I apologise for the rather trite sub-heading but it was a bit of attention grabbing to promote the results of a recent conference called Let Markets Be Markets. It was published by the Roosevelt Institute and had one very impressive line of speakers.
One of the speakers was Simon Johnson of Baseline Scenario fame, a Blog that Learning from Dogs has followed since our inception.
Here’s 8 minutes of Simon pulling no punches.
If you want to read and watch other presentations, then Mike Konczal’s Blog Rortybomb is the place to go.
As this Blog has repeated from time to time, this present crisis is a long way from being over.
In the latest development in his campaign to show how dramatically the Tories have changed, David Cameron has published the party’s first-ever official list of openly gay MPs.
The Conservatives say they have 20 openly gay candidates standing in the Election. Of those, 11 told party chiefs they were ‘happy’ to be named in the first authorised list of gay Conservative candidates.
David Cameron
Homosexuality is no longer – thankfully – a crime. It has always existed and no doubt always will. It is therefore – logically – a normal feature of human society. Isn’t it time to accept it as such and stop flaunting it constantly in the media? Can we not keep private those parts of our lives which are private? Do heterosexuals go around flaunting their heterosexuality?
Why on earth does a potential government-forming party feel obliged to publish lists of people’s sexuality? Why do I suddenly feel as if I am bizarre in thinking that one’s sexuality should be something private? Personally I haven’t got the faintest interest in other people’s sexual inclinations. Like religion, it should be personal and not eternally flaunted in the media.
And it is all illogical. Either homosexuality is normal or it isn’t. If it is (as it is), then why the constant need to bang on about it, as for example in the Tory party? What on earth has it got to do with running the country? Are the Tories supposed to be better-qualified to run the country the more homosexuals they have? Is there a point at which having TOO MANY becomes a negative point? Would they then start to proclaim how many heterosexuals they had? On a personal level, I keep my sexuality to myself. It is nothing to do with you and certainly not with running the country.
It is analagous to sex in the media. It is overdone. The endless superficial titillation and flaunting of sexuality is demeaning of the Human Spirit. Sex is – or should be – a private matter. It’s better that way. It is more mature that way, but the media – and now the political parties – sink to the lowest denominator instead of focusing on what really matters.
Please, please give us some politicians with common-sense.
Which international, taxpayer-funded organisation has an unelected crony of the British Prime Minister in a high-level post (though not the highest) who earns more than the President of the United States and double the salary of Hillary Clinton?
Clue!
Yes, you’re right. It is the European Union. This is an organisation of member states that in principle is supposed to be
Baroness Ashton
about creating a free, democratic and open market in Europe. It has turned into a proto-state (in the eyes of the Brusselocrats) which – therefore – has to have a “Foreign Minister”, in this case Baroness Ashton.
This is a person with very little knowledge of international affairs sent by Gordon Brown to Brussels because he couldn’t afford to lose Peter Mandelson or David Milliband. This is a person never elected to any public post, yet who receives a vast salary and benefits package higher than that of ANY of the Presidents and/or Prime Ministers of ANY of the member states of the EU.
As “The Daily Mail” points out, in addition to this very large salary the Foreign Minister also enjoys an extraordinary raft of other benefits:
“Her basic pay of £250,000 is double that of her U.S. counterpart, Hillary Clinton (who’s on £124,000). And on top of that, Lady Ashton is entitled to a raft of benefits including a £38,000 yearly accommodation allowance, £10,000 annual entertainment budget, two chauffeurs, plus thousands of pounds more in sundry allowances and – if she survives – a pension of £64,000 pa (three times the average salary in Britain) plus a “golden handshake” of over £450,000.”
All this goes hand-in-hand with billions spent on the new EU “diplomatic service”.
But hang on a minute! The EU is NOT A STATE!
The EU has no army! Baroness Ashton as “Foreign Minister” can decide on practically nothing that the key heads of government do not agree to. So what is going on here? Is all this vast waste of public money in a time of financial crisis either A) the bloated pretention of Brusselcrats who have a delusional idea of their own importance or B) another brick in the wall which one day WILL be a United States of Europe.
One can see how the thinking goes: “We’ll set up a “Foreign Ministry” so big and powerful that one day they will just have to agree to creating a single state to justify it. And of course the more it costs, the more important it obviously is and therefore the more powerful we ourselves will be. And naturally, the more jobs there will be for us to go to on the Brussels merry-go-round.
Of course, it is both A AND B. And how can they afford these humungous salaries? Well, because they can get away with it. In theory they are accountable, but in reality? How many people even know who their European MP is? Once you get onto the Euro Gravy Train it disappears out of sight. Nothing the voter says or does seems to stop the bloated upward creep of salaries, allowances and pretentions.
How ANY Brusselocrat can justify such a ludicrous salary for an unelected and essentially unimportant “minister” is a mystery. The main justification seems to be “self-interest”. The EU is NOT A STATE. States have Foreign Ministers.
It is dishonest and amounts to theft of public funds. But that is not the WORST of it. The saddest thing is that it damages the morale of those who – like me – used to believe in a Europe united but not “statefied”. I want a free and open market. I do NOT want a United States of Europe. But this is where they want to lead us, and – like a black hole – each year sees a tiny creep in that direction, or in the above-mentioned case, a BIG creep. I also do not want a venal, money-grabbing, bureaucratic elite in Brussels which makes 80% and rising of British law.
Once again, one wonders if delusional pretentions will bring the whole edifice crashing down and the baby go out with the bathwater …
Who do the Earth’s raw materials really “belong” to?
So once again the Falkland Islands have hit the headlines, and as usual for the wrong reasons. The British have given the green light for oil exploration around the islands and Argentina has resisted by imposing restrictions on shipping movements, if not (yet) an all-out blockade.
Who knows where this one will end? It could either fizzle out or erupt into another full-scale confrontation, since big issues are involved, and none bigger than nationalism, for Argentina claims the islands as “its own”.
The history of the Falkland Islands is long and complex, but the idea that Argentina has any fundamental right to these islands is surreally silly. Argentina is owned and ruled by descendants of the Spanish, who took over the land that now forms Argentina (a state in its own right only since the early 19th c) as part of the European colonisation of the world. By all means let us return the Falklands to their original owners, except that the first people to settle there were French for a start. And if you are going to adopt the principle of returning land to its original owners, then we can look forward to most of the population of Argentina returning to Spain and returning the land to the Indians, can we?
The other argument often advanced is that “the islands are near Argentina”. Well, I don’t know when these people last looked at a map but 300 miles isn’t exactly “near”. But in any case, if we are to adopt nearness as a criteria for the reapportioning of land then I look forward to England once again reclaiming France, a mere 21 miles away. And what on earth is Corsica doing as part of France? But of course France must have the Channel Islands, as they are very near – and so on. “Continental shelf”? “We own the land under the sea?” Go down this route and we’ll need a whole new generation of map-makers.
When all the idiotic, overblown, childish and nationalistic guff (which sadly led to many hundreds of dead in the 1972 war) is stripped away from this debate, we are left with two fundamentals:
the right of self-determination
the way the Earth’s resources are used
As for the first, there have been British people living on the islands since at least 1833. They have – as I believe all people have – the right to determine their own fate. This is called self-determination. Unfortunately, it is a noble principle to which the world all too often pays only lip-service. The nation state has become an entrenched, solidified system, mostly because it confers great power on the leaders of each state, who – especially when democracy has not taken root – use the statehood to advance their own power and megalomania. Statism has for centuries run roughshod over people’s fundamental rights. Iraq was a “state”, but one where the Kurds (denied their own state by British cynicism) suffered cruelly under the jackboot of a fascist psychopath. That the British eventually helped to remove this monster (suffering enormous criticism from in particular the country that inspired the world with its own Revolution in 1789) is only a tiny compensation for the original injustice done to the Kurds. They are by no means alone; minorities all over the world suffer in different degrees from arrogant statism: Tibetans; Basques,; American Indians and Australian aborigines among many others. Yes, injustices were done centuries ago, but you cannot wind back history, or where would it end? How would Europe cope with all those Yanks for a start if they gave the USA back to Sitting Bull’s descendants? Apparently, we all came originally from Africa. Should we all return there and leave our countries empty?
Well, on the Falklands are Brits, and Britain did them the honour of allowing them freely to choose whether they want to be annexed to Argentina. This would in fact give them innumerable advantages, plus of course potentially-disastrous disadvantages. As trust is in short supply, these people prefer not to take the risk and so remain British. That is their right. In refusing to discuss “sovereignty”, Britian is doing no more than strike a blow for self-determination. To give Britain its due, it has pursued the same policy – albeit modestly – towards the (in the eyes of some of them) oppressed Welch, Scots and Irish.
So much for fundamental 1. The Argentinian case is pathetic.
What about the RESOURCES question?
Well, resources are another area where the state jackboot falls with great weight. We all breathe the same air, share the same sun, the same water; but where the stuff under the ground is concerned, it’s every state for itself. Yet casting aside state arrogance, isn’t it ridiculous that state A can derive vast wealth from “its” oil, gold or whatever, while state B alongside it is mired in poverty and misery? So much for “share-and-share” alike. Even belonging to the same race is no help; while some Arabs built extraordinary palaces and Audi Quattros made of solid silver, poor Somalis, Yemenis, and even Egyptians are mired in abject poverty. (Check out this Arab Palace in Dubai, and Mugabe’s presidential palace in Zimbabwe, which is by no means untypical of poverty-stricken Africa)
One day, in a joined-up world which recognizes that we are all brothers, we will share resources “fairly”. Britain could show the way by offering to share any oil resources with – not only Argentina – but all of Latin America (though we could leave out Venezuela …) What a blow for brotherhood that would be!
Mr Sepp Blatter demonstrating how a foot may be placed in a mouth!
John Terry
Sepp Blatter, or Blabber as he is more affectionately known, is never at a loss for words, and generally good entertainment value. However, this week he surpassed himself with a pontification of pretty unsurpassing silliness about the moral values of South-Western Europe.
For those who do not follow the minutiae of British football, John Terry, Captain of the English football team, was unfortunate enough to have his name dragged through the media in connection with his adultery, or as some alleged, serial adultery. Now the question of whether it is anyone else’s business what the Captain of England does in his “private” life is an interesting one, but I am today more concerned with Blabber’s response, and two things struck me about it in particular.
Fifa president Sepp Blatter has claimed that in some countries, John Terry would have been applauded rather than sacked as national team captain for having an alleged affair.
First of all, I am puzzled as to why Blabber feels he can elect himself as spokesperson for the whole of “latin” Europe? He is a football functionary, not a moralist. I must say that had I been latin I would have found his remarks offensive. As an Italian lady was quoted as saying: “If my husband slept with my sister I would not find it in the least amusing or applaudworthy.”
Secondly, let us suppose – for the sake of argument – he was right to say that
Sepp Blatter, FIFA
latins would have applauded Terry’s behaviour. This would mean that the vast majority of European Catholics were totally and utterly hypocritical. After all, “Christians”, nominal or otherwise, still go in vast numbers to churches for weddings, baptisms and funerals, don’t they? Here in Bavaria, whenever you pass someone in the street you say “Gruss Gott.” Is Blabber really saying that all these people just take the easy bits of Christianity and laugh at the tricky stuff, like adultery, rich people and eyes of needles, treating their neighbour as thy brother and so on?
And that IS in effect what he said. Insults don’t come a lot grosser, do they? In fact, this was a DOUBLE WHAMMY. First he insulted all of Catholic Europe and simultaneously he insulted all the Anglo-Saxons by describing the furore over Terry’s philanderings as “Anglo-Saxon in nature”. And of course, the term “Anglo-Saxon” is one of fairly strong abuse, especially among the French elite. This by the way has always amused me, since most of the Germans started off as Saxons, and the Germans are very PC, whereas the British certainly are not PC, even if half of us originally CAME from Saxony!
As for adultery, well, let’s be clear, it isn’t “good”, is it? OK, “There but for the grace of God go I.” , “Let no man cast the first stone”, “Forgive and Forget” and so on, but for society it isn’t really desirable that people should treat their marriage vows as casually as Blabber seems to think half of Europe does, is it?
In Britain for a start (but we are not alone) there is the lowest level of marriages for over 100 years and very high levels of divorce, This isn’t “good” for society, is it? And of course, I’m thinking especially of the children involved.
And when you marry, you make vows. Do these now mean nothing to people like Blabber, who thinks that Catholic latin Europe would laugh at Terry’s adultery?
Well, people in positions of power and responsibility should reflect more before they speak, because many lesser mortals may make the mistake of giving their remarks a credibility they do not deserve.
And of course, the Captain of England is a role model, and – possibly unfairly – not only on the field.
Learning from Dogs 