The Glass Box is the place where you can comment on what you heard on PM, interact with other listeners and get responses from the people who make the programme.
Just click on the "comment" link.
The Glass Box is named after the booth outside the PM studio where we all discuss the programme at 18.00 every weeknight. We try to be honest and constructive. Sometimes there is criticism, and the criticised get a chance to explain themselves.
Jump to more content from this blog
PM The evening news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
iPM The programme that starts with its listeners. Join the discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.
Read the final report of the PM Privacy Commission.
Meet the commissioners, view the terms of reference and hear the Commission Chair Sir Michael Lyons explain his approach.
´óÏó´«Ã½ © 2014 The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
Peter,
Well, we can see how efficient things get when you're on the job! I guess radio takes less multitasking than TV?
Respect!
ed
Referendums and Democracy.
Now the hysteria of the cold war is the history of the last century, perhaps we could have a serious look at the positive points of Democratic Centralism.....?
Brian (2),
"the positive points of Democratic Centralism"
And just what might they be?
"By now it should be pretty obvious that central planning is of a piece with absentee ownership and does not work."
--
xx
ed
Darn! Premature exclamation again!
Well, the particular positive is the involvement of everyone in society habitually. Everyone can truly say they took part in the decisions taken, therefore we have debate but unity of action. Some of course, will be disappointed, but they were involved. Or should we have Presidential decrees instead? Tough one!!! Respect to Mr. Berry.
Long delay, sorry. Such Malice!!!!
xx
There were some very eloquent comments from listeners on the issue of Salman Rushdie's knighthood. Lord Ahmed quite frankly made a fool of himself, in contending that Rushdie had "blood on his hands - sort of...", and the idea that those issuing threats of violence have some sort of moral high ground to claim is risible.
Censorship and attempted censorship by religious extremists has pervaded the ages. We must continue to oppose it resolutely, wherever it occurs and from whichever direction it emanates.
(Anyone heard from Big Sis today?)
When the Polish team next gets knocked out of a championship football competition will the manager put forward the same puerile argument as did Polish politicians at the EU summit that they would have had a far better, world beating team had Germany not invaded in 1939? Somehow I doubt it.
A shame you didn't get a more balanced opinion to that of the predictably biased 'special interest' politician to whom it seems everything emanating from Poland is simply wonderful.
An Editor writes:
There are some stories that for various reasons that we plan, record & cue - but in the end never make it to air. Today was in the great scheme of things a "slow-ish" news day - so there was a batlle on a number of what you might call "second tier" stories that might have or might not have made it on to the programme.
So here goes - I opted in the ended for the story about the return of rickets against that of a building society that's told it's members either you agree to our bank charges or we'll close your account. Both, I'd argue interesting - but is one more interesting than the other?
For info - Carrie did speak to the Building Society man - but in truth he wasn't great. In which case - and time permitting - we try and find another guest - or think about a different angle. But no dice tonight. And all editors know that as sure as night follows day, the second a story gets dropped or doesn't pass muster, Eric pipes up with "...but I've written a cue". As he's away he's bound not to read this.
Finally tonight, the end of an era - Caroline Wyatt's last report from France as Paris Correspondent. We are all hugely fond of her, admire her work and wish her well on her return to the UK.
Brian (4),
It looks somewhat dictatorial to me, what with the reference to 'the party line', conformity (willing or not) and all, although there are overtones of localism, which I'd be pleased to learn aren't subsumed, as I fear, into the centralist agenda.
Some .
Nature seems never to have discovered it or else to have discarded it as unworkable at some time so long ago to have left no trace. I have a challenge which has been open for some time, to anyone who can give me an example of any truly centralised Natural system. It remains open.
On examination, all suggested candidates, e.g. beehives, anthills, etc. turn out to be very de-centralised and boundary-controlled. There may well be a "central" purpose - the survival and health of the organism - but this in turn depends upon a surrounding and healthy neighbourhood.
xx
ed
As an adoptive Parisian I shall miss Caroline Wyatt's unfailingly precise and imaginative reportage (pardon my French!).
I wish her the best of luck in her next assignment.
Rupert,
Thanks for the background and best wishes to Caroline. It would be nice to see the other pics.
xx
ed
'As he's away he's bound not to read this' ha,ha. Dear Rupert I think you are deluding yourself! Also was it not you who made the new years resolution to always read before you post? maybe not, judging from the above 'batlle'? 'in the ended'? My own typing is often not very good, but as regular froggers know, this is because I have a new, wireless and very wicked keyboard which likes to show me up.
On the flip side, I think your call on rickets versus evil financial institution was the right one, simply because we don't often hear about rickets ( badly dropped catch there when your girl said we'd cured it though ) and we do quite often hear about wicked financial institutions. I found the rickets story interesting, but then maybe I'm just sad.
For those who listened to Front Row - did you hear the piece about the new Alan Plater play written for the St Magnus Festival? My son is performing in it, even as I type. We're seeing it tomorrow lest you think me an unnatural mother for not being there - tickets were like gold dust!
I only caught segments of PM tonight on the motorways of England, and other times when I had to concentrate on the road more than normal...am I getting old or are these showers more intense than in the old days...
Not really sure why Carolyn is at Glastonbury, and what Today/PM reports actually mean...
Marcus Brigstock is also (allegedly) at Glastonbury, in his GW-H guise, and on his web site he boasts that he's trying to be on R4 more times than the shipping forecast; maybe, Marcus, but not as many times as Sequin!
Yes to Rickets over money grabbing BS (something Moneybox will surely cover), but thought your interviewee was overstreatching the mark in trying not to say "Black", when he would say "Asian", and, to be honest, this time the skin colour *is* the significant detail. Light skins evolved as mankind moved northward to where there was less intense sunlight. I know, a difficult issue.
Hope Caroline Wyatt will continue to be on R4, a very informative reporter.
I noted that Feedback discussed those trailers, but nothing very positive seemed to come out of it.
As to Front Row, I liked the comment "are you asking whether the Master of the Queen's Music was assuming he was doing the music of my next work" or somesuch...
Q for the eds: What do Sequin and Carrie think of the Blog, as they are occaional interlopers into the mayhem that is the Frog?
He hasn't even taken office yet, but I'm already sick and tired of hearing Gordon Brown's voice!
Doesn't augur well, does it?
xx
ed
I heard the interview with the Army officer regarding the civilian deaths in Afghanistan. Questions like "Are 25 civilian deaths acceptable in return for killing 30 Taleban" (or similar) are simply ridiculous - what sort of answer did you expect?
And did I miss the equally "hard-hitting" interview with the Taleban representative? There must have been one, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ being impartial, after all...
Whilst PM on 22/06/07 has probably brought to light the fact that ricketts still exists I feel that it may have been misleading. Whilst I do not disagree with the reasons given for the development of Ricketts in SOME individuals another cause has been overlooked. This may have given the impression that poor diet or the lack of sunlight metabolised Vitamin D are the only cause of Ricketts. My 8 year old daughter was diagnosed with Ricketts at the age of 14 months when she went from walking back to crawling. This was thought to be due to painful knees. The aetiology is that her kidneys do not retain phosphate. Phosphate is responsible for rigidity of bones and hence without it, under load, her bones are soft enough to deform. The end result is bowing of the lower limbs. It is treated with medication (Phosphate and Vitamin D) and corrective surgery.
David (16),
I'm sorry to learn of your daughter's problems that caused her to have rickets.
My impression of the PM article was that there was a group of people who have become more susceptible to rickets, and that this group were the lack of sunlight/dark skins group - I don't think *malnurishment* was a factor per-se. I don't think I had the impression that this was a condition that was once extinct, and was suddenly back amoung us.
Otis;
Today carried an Alastair Leithead interview with a Taleban commander in the last couple of days. Satisfied?
And your remark about impartiality was daft. The Taleban hate the West in general and especially westerners in Afghanistan. Doesn't make them obvious interviewees, does it? And where does one go to find a Taleban commander? You don't see many at the supermarket checkouts in Kabul with their 'I'm a Taleban commander. Would you like to interview me' T-shirts on.
Si.
This rickets thing -- I'm with anth in being fairly sure it isn't a new resurgance of the condition, nor even a recent one, though that isn't just from having listened to the pm report.
It's something that has been being occasionally mentioned in my hearing at intervals for at least the last twenty-five years. The context has always been 'people who are used to more sunshine than we get in England *must* be taught that their traditional diet is suited to a sunny climate, and in this country it needs to be supplemented with extra sources of vitamin D or their children may get rickets', and as well as turning up in conversations with health-care professionals I'm fairly sure has been mentioned in specialist medical journals too. I can't believe that this would have been happening if there were no case-histories for evidence! I am not an expert in this field, so if even I have been aware of the potential problem, it must have been around to be noticed.
That's all apart from unfortunate individuals of any origin who may have got it for causes unconnected with a vitamin deficiency, and I do very much hope that David Piper's daughter will respond completely to treatment, not have too much pain or grief from the surgery, and not suffer any long-lasting problems as a result of having had rickets.
Instead of avoiding the programme (Monday to Thursday), I enjoyed it on Friday. Good job! I’d like to nominate Carrie as Eddie’s regular deputy, and will otherwise say no more about it, I think probably..
Why do some individuals use this site for advertising? Is it standard practice or am I missing something important here.
21) Moi? Or the self employed, do you mean? Or everyone selling there own credo/hotel?
Enlightenment needed here, please.
Advertising Kendo? I feel I am missing something here -- who is advertising? I don't see any advertisements! Unless you mean that in the "all stories are adverts" sense?...
Aperitif. I refer to the advertising on individual bloggs. For example if i happen to click on some of the names which are underscored i often see some form of advertising displayed.
I know what you mean, kendo (24), but the thing is it is only "if [you] happen to click on some of the names which are underscored". You take the decision to go somewhere else. Yes, some people do use that to advertise their buisness, but that gives you some idea where these people are coming from in their discussion of the arguments. Others use it to advertise their blog site to let you know what they think on a number of subjects. Still others use it to point you to sites relevant to the point that they are trying to make. The point is you need to go out of your way to see the link. It is not down to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ or this site. If you do not want it, do not click on it.
H.
Kendo @24, I see what you mean! I think I find it more useful than anything else, that Si and Ed and Brian are nailing their various colours to the mast; it saves a lot of bewilderment to have some background, now that you have pointed out to me that this is what happens if I click on underlined names. Thank you.
Meanwhile, is anyone else amused by the coincidence that this lass who has taken her school to the High Court for not allowing her to wear the insignia of a particular organisation that claims to be religious (now, when she is over 16 and doesn't have to go to school at all, and after she has taken her GCSEs: love the timing too...) just happens to be the daughter of the couple who run this particular organisation in this country? Or did I get that wrong, and they are just 'area organisers' for it? Does anyone happen to know how large the area they organise is?
Funny that, eh?
You mean people not only read these entries but click the link? I thought we just posted out of sadness and read our own. Wow.
I didn't really mean at 26 that I find links more useful than anything else -- obviously a loofah is more practical for some purposes -- I meant that I find them to be more useful than I find them to be otherwise. I don't object to their being self-advertisement, or advertisement for goods or whathaveyou: I don't have to read what I find there, after all. I don't even have to click the name.
Barrie @27, read our own what? Posts or websites? If posts, should that be before or after we click on 'submit this comment'?
Chris;
Advertising; I've stopped using my weblink recently. I got a couple of nice comments early on, which was nice to have. But I also got some spam which tried to make me a Marxist (the idea is laughable, believe me!). By diverting me to a site which was knocking out some fairly crudely assembled propaganda videos, a la YouTube, etc.
In the same way Ed I., for example, will never convert me to his philosophy, and I've voluntarily browsed most of what I can see on his website. I mean no disrespect when I say that his ideas, whilst noble and profoundly reasoned, will not become mainstream until society is willing to change in the way he suggests. His time may come, but I don't expect to be around to see it. Right now they seem rather Aquarian in tone.
Besides, no-one in their right mind should ever book me for photography on the basis that they bumped into my website. There's more to that decision than seeing a few pictures. So I never regarded it as advertising in the first place.
Si.
Kendo (24), I see. Ditto what Humph said at 25 -- no one is actually advertsing right here.
Mr Fish (28) Re I didn't really mean at 26 that I find links more useful than anything else -- obviously a loofah is more practical for some purposes
Hahahahaha! Is your real name Paul Merton by any chance??? Thanks for the laughter before bedtime! :-)
Chris It is the only business advertising which struck me as odd in this context. I expected the majority view to reflect the ´óÏó´«Ã½ 'line' and I'm not disappointed. However, I do find the advertising
detracts somewhat when I read an individual bloggs
Kendo, and Si too I think -- my position is that in general I don't ever object to people telling me about something they are doing *themselves*, like their own stage performances or that by-the-way they make swords and mail for re-creation groups or embroider teacloths or whatever it is they do: that's part of the picture of the person, as far as I am concerned, and seems to be all that there is in most of the personal links from here.
On other advertising I think we are agreeing: I do find it fairly icky that many of the places one can use on the Net insist on inserting advertisements down the edges of one's own text, and telling one's friends about the wonders of some random firm that sells a product one has never used and never will. But I don't *blame* the individual for the bad behaviour of the ISP. Some quite reasonable people use Gmail, for instance, and that not only inserts advertisement, it looks at incoming email to decide what advertisements to insert in the email sent back, which is downright wrong to my mind but if I refuse to write to the person using Gmail I lose out. So I just start my letters to them with the word 'v*agr*' to see how low Gmail is prepared to sink...
Aperitif -- not guillty. It wasn't me, I mean I wasn't him, I was somewhere else at the time and anyway nobody saw me and you can't prove it. Some words are intrinsically silly, and 'loofah' is one of them, so that may have deceived you.
"Loofah" yes, along with "Chimp" and "Spatula"... now, where have I heard this before?...
Aperitif @ 33 -- I'm sorry, I haven't a clue.
Barrie (27),
Big wry grin!
Si, I'm apparently very saggitarian, but I do like water, but not enough to have ever seen a kingfisher. It's usually to midgie in the places I might hang out to see them.
I don't expect any utopias in the near times, but quite a few alternate dystopias loom. Still, I'm allright, Jack! I'm back in the garden of eden but my fridge is full of well-travelled food.
As to self-advertising, Barrie has it. The internet is the ultimate in Vanity Publishing for the incurably vain. Of the seven deadly sins, most if not all are actually manifestations of Pride, Hubris, etc. Enter the vanity zone, but another aspect as was mentioned is to point folk towards other thinkers one admires, and some seem to want to be sort of librarians, e.g. www.dieoff.org
(prepare a stiff drink)
Si, Is utopian?
xx
ed
THINKERS! Where are they.
And, from our American cousins, some musings on the .
Part of our continuing service.
xxd
Poor typist, I aapologise! ;-(
Kendo @ 36 -- I think Rodin's one is in an art gallery somewhere.
36)
Hello Kendo. I'm worn out, comrade. what do you think??? And once you tell us, do you think that will be the end of it!? My drivel usually comes just before bed.
Hi Ed I. Will have to catch your linx later, so don't move them.
Greetings to all Froggers, have a nice evening.
xx
I'm a malicious tyranter!
Ed;
Is it utopian? In a word, yes. A simple tax levied on the area of land owned, replacing all current taxation, if I understand correctly? What about farmers, the National Trust(s), Government ownership (MoD is the second largest land owner in the U.K.). Most substantial landowners would look to divest themselves of their holdings, liquidating them into cash or other mobile and non-taxable assets.
But who would be willing to buy, knowing they will be liable for taxation on their ownership? Few people, I suggest. A collapse in the value of land prices would lead to a fall in the (admitttedly overpriced) value of houses in the U.K. (because the single most important factor in setting house prices is the cost of the land).
With house prices falling many people who have paid stupid money to purchase will default and hand the keys back, especially those first-time buyers who have borrowed extravagantly to purchase in the first place.
Since most British people's sole or largest source of wealth is their home ownership this would lead to a collapse in consumer confidence and a likely recession.
Abolishing Corporation tax would lead companies in an all-out drive to maximise profits at any cost, knowing that they will no longer pay tax on them. That would lead to a severe clampdown on costs, i.e. unemployment, since the wage bill is often a companies single biggest cost. That will accelerate offshoring even more than it already is, driving jobs out of the U.K. into low-cost nations. Cutting the U.K. workforce will enable companies to slash their premises, thereby reducing the tax bill on their landholdings and achieving a double plus for them, if not their former employees who see the value of their property ownership fall, leaving them in negative equity as their jobs disappear.
I predict a large exodus by those who can afford to leave, leaving the lower strata of society to clean up the dregs of whatever is left. Smart move? I think not.
Surely you can come up with something better than this simplistic one-size-fits-all rubbish?
Si.
May I correctly correct the twice mistyped one?
Gahhhh!
xx
ed
Hello Si,
I hope you heard John H's piece about social mobility on 'Today' because I think you can provide the perfect counterpoise to my own thoughts.
What I think John did, and I know it's only part 1, was make demands that capitalism cannot satisfy. Can we have a more equal society under present economic circumstances? You know where I'm coming from, and I won't even use his name in your presence(!), but the view of yourself, if you did hear the program, I would be keen to read. Just a link would do, if you can be bothered.
Thanks in anticipation, and have a good Frog.
JP
Si, "A simple tax levied on the area of land owned, replacing all current taxation,".
No. on the bare site value. Obviously this is raised by community-added elements - services, neighbourhood, etc., which all lead to unearned windfall to anyone fortunate enough to own sites which can obtain planning permission, etc.
"A collapse in the value of land prices would lead to a fall in the (admitttedly overpriced) value of houses in the U.K."
As Lord Reith said, "Anything wrong with that?"
"What about farmers, the National Trust(s), Government ownership (MoD is the second largest land owner in the U.K.). Most substantial landowners would look to divest themselves of their holdings,"
Farmers' land would be valued in respect of it's site value, unencumbered by community-created added value. Any value added, e.g. buildings, cultivation, etc. remain untaxed. In the present system value added by investment of already-taxed money is taxed again.
If the 'substantial' landowners you mention were to divest themselves, would that not be a good thing? At present in Scotland 2/3 of the privately owned land is in less than 1300 ownerships, many of them absentee/corporate and thoroughly unfriendly to local health, e.g. Highland Spring.
"I predict a large exodus by those who can afford to leave,"
Balanced by the vastly increased number of folk who could afford to stay? Our place cost £15,000 in 1973. It's now worth near a million. Is that sensible or fair? We don't have mains water or sewage, but we do get refuse collection and the roads are maintained and there's a village nearby and we have a tremendous spot... I'd be happy to pay a tax based upon the site's value, even if it were higher than the current price. Especially if it went DIRECTLY to local governance.
Read some Henry George.
xx
ed
And if nobody engages in utopian thinking, may the Gods save us from the very obviously coming dystopias.
JPA;
Yes, ´óÏó´«Ã½ are covering this topic all week. What struck me more than anything was the singular measure for social mobility, viz. do you earn more in real terms than your parents did? This directly equates financial mobility with social mobility, which is simply wrong.
Sad that the measure is so narrow, and that the notion has been perverted in this way. A man like Hattersley can become a peer, Major is a Garter Knight, both from working class backgrounds. Isn't that a measure of social mobility far more relevant than how much you earn?
Sadly I didn't hear much of the Humphreys 'Return to Splott' package, since it started as I rolled up to work this morning. You're suggesting, in the context of your weblink, that he propounded a Marxist state as the solution?
Can we have a more equal society? Probably not, frankly. One would have to ask what is meant by equality? Like it or not society assigns different status to different jobs. Each is deserving of our approbation for doing the job required of them in a professional manner. A binman and a FTSE-100 CEO have equal value as human beings, but are remunerated in vastly different ways.
To rectify that without violent revolution, which would require the imposition of a police state to maintain the new status quo (as in USSR or China) would require a wholesale change in the hearts and minds of men. It might be achieved, but only over a long period of time and where are the keys to effect the change? How can society be thus changed to a neo-Utopian ideal?
I happen to believe that part of the reason for society's current ills is that everyone at school is taught that if they reach out then the world is theirs to take. It takes no account that there is only one Prime Minister, but thousands of binmen, as a crude example. Society needs a structure, it needs people working at every level to the best of their abilities.
But people seek quick fixes. They queue for a shot at 'X-factor' to get their crack at stardom and celebrity. Being famous has become an end in itself. One might call this the 'Jade Goody syndrome' perhaps. It's no longer required to be outstandingly accomplished, talented, learned or brave. Heros are no longer great scientists, poets, soldiers, statesmen, but 5-minute wonders from 'Big Brother'.
Or having a bit of trouble in your marriage/relationship. Call in the quick fix. Bin it and try another one, and another, and another.
Children want everything handed to them on a plate, they are incapable of providing their own creative entertainment, they seek it through the TV remote or the games console.
And when they don't have the success and fame they are told is awaiting them the disillusion sets in. That is the catalyst for the breakdown in society and the rise of drug culture. People without hope turn to other methods of getting the high they seek.
So I believe that society needs structure and realistic education and realistic expectations. What I do not believe is that the state should ever impose a solution from the top down. It should provide the minimum safety net, that's all. It should set frameworks and let people with the talent and ability come up with the solutions, not dictate how every last detail should be done. The NHS and education systems are suffocating under a deluge of central diktat because of exactly this approach.
People have natural aspiration, that should be given free rein, but in a context of what is realistic. There has to be a way of identifying genuine talent and letting it find its natural level. Therein lies the key to real social mobility. Real mobility permits a kid like Damon Buffini to become one of the most powerful men in British business. We could argue over the way his company operates, but he is a startlingly good illustration of social mobility.
The sadness of Socialist politics is that in seeking to place everybody at the same level, which is laudable, but when it fails to find ways of raising up the lower echelons it seeks to chop down the higher level instead. And its only criteria is wealth, in cash and asset terms. You have more than me, so I will make you hand it over to me, then we can both be the same.
And the hypocrisy is overwhelming. As a prime example we are told that Cherie Booth, QC, is far more of a genuine Socialist than her husband. But when did you last see her redistributing her wealth to succour the poor and underprivileged? Au contraire, she seems bent on acquiring as much as possible for herself, playing on her husbands occupation to do so. And she is far from the only example of champagne socialism.
You and I may never see eye-to-eye on the politics of it, but oddly we probably both want the same thing as an end-goal. And I look forward to friendly and reasoned debate with you on any matter in future.
Si.
Ed;
To answer Lord Reith; Yes. Britain has one of the highest rates of home ownership in the world. For many people their home is their source of wealth and their nest egg for retirement. A sharp decrease in the value of your house directly impacts these things and causes economic downturn. It shakes consumer confidence right to its core. You'll probably find that most people would consider that a bad thing.
Sale of land might be a good thing, if someone wants to buy. And it only has real economic value if it be used for building, industry or agriculture. During an economic downturn caused by a fall in property prices no-one will have the spare cash to buy it. And no-one will be able to borrow on their negative-equity property to fund it either. Where's the money going to come from? The rich? Nope, they're the ones selling.
If jobs disappear, income falls and wealth, measured by asset value falls, who is going to want to stay? Only those who are trapped by inability to make an exit. And what jobs will they do? Where is their source of income when British companies have sent their work overseas to save on costs and boost profits in a non-Corporation Tax environment?
In a new economy it might stand a chance, but in a mature economy like the U.K. it's an absolute non-starter. Trying to shift from our complex tax system to this would never get the green light for fear of the economic damage it might cause.
Sir Thomas More engaged in the original Utopian thinking centuries ago. We are arguably farther away from that than ever.
Si.
Si,
Your arguments remind me of a junkie's excuses, a refusal to examine any change due toi the perceived impossibility of doing without that to which he has become addicted. In this case, it's money. in another closely related case, it's energy in ever increasing dosages, for which, like a junkie, we will kill or do anything else necessary to secure the next fix, even though the end of all such fixes is clearly in sight.
So all hail the invincible !
xx
ed
btw, the economic collapse is coming anyway. There is only so much consumption which can be supported by the present ballooning festival of personal and government debt.
Push!!
I guess anything suggesting we reconsider The Economy's status as a diety would logically get moderated.....
xx
ed
Yup! It's malicious as well as heresy!
Berry again, of course
Ed;
As always I live in the world as it really is, not as I would like it to be.
What's the alternative? Living in a false reality, believing that I have that answers to the worlds ills, wondering why the rest of mankind doesn't understand that I am a true prophet, is a recipe for misery and despair.
Which soon turns to disgust at the lesser beings who won't put me on the pedestal which I am sure that I am entitled to. So I rail at them for their lack of foresight and their small-mindedness, their lack of vision, their greed, their venality and their corruption.
You will never win people's heart and minds by talking down to them and belittling them. And so long as you do not engage with them your message is lost and your purpose futile. Fail to answer their genuine questions and you appear high-handed, disengaged and even arrogant. You will convert no-one by dictating to them the error of their ways, they will simply shrug you off and go on their way, convinced that it is you who are the fool, not themselves. It might even be counter-productive.
Of course money is the modern religion, and instant fame its creed and bible. Why else would so many be willing to make idiots of themselves on a TV game show. To get the fame, or notoriety, which allows them to tap into the source of wealth. Anything which threatens that fame also threatens the wealth and income. I offer in proof 'Posh' Beckham and the afore-mentioned Jade Goody.
You have to have had it and lost it to realise that it's all worthless anyway. My good income from I.T. didn't save my marriage once my ex realised that even I couldn't afford the ever-expansive lifestyle she aspired to. Real wealth is revealed in those who care for you when you are at rock-bottom.
So what of the current state of existence, which you bemoan? People seek escape from the humdrum of daily life. Modern existence is seemingly inescapably lousy and tedious. Everything costs, everything has a cash value. But we want our foreign holidays. We want our big-screen TV's and DVD's. We work increasingly longer hours to earn the money to pay for our escapes from.... the increasingly longer hours which we work! It's a self-fulfilling problem.
Because we earn more money the price of goods, commodities and services rises to soak up our extra income. So we work harder to earn more, so that we have something spare, which then gets soaked up by further price rises. Or alternatively we find new things to spend that extra income on. So we don't have any extra left over at all. So we work longer hours....
And because we work longer (and the British work the longest hours in Europe) we have less time for cooking real food, for making our own entertainments. We have less energy to expend on making entertainment for ourselves. So we seek escape in effortless relaxation. Which means big-screen TV, DVDs, multiplex cinemas, games consoles, holidays (more than one if possible) and so on. But we have to pay for all these things, so we work longer hours.
Of course it's insanity. We are trapped in a mesh (a Matrix, perhaps?) of interlocking hamster wheels, with no way off, except for the brave (or the insane as we masses like to think of them) who fling themselves from the mesh to find an alternative way. People like yourself. But because you dare to be different, because you see the problem, because you chide us we regard you as slightly daft, and example of British eccentricity no matter your origins. And it's easier for us to stay on the wheels and look askance at you, rather than listen to what you say.
And of course a collapse is coming. They invariably do, either as world recessions like the Wall St collapse, recessions like that of the early-90's or as 'market corrections', like the dotcom bubble bursting. Most people stay on their wheels and keep grinding away, knowing they will almost certainly come out of the other side with only slight damage.
Here is but a snippet life today with all of it's imperfections. You and I could write a hefty book about all this, from different viewpoints. But no-one would buy it, or if they did they wouldn't read it. Like 'A brief history of time' or the Dawkins book. And my ego couldn't handle being remaindered and pulped.
Si.
P.S. Can you quote from other prophets apart from Berry, Emerson, Thoreau and the Dao de Ching. Please? I'm sure that they are very informative, but there must be many more sources worth hearing from, with equally valid points of view.
Hello Si,
This is for you. Just a few names seem to monopolize this 'blog, and the moderator has to read every word!!! If you use the link, the owner is neither responsible for the content and he does not have to read every word of our rants!
Thanks, Eddie.
J P Allen (50), Interesting, but I think it would have been fine for you to post that here, and so balance some of the other views, you know...
Si,
I'm sorry if you find me condescending. I hope it ain't so. I undertook studies in Human Ecology
only to be confronted by the fact that most of my heroes seemed to be dead and male. The
extant literature is of course weighted in that direction.
I delved somewhat into feminine writers, but still can't discard my elder male mentors. You'll find some mention of feminist writing at my namelink, and just for fun:
"The more clearly we can focus our attention
on the wonders and realities of the universe about us, the less taste we shall have for destruction
-- Rachel Carson © 1954
Hypothetical questions get hypothetical answers.
-Joan Baez
There is hope if people will begin to awaken that spiritual part of themselves, that heartfelt knowledge that we are caretakers of this planet. - -- Brooke Medicine Eagle
Cleaning your house while your kids are still growing is like shoveling the walk before it stops snowing.
-- Phyllis Diller
The rooster crows but the hen produces.
-- anonymous
If you really want to be lonely, get married.
-- Gloria Steinem
Any intelligent woman who reads the marriage contract and then goes into it, deserves all the consequences.
-- Isadora Duncan
This grand show is eternal. It is always sunrise somewhere; the dew is never all dried at once; a shower is forever falling; vapor ever rising. Eternal sunrise, eternal sunset, eternal dawn and gloaming, on seas and continents and islands, each in its turn, as the round earth rolls.
--Muir
Prosperity depends more on
wanting what you have
than having what you want.
Ten two letter words to live by:
If it is to be it is up to me.
O wad som pow'r the giftie gie us,
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
an' foolish notion.
--Robert Burns
To iterate is human, to recurse, divine.
xx
ed
No Ed, not condescending. I'm sorry if that's the way it came across. It's more complicated that I can really explain.
More like, idealistic and thoughtful, but disconnected from the lives of the majority. Passionate in belief, but highly selective in sources.
Many people might feel like they are on that wheel, most simply accept it as a fact. It's so ingrained that they would feel panicked at the thought of getting off. What will they do then? How will they make their way in the world? These are real fears for people, which you fail to answer. Simply telling people that they are destroying the world through greed will never get the message across. It's more convenient to ignore the messenger and the message.
You have to show them how they can do the right thing without fear of the consequences. That changing their lives is not to be feared. That they are not 'worse off'. If that is impossible then the cause is lost anyway. Unless you can persuade people to sign up willingly and make the changes you can achieve nothing.
No-one I know of in the green lobby has really achieved this yet. There has been some success on the organic farming front, too much in fact so that we cannot supply our own needs but must import, which kind of destroys the principle behind the idea. Prince Charles has been banging on about this for decades, and for much of that time he was a prophet without honour. Now the idea is filtering into the mainstream.
All enviro-topics are in the same boat. We know the message, but fear the impact on our lives more than the results of doing nothing. Get people across the fear barrier and you win. Fail and you lose. The outcomes are as stark and simple as that.
Si.
Thanks Appy, but it's very disheartening to bare your soul, but have it unpublished as it will offend many. If we ever come anywhere what I was ranting about, 'they' will 'silence' the likes of myself. Democracy won't come in to it, Bourgeois or otherwise. Have a good Frog. x
Useless!
The above should be '..come anywhere NEAR....'
x