pl.html

Post from NN blog. The risk assessment was written for a United Nations report the week after we set up the new generation of UK climate models.

I fully endorse what Adam the Great and Frankone say. But the analysis should go deeper. It is not just the ability for computers to model complex situations. It is the philosophy on which those models are based on, even before the first number is crunched which I take issue with.

How the models were set up was not based on some open blue sky vision of scientific freedom, but more on the criteria the funders wanted looking at. Even before the first word of scientific discussion was uttered, what and how it would be looked was already determined.

Personally I do not believe the self evolving, multi feedback (non linear) etc ecological life support systems of the planet can be assessed by a climate only approach. It is about as nonsensical as saying a car is safe and has passed its MOT when only the tyres have been looked at.

Further I do not believe the climate system can be fully understood by taking a predetermined carbon lead approach of investigation. I agree carbon plays a part. Further to this I do not believe the 'carbon lead' control of the earth's climate can be accomplished by cap and trade, which effectively gives control of the sustainable ecology of the planet to the same market and trading systems behind the economic collapse.

If they can't run a banking system why are we allowing them anywhere near the ecological systems of the planet. At a conference last year Sir David was giving a talk, half way through he came up with a "when I met Al Gore last year" statement and flashed up a 'Hello' type picture to prove it. Al Gore was though excellent in playing a role in raising the challenge, but now somehow we have evolved to a situation by a number of steps where the solution bares no relevance to the original problem.

My own opinion is if we are going to sustainably manage a planet, we go back to first principles and look at it as a whole planet. Not take some Cartesian reductionist approach. Planet is only climate is only carbon is only cap and trade.

Celtic

'tittle-tattle politics', as relevant as whether someone will choose david or edward millepede as leader of nuLabour.


re israel/palestine - the horrific shooting of the illegal settlers on Palestinian lands yesterday will hopefully bring the attentions of these 'negotiations' to the main issue - how can there possibly be ANY kind of peace whilst ethnic cleansing is going on under a military occupation?

or is that yet another "unmentionable" amongst the talking heads?


quick word on this: full respects to the discussion Estler led on sun night on 大象传媒 news 24 at around 2.30am, it is uncommon for so much open truth be spoken about the middle east, and the Israstine/Palrael Issue.

There could (of course) be a perfectly plausible explanation for a senior shadow minister (as then) sharing a hotel room with 25 year old student.

William Hague denies inappropriate relationship with special adviser

3. At 3:29pm on 01 Sep 2010, mimpromptu wrote:

"If I may ask, what do you 'specialise" i'n"

I'm a witch-finder.

Watch More 4 tonight to see Richard Dawkins at work. He's another.

3. At 3:29pm on 01 Sep 2010, mimpromptu wrote

"excuse me', but after all both Blair and Brown, after all were the major figures of the British and international politics and are still active politically, plus the Labour Party is undergoing the process of deciding who should their next leader be, so I think it's perfectly justifiable for Newsnight to discuss Blair's book."

Let me explain something to you which I think you don't understand. You are not alone form the looks of some regular comments.

In Parliamentary liberal democracies (and even in former soviet Democratic-Centralism which is still an active force in Chinese Socialism) the leaders are not dictators. It only seems that way to people who don't understand politics. In the USA, Obama is no more a dictator than the President of China, or Stalin was in the USSR.

Politicians don't disillusion people who believe as they know that many people need parental authority figures. What really matters is the legislative process. How that operates is largely a function of the number of seats which a PARTY holds and how Bills are worked on at different stages of the legislative process. This requires one to understand something about law, which is why I have suggested some people look up John Rawls as his type of work influenced the overall direction of a lot of liberal legislation in the last 40 years.

We can know what happens, and we don't need to read popular books about that. We can see what happens because we can, if we wish, follow how Bills pass through Parliament etc. One won't learn anything of value form Blair's book. It's mainly written for the same sorts of people who read HELLO and OK. In fact, a lot of liberal politics is theatre these days, because liberal politics is about limiting governance in favours of business and markets. It is that which governs most of our lives, and politicians have little control over that these days. What Blair thinks of Brown and vice versa is really about as important as what happens in East Enders except where this impacts upon the legislature or executive, and one should not be distracted from that if one is interested in politics..

So long as Newsnight and Andrew Marr make these books and their tittle-tattle central to their programmes their production teams are shifting their programmes' audiences demographics towards where most viewers are, which these days really isn't very bright/discerning. That, I suggest, is why so much of the NN blog commentary is so negative these days Some continue to obsess over personalities (the messengers) rather than message thinking being negative is cleverer than extolling. It isn't, it's exactly the same foible if you think about it.

"So what's going on tab? As for OK and Hello: are not its stock-in-trade defined in their shallowness - lack of personality?"

I thought I'd already explained this one? NN is deteriorating to please its demographic.

Focusing on the messenger rather than the message is not just a classic logical error, it's a major empirical distraction from what actually makes any difference. That serves those interested in weakening the political process, i.e in promoting Libertarianism..

If you don't understand why that so, one must assume that you really don't understand the nature of liberal politics.

As to your grasp of 'personality'. you shouldn't be too sure of that (watch Dawkins on More 4 tonight to see other tea-leaf readers and how resistant they are to rational correction). Even those who are professionals in this field ('Personality') know of its very poor validity/reliability as a construct, and are reluctant to make much use of it when predicting or managing behaviour professionally.

If one feels good when running other people down (or when building people up), and discounts that as a flaw because one considers politicians (like celebrities) fair play, maybe that informs us of your limited understanding of politics as well as 'personality'?

I recall you stating that you can't be told anything, so whilst my saying this probably won't make much difference (and thus reduce the likelihood of my answering in future), you should register that it is true, nonetheless.. .

Try looking at the consequences of actions in terms of policies instead.. All humans are flawed. Pointing that out is therefore usually pointless.

Blair's arrogance is still astonishing even after his years in office I still cannot believe that he actually believes what he says, as so many of his statements do not stand up to logical examination. I think it is correct to infer that he actually cannot think!

He is totally blind to his own terrible errors.

No person who understood how far away Iraq was could have kept a straight face when he came out with the 45 minute claim - but he still does - what a plonker!

No rational person would have ordered that a new computer system should be installed in the NHS within 2 years as he did.

He still seems unable to think.

#8

I know about the Poles, jaunty. I was just asking about the Brits.

#7

As I've asked you before, what kind of political system would you like to introduce here to replace the current one and who would you like to see replacing the democratically elected politicians? How about everybody putting on hats and going around with placards instead?

Long day.

First I got to learn about all the fun and games was this tweet:

bbcpolitics - Blair's account of Brown 'unfair'

My first thought was that was no more space to add '...say his allies', which may have aided with context. But it does seem there was space, so this brevity is... interesting.

What's the betting we get treated to many 'allies' as 'guests' in the days to come?

It seems some are having more trouble than Nic R letting go and/or grasping what is vs. what 'should' be.

Unique.

16

whats it to with them? the uk has its own dates?

#13

If Obama was a dictator, he would have imposed the new American Health Bill the way he'd envisaged it but instead he went through the democratic process and did take into consideration what the opponents had to say on the subject. It's seems like a miracle almost that the Bill was eventually passed through. He achieved something on this score where others had failed, including Clinton.

Re: negativity. I find you very negative yourself, almost to the extremes.

# 8

jaunty

Are you a fully qualified scientist?

大象传媒 staff vote for pension strike

/news/entertainment-arts-11154303

9 out of 10 don't understand their gold plated pension is a ponzi scheme?

it looks like there will have to be lots of culling before the bbc connects with the real world.

will licence payers get their money back for every day there is no service? [anyone remember that word on planet bbc?]

I find the use of the phrase "emotional intelligence" by Blair to be very interesting.

This term is still little know outside of professional mental health circles. Of course, Blair may have picked up a copy of Daniel Goleman's defining work on the subject but, then again, maybe he heard of the term via other means?

You often find the phrase used in the counselling of Cluster B Personality Disorder people, as such people often lack any emotional intelligence, such as the Histrionic, the Attention Seeker, the Borderline and the worst of all the 'control freak' personalities - the Narcissist.

Obviously I am not suggesting that Mr. Blair, nor Mr. Brown for that matter, has any of the above but I would love to know where and how Mr. Blair first came across the phrase?

Perhaps he was seeking advice and information on how to deal with a control freak or control freaks?

I am sure psychologists everywhere picked up the use of that phrase today.

It's interesting that Blair Regrets introducing the Freedom of Information Act - without it, the MPs would still be claiming for 'Duck Houses'.
Of course he regrets it - it proved that his so called ';Socialist Party' was just as greedy as the Capitalists they claimed to despise

21

show me a course/textbook in society building science.

you won't find it in the sophist universities that peddle a kind of marxist/anarchist moral relativism that has a deep hatred for the good.

people who talk about the good in academic philosophy can get physically attacked never mind all the bearing false witness and name calling.

the uk is dominated by the legacy of the Norman monarchy ethnic cleansing model which is all about keeping power for an inner empire of oligarchs. Which is why the national oath is not a national oath but a personal oath to the monarch [like the ss had to hitler] to preserve their privileges. Nothing about defending the rights of the people. The national song is not national but a tuneless monarchist dirge. it is even illegal under treason laws to suggest anyone else might be head of state which makes the british people inferior in human rights to an iraqi or afghan.

the inner empire do not want a society building science in the uk because it would mean the end of the norman monarchy ethnic cleansing model. The UK is the last Norman colony.

"I'M BASICALLY A PUBLIC SERVICE PERSON - MY CLOSE FRIENDS ARE NOT PARTICULARLY WEALTHY AT ALL - WE (I Tony) HAVEN'T CAUSED THIS"

Well - what a let down. Andrew Marr might at least have done a ROFL or two, at the most crass moments. And then he could have asked Blair to declare as FOOL OR KNAVE. (I will allow more serious mental infirmity under the catch-all of 'fool'.)

As Blair said: "A significant problem (himself) in any part of the world, spreads very quickly." How true.

Tonight, the 大象传媒 proved beyond doubt that we are still LIVING WITHIN THE LIE. And they do not intend to end this state of affairs any time soon.

Oh it's all going shock-n awfully well.

THEN THERE IS REPRESENTATION - DEMOCRACY - HONOUR (#26)

None practised under the Westminster Ethos.

A powerful point Jaunty. Have you told your MP?

In passing - have they closed any bars in Westminster yet?

27 barrie

i was undecided whether to watch it as i suspected it was just more of the same old flannel.

thanks for making up my mind to find something better to do with an hour of my life.

as for the book i think i will wait till they appear in the 50p charity shop bargain bucket unless most of the text appears online through reporting.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

tawse57

That's what I've thought for a very long time, that there are different types of intelligence virtually independent of schooling. What education seems to 'achieve', if, is to build up on the type of intelligence one has been born with. Perhaps I'm slightly simplifying the issue here but I do think that that's more or less it on the subject. Take kids within the same family. Inevitably, they are all different. Sometimes diametrically so, despite the same upbringing and having been born of the same parents.

Re: control freaks. You're probably right about that but why don't you e-mail him directly. Some of them, the so-called celebs or people in high places do respond to queries from members of the public.

mim

"20. At 7:49pm on 01 Sep 2010, mimpromptu wrote:
#13

If Obama was a dictator, he would have imposed the new American Health
Bill the way he'd envisaged it but instead "

If Obama was a chocolate pudding, someone might have eaten him. If
donkeys had wings they could fly. If Blair had been a woman he might
have worn a skirt.

What you might not like about some of the things I post is that they are
logical and grounded in reality. You clearly don't understand politics
(and I suspect much else besides), and what's more than a little
disconcerting is that you appear to have no wish to learn either, but
would rather just post personal nonsense which makes you look rather
loopy. The President of the USA's behaviour is controlled by Congress,
just as the PM's behaviour here is controlled by the law and the
Parliamentary process. It used to be the case that people on this blog
here, and people appearing on Newsnight talked about processes which
were grounded in reality. Now it panders to populist nonsense and
sensible people will be drifting away. I hope the Production Team is
reading this. Gavin Esler's diatribe against the Pope was a disgrace, so
even Chris Patten felt obliged to diplomatically chastise him. Open your
eyes viewers.

26. At 8:34pm on 01 Sep 2010, jauntycyclist wrote:
21

"show me a course/textbook in society building science.

you won't find it in the sophist universities that peddle a kind of marxist/anarchist moral relativism that has a deep hatred for the good."

Your could try Chester.



There are lots of places offering courses and lots of books on Government. You just don't know about them (or Government)

24. At 8:10pm on 01 Sep 2010, tawse57 wrote:
" I find the use of the phrase "emotional intelligence" by Blair to be very interesting.

This term is still little know outside of professional mental health circles."

It's not used within professional mental health circles either. It's a controversial academic notion. How is it measured? That's the clue as to why it isn't to be taken seriously. It has nothing to do with Personality Disorders either. In fact, those you speak of can be very clever/manipulative emotionally. It has nothing to do with intelligence.

24. At 8:10pm on 01 Sep 2010, tawse57

You left out 'Axis II' (cluster B PD)

Someone else, who used to post regularly on here, has made the same observation.

Many of these personality types also seem to do well in business and attain positions of high power.

ONE IN FOUR DRINKS TO EXCESS (AND ALL DRINK INDUSTRIAL SOLVENT)

That was the report on the 10.00 news. I have an idea: Why not close all those bars in Westminster to show it IS possible to function without?

Shall I tell my MP?

New Labour worked for a while because it swallowed the ideology of the New Right - deregulation, globalisation and free market ideology - then wielded on to it state welfarism to be funded by the proceeds of taxing the financial services industry based in rhe City of London, deregulated and free to roam all over the world in their hunger to make money.

Once the inherent contradictions of an economy based on global casino capitalism were exposed in the credit crisis, New Labour had no choice but to fall back to socialism - but only for those that were in real need, those whose role in society was critical to maintaining this model - i.e. the banks and the few thousand key individuals in the City that run them, so unbelieveably huge sums - sums that we were always told we simply unaffordable for social housing, education or the NHS - were found and thrown at the financial system to stop it going into meltdown.

For me this revealed that New Labour was a deliberate, sustained lie aimed at holding back social and economic progress, in thrall to born again religious bigots and libertarian neocons, not a principled, objective and caring movement aimed at social progress. Blair and Brown both assert their religious beliefs and cite them as formative in their political lives.

The Labour Party needs to learn the lesson from New Labour - never, ever let someone with dogmatic religious beliefs ever get to a position of power in the Party again because their loyalty isn't to the reality of life for our people, their first loyalty is to a belief in the supernatural and life in the hereafter, not in the real world.

Now that "light touch" regulation has been revealed to be the con trick it always was and we can no longer afford to import our food and goods, "free" trade is now unaffordable - what is the future for "New" Labour now that the central beliefs of this chapter in progressive politics have turned to dust?

I knew Blair in the 70s. He was a man on the up, someone who meant well, whose instincts were progressive, but he was a man whose religion was at the core of his politics; he instinctively distanced himself from the hard decisions and always sought to find ways to mitigate, to compromise, to buy off dissent and to respect those in positions of power. I was not surpised at all that he could do business with Bush and that he was prepared to swallow the CIA's tissue of lies about Saddam and to attempt to sell this to the country.

By giving the libertarian mantra another decade at the heart of government, Blair and Brown have made the hard lessons we are going to have to learn all the harder and paved the way for the ConDems to come to power.

The fact that Brown was also a power mad obssessive whose belief in his own capabilities was just as unbalanced as Blair's (if lessable to con the electorate than Blair) but this is not the point - both were part of "the Project" - a cynical and dishonest attempt to beat the Tories at their own game. Sure, some good things did come out of their time in Government - but it was inevitable that the contradictory position of New Labour would come apart eventually, when it all came home to roost with the credit crisis.

#34. tabblenabble01 : -

One trait of those lacking 'emotional intelligence' is often a lack of empathy for others.

A lack of empathy is common amongst Cluster B's, especially the Narcissist.

Tony Blair: Diana was a manipulator like me


鈥淲e were both, in our own way, manipulators鈥� 鈥� good at grasping the feelings of others and instinctively playing on them.

Junkmail asked from yesterdays post.

"wheres that?" RE my quote from NN web page feedback leader.

The opening page was re written/revised. That sometimes happens, mostly an add on later in the day is what you normally get from the NN web page/team. I think I suggested they go and look on the drudge report for pictures and figures. The change from '10 of thousands' to 'massive crowds' was a fair revision. Did my comments force a change?..no idea but no harm in giving imput i suppose eh.

Regarding John prescott...unbelievable how this man does not collapse from under the weight of his own disgust.

THE WESTMINSTER ETHOS AND RELIGIOUS BELIEF (#37)

Succinct and telling RB.

Westminster party politics function without integrity and honour. Only delusional individuals can survive under its aegis, while still maintaining that they adhere to a religious belief. The pool of deluded (pre-selected by party) MPs throws up a series of 'Super-Delusionals', called Prime Ministers, who actually function as presidents because of feudal nature of hierarchical power and appointment.

Blair and Brown were typical. Now we have got ourselves another one.

See video !

"37. At 10:42pm on 01 Sep 2010, richard bunning wrote:
New Labour worked for a while because it swallowed the ideology of the New Right "

It was Ralph Miliband's New Left (like The Frankfurt School) Richard, a member of the SI. It was thus essentially Trotskyite, and had nothing in common with Old Labour. It was a US promoted invention (as were other European 'socialist' parties after WWII). Anything truly Old Labour would have been too much like the USSR and thus unacceptable to Libertarian USA.. Most of the 70s generation were had.

tonights comments:

(news at 10) alcohol:

the problem of alcohol consumption is today based upon the collapse of the 'pub culture'. The pub provided a community centre that older regulars could keep an eye on the younger drinkers. The pubs in British culture actually *reduced* alcohol consumption by the young, they learned (along with the occasional 'bender') how to drink responsibly.

reforms started during (surprise surprise) margeret thachers time, were the main long-term driving force behind today's problems. She 'privatised' to "create competition" the ownership of the pubs/breweries, and naturally therefore created a monopoly operation, by profit private companies, that has controlled the market ever since. This has driven up pub prices, because of the profit margins the pubs have to pay to their owners.



Accompanying this was the removal of restrictions upon supermarkets etc selling alcohol, mainly to the benefit of the large alcohol brewery corporations. This had made alcohol cheap at home (its illegal to drink in public spaces, feels like?), and exensive in the community pubs.

add in social desperation as young people watch owning homes become impossible due to low wages (if they can even find a job), or high house prices. Add in the yes, high unemployment, and the lack of investment by Govt in new companies or training. Add in massive general stress of life in modern Britain.

what is the almost inevitable result? Alcohol binging at home, followed by drunken, possibly violent behaviour in public.

following on result? The political/media-owning class getting to describe young people as less-than-citizens.

--------

FoI - so the British Establishment make decisions that they KNOW the Public will oppose!!!!!!!

why else would they be afraid to have their conversations and discussions on record for the Public to hear?

well said heather brooke! Prescott should learn to shut-up.

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

poor Hague. I feel for him that he has been *forced* to be so personal. Goddammit media, are you SO low???

-----------

the atkins woman: i have only one comment to make (although i thought of many), would *you* prefer to have your children educated by a business run for profit, or by dedicated teachers with at least the *theory* of trying to do their best for their students?

she doesn't strike me as someone who has ever tried to be a teacher on a normal teacher's salary. OFSTED has clearly been a central part of this attempt to 'tick-box' education, that has dramatically damaged the chance of educators to actually educate instead of merely aiming to pass meaningless exams like the SATS, brought in under OFSTED?

in other words, under Atkins, the public sector schools have been deliberately undermined as educational bodies, and she turns out to be a cheer-leader for school privatisation under the so called 'Academies' scheme, and now Free Schools.

enough food-for-thought to last a week.

#38

Sounds a bit right, tawse57, though I would go further and call it insanity. Total and utter insanity, that's some of the bloggers, and particularly 1 are/is about.

mim

#12

which witch?

Here's a warning. Do not come close.

Hi Mods

I hope you're not troubled too much tonight by insane bloggers.

Monika

Tawse57

To emotional intelligence, I would add the importance of non-verbal understanding in communication which I wrote about a couple of days ago, or something like that.

mim

Mim at 47:

I'll ask. Bob, have you been troubled or in anyway bothered by any insane bloggers tonight?....no. The answer is no.

#49

You've made an error, kev. It should be 'in any way' and not 'anyway' in this case.

debtjuggler

and what if you're in fact jj?

I have a feeling that one of the bloggers at least uses multiple blogging names.

mim, my apologies for this invasion of privacy, but you seem to attack any male - in fact also any female poster who shows these characteristics - who especially show any spine, intelligence, or self-confident replies in any way.



would you say?

#52

what spine? what intelligence?
intransigence, rather, I'd say, causing harm
what female do I attack outright? none and why am being attacked for liking Paxo? what business is it of anybody's? Mistress76uk also gets rebuked for liking him, and no in uncertain terms. Why?

#53 addendum

The only people that it might be the business of, and even concern, are Jeremy's family and those close to him, as well, perhaps if they care, the numerous people I've e-mailed to about the invasion of privacy. Your own words and admittance.

HOW A QUESTION OF ,OONFIDENTIALITY' CAN GET RESOLVED. IN COURT.



Get it?

mim

##55 correction of the title

HOW A QUESTION OF CONFIDENTIALITY, etc

18. At 7:36pm on 01 Sep 2010, you wrote:
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

That I cut and pasted a tweet from bbcpolitics verbatim and merely asked if it was a fair reflection of actualitay ((a cheeky mis-spelling just to get the grammar-distracters excited) seems telling, especially on the heels of...

'40. At 11:30pm on 01 Sep 2010, kevseywevsey wrote:
Junkmail asked from yesterdays post.

"wheres that?" RE my quote from NN web page feedback leader.

The opening page was re written/revised. That sometimes happens, mostly an add on later in the day is what you normally get from the NN web page/team.

Reflection and correction are of course to be welcomed, if a little erratic in the selective 'watertight oversight' system exposed by Richard Black.

But (often unacknowledged) retroactive edits and protracted limbo periods can also serve to present a convenient delay in allowing things to move on - with the true story, properly represented, being left behind for most, sadly.

ps: It's JunkkMale

IF ALCOHOL WERE A FOOD-ADDITIVE IT WOULD BE BANNED. (#44)

Alcohol 'got into' our culture long before we had the science to define its harmfulness. We now know it is broadly inimical to bodily function, and long-term health; this compounded by addiction for some and disinhibition for all. THE FIRST DRINK, TAKEN SOBER, IS AN ACT OF NEGLIGENCE.

What we are confronted by, is proof of our juvenile state, and inability to address life without an 'adult' comfort-blanket of diabolical aspect.

Is that not enough reason to close the bars in Westminster as a high-profile start to a campaign to put alcohol back in the poisons cabinet - RATHER THAN ROUTINELY DEPLOYING IT IN THE POLITICAL ONE?

Perhaps we should start by installing a whole new kind of politician? (See earlier posts.)

SPOILPARTYGAMES

#57

'Saving' everything for yourself, are you, by delaying things, junk?

So the 大象传媒 is not impartial, I'd never have guessed that! ; )

LEXIGONE (#57)

One in four drincs to much Junkkk, perhaps Kevie was drunc? O hell-p i R rotating to Allen-a-d!

How I see academy schools. They are usually a sink school (or two) that has failed, they are given the name academy, to give the illusion that they are now successful. Why "Academy" it sounds so american, why not the old system, of Grammar, Technical, and Secondary Schools? Then poor intelligent kids would have the opportunity to shine.

Oh and another thing that happens in Academies they can set their own wage scale, either more or less than the current teachers pay scale, now I wonder which one they chose?! ; ) I've noticed it's usually the lower.

#44 I think your comments on alcohol are correct MH. But if the ordinary man wasn't befuddled by drink, he'd wake up and really see the problems in britain.

THE MARK OF THE BEEB (60 link)

Ho Lizzy! They seem to have a penchant for the name Mark. In fact, they went for Carol, even though her brother was a much more inviting target, because he was called 'Mark'. (Not a lot of people know that.)

Bring back the UK theme. I used to pick up my son at 5.30am (?) just as its rousing delightfulness filled my car. Bye bye Mark Damazer.

ACADEMIA ACADEMMIC ACADEMY (#62)

As Monty Python used to say: OOH - WHAT A GIVEAWAY! The clue is in the name. Political ninnies STILL think 'scholarship' is king (rather than competence in life and ability across the entire spectrum).

I attended infants, junior, secondary-modern (also called 'central) grammar, and technical schools. None seemed to suffer from their name - only from weird teaches and some mismatch of pupil and school.

While those who govern us are selected for a narrow view and purpose in life, we will keep getting lunatic educational tinkering, based on ignorance of what REALLY matters. If we MUST have schools (a moot point) let us 'school' for individual competence and awareness.

Whoops - there goes Westminster and all its vile ethos. Hurrah!

PS There is a daft fad for names these days - a library has been dubbed an 'Ideas Store'. So lets come up with a school designation that means: 'A Place where Maturity is Fostered'. MATURIUM? (:o)

#60

No wonder then, Ecolizzy, that the Tories used to complain bitterly about the organisation but in the last few months I've read several complaints by quite a few different journalists and employees about a rather unhealthy Soviet style witchhunting and stifling atmosphere reigning within the 大象传媒 itself.

mim

the proverbial kiss of death////Mandy backing you to win....whoops

"What we are confronted by, is proof of our juvenile state, and inability to address life without an 'adult' comfort-blanket of diabolical aspect."

Alcohol and debt.

Have a look at the Paul Mason blog for a good reference on the slippery slope of self-destructive behaviour how it surfaces in many guises (see Peston's blog too). Explore the English translation of Solzhenitsyn "Two Hundred Years Together" (now available by chapter on the web) for a history of this in Russia/Eastern Europe in the nineteenth century before the revolution.

A critical look at Caveat Emptor?

"38. At 11:05pm on 01 Sep 2010, tawse57 wrote:
#34. tabblenabble01 : -

One trait of those lacking 'emotional intelligence' is often a lack of empathy for others.

A lack of empathy is common amongst Cluster B's, especially the Narcissist."

Tricky...but please note carefully what I said originally in conjunction with this:.


retical_foundation_of_EI

Note also that whilst psychologists and psychiatrists etc are trained NOT to empathise with patients for all sorts of sound reasons (that's what being objective and professional is all about after all), whilst this doesn't necessarily make them narcissists etc, many of those drawn to these professions may well be these types if one looks closely at the diagnostic criteria and opportunities.

62. At 10:15am on 02 Sep 2010, ecolizzy wrote:

They are usually a sink school (or two) that has failed, they are given the name academy, to give the illusion that they are now successful. Why "Academy" it sounds so american, why not the old system, of Grammar, Technical, and Secondary Schools? Then poor intelligent kids would have the opportunity to shine."

Yes. Except they wouldn't of course, any more than kids in US Charter Schools do. Where such schools appear to overcome their problems, they do so by sending them out the back door raising the average that way.

Academies were crated in the climate of spin, like so much under New Labour. Calling them 'Free Schools', is not much different. In fact, it's just more of the same. More people will read Blair's tittle-tattle book than will watch Parliamentlive though as that latter is 'boring' (a euphemism for 'too hard to understand'). If the latter was in book for (Hansard) it would be reviewed as 'badly written' and 'inaccessible'.
This is what dumbing down means. It is great for consumerism. As are 'Free-Schools'.

Good point about the horrors of racing Britain booze free, hence the fear mongering?

"a rather unhealthy Soviet style witchhunting and stifling atmosphere reigning within the 大象传媒 itself."

Are witches and their crafts good for the economy?


See ch.22

32. At 9:29pm on 01 Sep 2010, mimpromptu wrote:

"Take kids within the same family. Inevitably, they are all different.
Sometimes diametrically so, despite the same upbringing and having been born of the same parents."

1. What about identical twins? Why are they so similar when they are raised apart? Why do so many researchers now say that upbringing doesn't matter very much?

2. Did you know that kids in families are different from their parents because they inherit different genes, some of which are not even expressed in the parents, but that they may be like their grandparents etc? That is, they still inherit just like identical twins do, it's just that they do not the same genes or necessarily ones which are expressed in their parents..

3. Often, when we say what we think, we are just stating what we don't know. Many of the people in Richard Dawkin's programme last night truly believed what they believed. It's just that they believe things which are not true. They even carry on believing things which are not true when this is pointed out.

4. Are there multiple intelligences? Not really if you look into this closely. Most of these are really just measures of abilities which go into the overall FACTOR called General intelligence which is just a statistical abstraction from lower level data or measures of abilities/skills, i.e dimensions or scales along which people vary genetically.

5. See Paul Mason's most recent blog for more on why things may keep getting worse until/unless we do something radical about indulging modern witch-craft.

#12 TN: so you are a "witch-finder"?

the only relevant comments to make upon assertions like that, is to watch: The Crucible.




#32 mim: imho there are many different types of 'intelligence', the basic intellectual, but also physical (spacial and movement intelligence, such as for sports or dance), and emotional.

there are as many problems associated with 'measuring' these latter two as there is with intellectual intelligence, but most people know it when they see it, i think you'd agree.

education can either work on existing intelligence areas, or work on strengthening weak ones. Imho, this should be done by choice of the individual, as much as possible. There are arguments for both specialisation, and balanced development.

you are right also about the often deep differences between family members, even in basic elements such as intelligence areas and strengths..


#37: well spoken Richard Bunning!


43. At 11:57pm on 01 Sep 2010, tabblenabble01 wrote:
"37. At 10:42pm on 01 Sep 2010, richard bunning wrote:
New Labour worked for a while because it swallowed the ideology of the New Right "

It was Ralph Miliband's New Left (like The Frankfurt School) Richard, a member of the SI. It was thus essentially Trotskyite, and had nothing in common with Old Labour. It was a US promoted invention (as were other European 'socialist' parties after WWII). Anything truly Old Labour would have been too much like the USSR and thus unacceptable to Libertarian USA.. Most of the 70s generation were had."

"Libertarian USA"? Hardly, Since the neo-libs came to power (Thatcher in UK, Reagan in US), the American people have lost one right after another, the only one truly defended is the right to bear arms. Although pretenses are made to curtail that. Every other right, for example the right to trial, the right to privacy, the right to freely associate, have step by step been reduced or removed by these anti-Libertarians.

the power of the Citizen viz-a-viz the State has been massively curtailed in both the US and UK in the last 30 years - oddly, the meedja, fully complicit in this, has rarely pointed that out in a structured way.

so 'nuLabour' are actually in the school of politics that has included both Thatcher and now Chancellor Osbourne, you are correct.

your mistake is to then call the US "Libertarian", when not only are there more variants (and older variants) of American Libertarianism than Randian Libertarianism, but also, more crucially, that in fact the US is ruled by *anti-Libertarian* (- Trotskyists? Explain?), and has been almost as long as the UK has.


#48: yes, that's another type of intelligence! [non-verbal communication].

71. At 9:23pm on 02 Sep 2010, tabblenabble01 wrote:

"a rather unhealthy Soviet style witchhunting and stifling atmosphere reigning within the 大象传媒 itself."

Are witches and their crafts good for the economy?


See ch.22





-- bizarre comment. What do 'witches' have to do with anti-semitism?

"your mistake is to then call the US "Libertarian", when not only are there more variants (and older variants) of American Libertarianism than Randian Libertarianism, but also, more crucially, that in fact the US is ruled by *anti-Libertarian* (- Trotskyists? Explain?), and has been almost as long as the UK has."

Explain? I'm sure others have done this here before?

See Charles Murray's 'What it Mean to be a Libertarian' and his 'In Our Hands'. His books were encouraged by Irwin Stelzer.

The US Neocons have Trotskyite (Schactmannite) roots. Libertarians (including Randians like Greenspan) believe in the free-market as the decider of value, and politically they promote grass roots democracy rather than Big Government. But that is Trotskyism. Grass roots democracy is just anarchism in fact, which is exactly what Russia had in the 1920s until Stalin took over and ended the chaos of the NEP. Small government, amounts to anarchism i.e. the Big Society in the new Con-Them parlance. It just means DIY'. Expect more deregulation, more misery (except for those who profit from exploiting people as Trotskyites do)

PS. Non verbal intelligence is just a subscale of general intelligence (like verbal intelligence). There are not multiple intelligences. If someone says that they think otherwise, they are just revealing what they don't know about how intelligence is measured. It is not a matter of what intelligence IS either, that would be an essentialist error.
intelligence is a construct which psychologists use to measure individual differences. It doesn't mean the same thing that the popular term means.

"-- bizarre comment"

Indeed.

When something strikes one as bizarre one can read that emotion as indicating that one has been surprised and has something to learn. Why didn't you do so? Maybe what you think is false?

#79, rabblenabble:

"The US Neocons have Trotskyite (Schactmannite) roots. Libertarians (including Randians like Greenspan) believe in the free-market as the decider of value, and politically they promote grass roots democracy rather than Big Government. But that is Trotskyism. Grass roots democracy is just anarchism in fact, which is exactly what Russia had in the 1920s until Stalin took over and ended the chaos of the NEP."

"just anarchism" means exactly squilch, as there are profound differences between various types of anarchism. Not that many anarchists would still follow the notion of the marxist "Vanguard", for instance, yet that was clearly a feature of the neo-cons.

grassroots democracy is a form of Anarchism, the very same one that supports the idea that communities create themselves given the political space to do so, that a form of Direct Democracy is created spontaneously. Anarchism does not mean "without organisers", it means those organisers have to EARN the right to be organisers, they cannot inherit it in any way. Vangardsim is in direct contradiction to that, which is why anarchist groups like the Mexican Zapatista have explicitly distanced themselves from vanguardism.

and a free market *is* a decider of value - and generally does an infinitely better job than any bureaucracy. The grotesque corruption of the popes/feudalism, and the various corporate monopolies of recent times has shown that. This is certainly not limited to troskyists, and in fact under the neo-cons corporate monopolisation has reached such a point that it is unlikely there is ANY 'free market' left in the US - except perhaps in the scrabble to join the soup-kitchen lines. Which begs the question: is Trotskyism inherently anti-free market despite its claims, or were the neo-cons only using the language of free-markets to cover up their own corruption and market-tampering.

"Small government, amounts to anarchism i.e. the Big Society in the new Con-Them parlance. It just means DIY'. Expect more deregulation, more misery (except for those who profit from exploiting people as Trotskyites do)"

an interesting mixed bag of ideas there. The conned-em's intention is to convert paid professionals into unpaid volunteers, so that they can reduce taxes upon the very rich and multi-nationals, whilst also degrading social services and the welfare state to the point it can be scrapped altogether. Yet the basic ideas are sound, if they were not being implemented alongside an almost completely unnecessary and destructive 'austerity package'. The same policies if given the necessary investment to make them work properly, would re-invigorate civil society in the UK. 'Anarchism' this might be, but compared to the overly bureaucratic, centralised and managerial top-heavy approach that is in place, it could hardly fail to be an improvement - again, given the proper investment and continued subsidy.

so, although i agree with you about the direction and intentional misery-creation of this current Govt, it is only a small slice of Anarchism that you are referring to - and one that the large majority of anarchists would take vast umbrage to. Which is interesting as *you* chose to associate trotskyism and anarchism, and the neo-cons.


"PS. Non verbal intelligence is just a subscale of general intelligence (like verbal intelligence). There are not multiple intelligences. If someone says that they think otherwise, they are just revealing what they don't know about how intelligence is measured. It is not a matter of what intelligence IS either, that would be an essentialist error.
intelligence is a construct which psychologists use to measure individual differences. It doesn't mean the same thing that the popular term means."


you are free to use whatever terms you want.

personally, i would say someone like the footballer Paul Gascoine had incredible amounts of physical-intelligence, and somewhat less intellectual-intelligence. That would make sense to me, and to most other people i suspect. Simply trying to rate him on a general "intelligence" scale would miss out on a lot of subtleties. I make no requirement for you to agree with my terminology, and i expect that you do not demand compulsory agreement with yours. But do feel free to add new terms and definitions as you see fit - you may even one day share one that i find interesting and insightful, and might even add to my own models.

#76:


i repeat:

"-- bizarre comment. What do 'witches' have to do with anti-semitism?"