Thursday, April 24, 2008
"WHITES ONLY"?
At Harry’s Place there’s a story about a council which introduced male "Muslim only" swimming sessions or not as the case seems to be. But in the course of trying to ascertain from the staff whether that was indeed the official policy or not, HP’s writer
Is he serious? I find this quite intriguing. They really would? Perhaps someone should alert the BNP. That said in a way of course it's the only logical destination multiculturalism* will end up in. If one were a white supremacist who is the government, the public or the law to tell me that "white separatism" is not the authentic expression of my "culture"? And if we're using taxpayers money to foster arbitrary expressions of particularistic sub-sections of society, why not this one too? Well . . . ?
Of course it's bollocks.
And that's exactly the problem with multiculturalism.
* Before anyone has a go at me about opposition to multiculturalism being racism I should point to this standard definition of the term, which says that multiculturalism denotes
I only use it in the second meaning. Otherwise the term multiculturality would be correct, which is entirely uncontroversial and in effect only a statement of fact. I'd add to that, that when I use the term multiculturalism I don't mean just support or maintenance of sectional identities, but the pressurising nature usually employed to do so (see the above example), almost invariably coupled with the refusal to support to unifying ones.
At Harry’s Place there’s a story about a council which introduced male "Muslim only" swimming sessions or not as the case seems to be. But in the course of trying to ascertain from the staff whether that was indeed the official policy or not, HP’s writer
asked him whether Clissold Leisure Centre would institute Whites Only swimming for racists. His answer was that they would, if there was sufficient demand.
Is he serious? I find this quite intriguing. They really would? Perhaps someone should alert the BNP. That said in a way of course it's the only logical destination multiculturalism* will end up in. If one were a white supremacist who is the government, the public or the law to tell me that "white separatism" is not the authentic expression of my "culture"? And if we're using taxpayers money to foster arbitrary expressions of particularistic sub-sections of society, why not this one too? Well . . . ?
Of course it's bollocks.
And that's exactly the problem with multiculturalism.
* Before anyone has a go at me about opposition to multiculturalism being racism I should point to this standard definition of the term, which says that multiculturalism denotes
[t]he characteristics of a multicultural society; (also) the policy or process whereby the distinctive identities of the cultural groups within such a society are maintained or supported
I only use it in the second meaning. Otherwise the term multiculturality would be correct, which is entirely uncontroversial and in effect only a statement of fact. I'd add to that, that when I use the term multiculturalism I don't mean just support or maintenance of sectional identities, but the pressurising nature usually employed to do so (see the above example), almost invariably coupled with the refusal to support to unifying ones.
Labels: nation
Friday, July 13, 2007
RACIALLY AHEM
So, further to this story about banning racist TinTin books, Tim Worstall has a good example of food that would probably not be marketed like this in the UK . . . .
Which brings me neatly to my own humble contribution: In Germany you can buy an ice cream from supermarkets called Nogger (yes, I had to read it twice too). Chocolate ice cream, as if it needed saying. Looking for some clear images of it, I stumbled upon this somewhat unfortunate historical record. Could be worse, though I'm not sure how? Ok, I guess if he was seen next to it, or eating it, might be worse. Though just to finish this, an animal in Heidelberg Zoo is called Nogger - a monkey, in case your wondering.
Seriously though, I'm not really sure when I look at this and Worstall's example, are we Brits a little too uptight and overly sensitive or is it -in this case- the Germans and Portugese who are a little off?
So, further to this story about banning racist TinTin books, Tim Worstall has a good example of food that would probably not be marketed like this in the UK . . . .
Which brings me neatly to my own humble contribution: In Germany you can buy an ice cream from supermarkets called Nogger (yes, I had to read it twice too). Chocolate ice cream, as if it needed saying. Looking for some clear images of it, I stumbled upon this somewhat unfortunate historical record. Could be worse, though I'm not sure how? Ok, I guess if he was seen next to it, or eating it, might be worse. Though just to finish this, an animal in Heidelberg Zoo is called Nogger - a monkey, in case your wondering.
Seriously though, I'm not really sure when I look at this and Worstall's example, are we Brits a little too uptight and overly sensitive or is it -in this case- the Germans and Portugese who are a little off?
Labels: nation
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
OLIVER "AFFLUENZA" JAMES: HAS HE HEARD OF DURKHEIM?
This may strike readers as a polemical question, but it is kind of genuine. I am not going to bother disentangling James's various points about the link between either "selfish capitalism" and inequality and mental illness or however he wants to put it exactly (see here for more). What I haven’t seen in the debate that’s been on the blogs and in the papers the past week or so, but it may of course be in the book, is the wider reason for the problem of "affluenza", i.e. affluent societies suffering from high rates of mental health problems.
This may strike readers as a polemical question, but it is kind of genuine. I am not going to bother disentangling James's various points about the link between either "selfish capitalism" and inequality and mental illness or however he wants to put it exactly (see here for more). What I haven’t seen in the debate that’s been on the blogs and in the papers the past week or so, but it may of course be in the book, is the wider reason for the problem of "affluenza", i.e. affluent societies suffering from high rates of mental health problems.
And that’s why I ask whether James has heard of Emile Durkheim. Durkheim is often considered the founding father of sociology. His seminal and defining work was on the most extreme outgrowth of mental health problems, Suicide. Durkheim ignored any individual factors leading people to commit suicide, and rather looked at the statistical likelihood of suicide occurring in a given group of people or under specific circumstances. The common view on suicide was, and I suppose still is, that it is done by people who are having a hard time so to speak. But Durkheim had a look at the evidence and found the data showed a slightly different picture, although much of it seems received wisdom these days. Suicide is more likely in cities vs villages, married vs unmarried, childless vs parents, involved in clubs vs not involved in clubs . . . even societies at peace vs societies at war.
What Durkheim distilled from this is that what increased the likelihood of suicide wasn’t about objective hardships, but rather more due to people feeling unconnected to others. Durkheim termed this anomie; later this has also been termed individuation and other sociological terms . . . but the point remains, that the less people feel connected to others around them, the more likely becomes suicide, and by extension the more likely other mental illnesses.
What Durkheim distilled from this is that what increased the likelihood of suicide wasn’t about objective hardships, but rather more due to people feeling unconnected to others. Durkheim termed this anomie; later this has also been termed individuation and other sociological terms . . . but the point remains, that the less people feel connected to others around them, the more likely becomes suicide, and by extension the more likely other mental illnesses.
So what drives mental illness on the bigger level is this lack of community sense. Now, it is perfectly possible to argue that "selfish capitalism", particularly as practiced in Anglo-Saxon countries increases this decline of community feeling. But I wonder if that’s really the case? The Unicef study on childhood wellbeing -also out recently- found for example that the UK and the US at the bottom of the pile were joined by France. As usual the Scandinavians came out on top. So, let's run Durkheim's approach along this. One of the obvious differences is size: compare the small Scandinavian countries and compare them to the fairly large and populous France, Britain and America. The bigger a society, the more complex it inevitably becomes, and the more complex the more anomic it will become. This has a cultural dimension to it as well. The big three are countries that due to their internal structure, their history and their present role on the world stage have far raging and often painful debates about national identity and connected issues (from anecdotal evidence much more than the Scandinavians do). These debates inevitably put the national community into question, thus potentially weakening it, thus increasing anomie. In addition, and I hope this doesn’t come across the wrong way, France, Britain and America are societies that are culturally very diverse, and certainly more diverse than the Nordic ones. Again this possibly lowers the strength of community.
Are these factors negligible compared to income inequalities, as some seem to believe? I’m not so sure. I tend to take the view that cultural problems have cultural causes and need cultural solutions. I don’t for example think that multi-cultural societies need to be lacking in community, nor do I think that the same has to apply to societies with high-powered capitalism.
I don’t find there’s an entirely obvious answer to the problem of high incidences of mental illnesses in our societies. Particularly I find it hard to see how state intervention to redistribute income will make much of an impact. But perhaps I’m not quite on top of this yet?
Right, that’s Professor timmyhawk’s lecture for this week. And for next week: figure out how to fix this problem!
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
"COMMUNITY" ALERT
I don't know about my readers, but in 99% of all cases I can't stand the use of the word "community" in the political context. There's something gooey and unspecific about it that ticks me off. In any case it's normally a PC-word to say group of people. For my most recent encounter check this out, from the DfES' December 2006 Consultation Report: Languages Review, p.13:
I don't know about my readers, but in 99% of all cases I can't stand the use of the word "community" in the political context. There's something gooey and unspecific about it that ticks me off. In any case it's normally a PC-word to say group of people. For my most recent encounter check this out, from the DfES' December 2006 Consultation Report: Languages Review, p.13:
2.29 In the adult community there is a healthy interest in languages.
Words fail me. Adults form a "community"? Give me a break!
Thursday, January 18, 2007
OUR UNION - REALLY IN DANGER?
I can’t quite rid myself of the feeling that I am the only one who feels 300 years of British unity is something good and worth being happy about. There’s been so much bad blood been flowing about the future of the nation these past weeks and monthy, with a level of ill will towards each other I wouldn’t have thought possible. So I am heartened to see that not everything is perhaps quite that dire: Peter Riddell and Nick Robinson both suggest that may be less appetite for ripping the Kingdom apart than superficial glances would suggest. Yay to that!
I can’t quite rid myself of the feeling that I am the only one who feels 300 years of British unity is something good and worth being happy about. There’s been so much bad blood been flowing about the future of the nation these past weeks and monthy, with a level of ill will towards each other I wouldn’t have thought possible. So I am heartened to see that not everything is perhaps quite that dire: Peter Riddell and Nick Robinson both suggest that may be less appetite for ripping the Kingdom apart than superficial glances would suggest. Yay to that!
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
ANTI-SEMITIC TORY NUT
Stephen Pollard has a good reminder why it took me so many years to join the Conservative Party. What else can one possibly say about it? I would add that he once also so fit to conjure up images of Nazis-likeness againt the European Central Bank. In fact it might have been more appropriate for him then to say that Israel’s actions are akin to introducing the euro without a referendum. Bizarre? You say!
Stephen Pollard has a good reminder why it took me so many years to join the Conservative Party. What else can one possibly say about it? I would add that he once also so fit to conjure up images of Nazis-likeness againt the European Central Bank. In fact it might have been more appropriate for him then to say that Israel’s actions are akin to introducing the euro without a referendum. Bizarre? You say!
Labels: Conservatives, EU, Israel, nation
Friday, February 17, 2006
WHAT A DOUR WEEK
I should be blogging properly on all of this, but it’s not so much anger but despair that marks my reaction to what’s been going on in the past days. Where to start?
ID cards. Has anybody anywhere seen anything resembling a convincing argument that we actually need these breathing licenses? Sure their cheerleaders have argued well, if not convincingly, that they won’t turn this country into a police state and that they won’t bankrupt us. And that’s it. And some of the cheek they use in their arguments - just consider our probable future prime minister:
I should be blogging properly on all of this, but it’s not so much anger but despair that marks my reaction to what’s been going on in the past days. Where to start?
ID cards. Has anybody anywhere seen anything resembling a convincing argument that we actually need these breathing licenses? Sure their cheerleaders have argued well, if not convincingly, that they won’t turn this country into a police state and that they won’t bankrupt us. And that’s it. And some of the cheek they use in their arguments - just consider our probable future prime minister:
This week has shown us to be in the last stages of intellectual decadence: ID cards are necessary, said Gordon Brown on Monday, "as a protection of people's individual civil liberties". A more dishonest justification for the extension of state power cannot be imagined.
More shocking abuse in Iraq . . . well not really. We get a journalistically indefensible running of abuse image of Abu Ghraib. Why this qualifies as “news” escapes me, as it’s the same incident, the same day, that we have already worked through and it offers nothing in the way of new evidence. The only thing it does is provide material to the opponents of the Coalition. It’s almost like the responsible media want us to lose this war . . .
And as for our own boys, am I missing something here? I only read about it and didn’t see the images so I was expecting something disturbing. So I was rather dismayed to see the whole furour was kicked up only about a few troops in rather desperate circumstances kicking and hitting a little too much during an arrest. Admittedly, too much is too much and it is necessary for disciplinary action to be taken. But given the circumstances of an mob assault on the Army base, a mere few kicks and hits are pretty mild to the possible alternative of machine gunning the crowd. Again, this abuse only really shows again how we remain on the moral highground even if we lose the PR battle.
Which moves us on to the smoking ban. What to make of that? Is this fox hunting for pubbers? I don’t really see how this can be popular, or why we need it. In consequence pubs will wither lose customers, or change their licences to being private premises. As for people who don’t go to pubs, and who are probably the majority backing this move, they’re not going to be showing up in Ye Old Rose anytime soon. The only change is that now we have to waste the resources of public order on implementing this idiocy. What a day for limited government.
The final straw I think was the bizarre Dick Cheney shooting incindent. Sure, given that the victim seems in good shape, it’s certainly worth a giggle and some jokes in satire shows, but can anybody give me any reason why this was given whole minutes on prime time British tv news? Or why does it warrant any real attention? It’s all beyond me. It does however, along with the above raise questions about the competence of the journalistic profession.
All in all I just feel that sensible argument is just being lost.
Labels: defence, economy, Iraq, law & order, media, nation, politics, society
Saturday, January 14, 2006
THE DECLINE OF TRADITION, TODAY: CRISPS
In an article in the current Economist on changes in Britain's dietary behaviour, particularly the decline in traditional crisp consumption, this made me laugh:
In an article in the current Economist on changes in Britain's dietary behaviour, particularly the decline in traditional crisp consumption, this made me laugh:
Sales of premium products such as Kettle Chips and Walkers Sensations increased between 2002 and 2004, and low-fat crisps sold better too.
True to form, Golden Wonder's response was flatfooted. It used posters ridiculing a top-selling Kettle flavour: "Crushed sea salt and balsamic? That'll be salt and vinegar then." Guess who's laughing now?
Actually, I', still laughing; laughing that people really fall for that poncy stuff. "Balsamic" on crisps! Come on. Ok, so I do concede that it tastes different. It tastes really healthy. And no, that's not a compliment. Yukkk. Crisps shouldn't be wholesome. True taste, refined style and tradition demand it. . . .
Labels: nation
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
BRITAIN’S SELF-DESTRUCTION CONTINUES
That Sir Michael Rose, eh? I wonder if anybody is surprised by today’s news that he’s joined in the chorus of “impeach Blair!”. I’m certainly not. According to Sir Mikey, Blair “mislead” Parliament and the public over invading Iraq. There are arguments I can’t be bothered to enter into anymore, and this is certainly one of them. But there is something else going on here. Even if there was more truth in Rose’s claims that I can see, what on earth does he think he’s doing? He’s not going to achieve anything positive or constructive.
On another revealing wider point, his argument about wmd, where do you link to, if you want to refutation of that view? In the US it’d be fairly easy, and this piece is the first that comes to mind. But from a British perspective? I can’t off my head reading anything in, say, the Spectator, that made a similar argument about Britain’s war. Where are our hawks? (Even if they go ott.)
This only reflects the sheer and ever growing lack of nerve by the “great and the good”, of which a former general should be considered a member. Increasingly I get the feeling that the British establishment is losing its sense of political seriousness.
It is after all one thing thinking that invading Iraq in 2003 was a bad idea, it is quite another beating the anti-war drum long after the decision has been made and our troops are in the field. The only thing that will achieve is in undermining public support for a war that can’t be made undone anymore. In turn this saps away at the troops’ morale. Think about it, would you want to be a soldier risking his life in Iraq, when at home everybody’s saying that you shouldn’t be there and we’re going to lose anyway and everything you’re doing is a waste of space et al? No? Neither would I.
I find this episode all the more disappointing because Sir Michael Rose is a former general himself. He could at least counterbalanced his complaints about the political procedure prior to the invasion with a few strong words of support for his former colleagues.
And Britain sinks a little more . . .
That Sir Michael Rose, eh? I wonder if anybody is surprised by today’s news that he’s joined in the chorus of “impeach Blair!”. I’m certainly not. According to Sir Mikey, Blair “mislead” Parliament and the public over invading Iraq. There are arguments I can’t be bothered to enter into anymore, and this is certainly one of them. But there is something else going on here. Even if there was more truth in Rose’s claims that I can see, what on earth does he think he’s doing? He’s not going to achieve anything positive or constructive.
On another revealing wider point, his argument about wmd, where do you link to, if you want to refutation of that view? In the US it’d be fairly easy, and this piece is the first that comes to mind. But from a British perspective? I can’t off my head reading anything in, say, the Spectator, that made a similar argument about Britain’s war. Where are our hawks? (Even if they go ott.)
This only reflects the sheer and ever growing lack of nerve by the “great and the good”, of which a former general should be considered a member. Increasingly I get the feeling that the British establishment is losing its sense of political seriousness.
It is after all one thing thinking that invading Iraq in 2003 was a bad idea, it is quite another beating the anti-war drum long after the decision has been made and our troops are in the field. The only thing that will achieve is in undermining public support for a war that can’t be made undone anymore. In turn this saps away at the troops’ morale. Think about it, would you want to be a soldier risking his life in Iraq, when at home everybody’s saying that you shouldn’t be there and we’re going to lose anyway and everything you’re doing is a waste of space et al? No? Neither would I.
I find this episode all the more disappointing because Sir Michael Rose is a former general himself. He could at least counterbalanced his complaints about the political procedure prior to the invasion with a few strong words of support for his former colleagues.
And Britain sinks a little more . . .
Labels: defence, Iraq, media, nation, politics
Thursday, December 22, 2005
MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY HANUKKAH
As you may have noticed I am far to busy in my real life to do any regular posting at the moment so I figured I might as well take a proper break until real-world issues have been decisively dealt with. That means I will not be back until Monday, January 9.
I am as always bemused by the arguments being traded over Christmas. There are some Christians who complain that the event has lost its religious meaning. I don’t find that quite convincing as the real Christian festival is Easter after all: And on the third day he rose again . . . and all that. That’s the key to Christianity. Christmas is really more a social and cultural event, a festive occasion to bring families together. Of course I am not downplaying Christmas’ religious meaning. I am simply saying that the event is more about family, rather than faith. That said, for me the two are strongly bound together, and I am sure many will agree with me. I think the reason for that is that Christianity’s core message, is also what ties us to our families: the combination of duty and love.
Normally I don’t go for this multi-culti-stuff, but I thought here’s a good political reason to include a Happy Hanukkah this year. Also, the coming year sees the 350th anniversary of the return of the Jews to these shores.
I am not going to wish readers a happy new year, because frankly, it’s a meaningless event. That’s not to disparage it though: after all, the dearth of meaning is surely the whole attraction of it.
Wishing you all a good following days, whatever you make of them.
As you may have noticed I am far to busy in my real life to do any regular posting at the moment so I figured I might as well take a proper break until real-world issues have been decisively dealt with. That means I will not be back until Monday, January 9.
I am as always bemused by the arguments being traded over Christmas. There are some Christians who complain that the event has lost its religious meaning. I don’t find that quite convincing as the real Christian festival is Easter after all: And on the third day he rose again . . . and all that. That’s the key to Christianity. Christmas is really more a social and cultural event, a festive occasion to bring families together. Of course I am not downplaying Christmas’ religious meaning. I am simply saying that the event is more about family, rather than faith. That said, for me the two are strongly bound together, and I am sure many will agree with me. I think the reason for that is that Christianity’s core message, is also what ties us to our families: the combination of duty and love.
Normally I don’t go for this multi-culti-stuff, but I thought here’s a good political reason to include a Happy Hanukkah this year. Also, the coming year sees the 350th anniversary of the return of the Jews to these shores.
I am not going to wish readers a happy new year, because frankly, it’s a meaningless event. That’s not to disparage it though: after all, the dearth of meaning is surely the whole attraction of it.
Wishing you all a good following days, whatever you make of them.
Labels: Church, nation, religion
Monday, December 05, 2005
FAIR PORTRAYAL OF MUSLIMS IN BRITISH MEDIA
Well I suppose it had to happen some day. David t at Harry’s Place has the story. Whilst it may be the remaining liberal do-gooder instinct in me that are the main course for my occasional concern over the vilification of Muslims, I think right-wing hawks should bear in mind that this matters a lot. Think about some of the arguments raised against the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Very prominent amongst them was the idea that these military actions were going to inflame Muslims to the extent that hordes of terrorists, including within our own country, were to be unleashed on the world. That is nonsence of course. But it’s an argument that has a lot of traction for the simple reason that the only British Muslim voices that are giving space in the msm are those of extremist nutters like Abu Hamza, or the often mealy mouthed apologists from self-declared community representations. The latter may say no to terrorism, but, well, there’s always a but. A but that often implies that the terrorists actions may be sort of wrong, but that their arguments were basically right; just a bit misguided the chaps. If this image of seething Muslim masses that are incapable of operating their own independent critical faculties to reach individual moral decisions, were true (which it isn’t), I can see that the best course of action in fighting terror would indeed be to lie low and hope you don’t get noticed.
But if you agree that the best way to fight terror is by confronting and facing down the enemy, with all means necessary, then it is obviously necessary to counter the myth of the mad and wild Muslim hordes. For if people believe in this myth they will be unwilling to shoulder the burdens of fighting a war that in their minds would unwinnable and best avoided. Of course by not acting against terror cells you actually let them grow as we saw with bin Laden’s gang in the 1990s.
So, by believing the racist mythology that there’s a jihadi lurking behind every Muslim neighbour, you actually increase the chances that it will be so.
Well I suppose it had to happen some day. David t at Harry’s Place has the story. Whilst it may be the remaining liberal do-gooder instinct in me that are the main course for my occasional concern over the vilification of Muslims, I think right-wing hawks should bear in mind that this matters a lot. Think about some of the arguments raised against the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Very prominent amongst them was the idea that these military actions were going to inflame Muslims to the extent that hordes of terrorists, including within our own country, were to be unleashed on the world. That is nonsence of course. But it’s an argument that has a lot of traction for the simple reason that the only British Muslim voices that are giving space in the msm are those of extremist nutters like Abu Hamza, or the often mealy mouthed apologists from self-declared community representations. The latter may say no to terrorism, but, well, there’s always a but. A but that often implies that the terrorists actions may be sort of wrong, but that their arguments were basically right; just a bit misguided the chaps. If this image of seething Muslim masses that are incapable of operating their own independent critical faculties to reach individual moral decisions, were true (which it isn’t), I can see that the best course of action in fighting terror would indeed be to lie low and hope you don’t get noticed.
But if you agree that the best way to fight terror is by confronting and facing down the enemy, with all means necessary, then it is obviously necessary to counter the myth of the mad and wild Muslim hordes. For if people believe in this myth they will be unwilling to shoulder the burdens of fighting a war that in their minds would unwinnable and best avoided. Of course by not acting against terror cells you actually let them grow as we saw with bin Laden’s gang in the 1990s.
So, by believing the racist mythology that there’s a jihadi lurking behind every Muslim neighbour, you actually increase the chances that it will be so.
Labels: Islam, media, nation, religion, terrorism
Saturday, December 03, 2005
TIME FOR A CONSERVATIVE ANTI-RACISM APPROACH?
Now I know that the headline alone will give many conservatives the creeps, but I think this is something that requires some thought. That liberals and the left have a somewhat formulaic anti-racism agenda is undeniable. That this agenda is fed by a Gramsci-inspired loathing of “normal” society, which sees a culturally hegemonic group using a discourse of oppression against “the Other” is something I don’t need to point out to anyone who doesn’t share this world view. Often the right, whether conservative or not, has just dismissed anti-racism politics as socialism-by-other-means. There is certainly a point to be made, that particularly the BBC has a tendency to only give treatment to racist incidents in which the perpetrators are native, white and nominally Christian. This has certainly been the view voiced by Laban, DumbJohn and others.
But that can’t be it. We can’t just say, because the left has so far monopolized this field of policy, the right shouldn’t touch it. This is even more indefensible given that the leftwing approach to combating racism is not going to work in the long-run. We are after all an increasingly multi-cultural society, so racism that doesn’t exclusively originate from white English men is going to be an increasing issue. Non-whites can be racist too, you know. And there is no reason to think that this would in any way be directed against whites either. The recent rioting between blacks and Asians in Birmingham is a good case in point. Conservatives can’t just pretend the problem doesn’t exist. It’s time we had something serious to say ourselves.
One thing that got me thinking was this post by Clive Davis that made it clear again, if it ever needed to be, that the left is right when it says that bigotry excludes. If you normally scoff at this sort of thing, think about how you feel at attempts to dilute and distablish any vestiges of traditional Britishness. Then accept that someone of minority background will feel the same when he is confronted by bigotry. What is always happening in these instances is that people are being excluded from the group they belong to. And this is where the Left gets it wrong.
So what group are people being excluded from here? The nation. And what’s the Left’s answer? Destroy the nation. Being polemical here, but there it is. Anti-racism should really be all about national unity, natural conservative territory. Conservatives in future should play more on this point. This is after all a big issue and a great potential strenght. It is something this country seems to long for from time to time. And I think it is fair to say that a lot of racism stems in fact from insecurities about national identity, so this policy approach is effectively coherent as well.
Time to flesh this out then.
Now I know that the headline alone will give many conservatives the creeps, but I think this is something that requires some thought. That liberals and the left have a somewhat formulaic anti-racism agenda is undeniable. That this agenda is fed by a Gramsci-inspired loathing of “normal” society, which sees a culturally hegemonic group using a discourse of oppression against “the Other” is something I don’t need to point out to anyone who doesn’t share this world view. Often the right, whether conservative or not, has just dismissed anti-racism politics as socialism-by-other-means. There is certainly a point to be made, that particularly the BBC has a tendency to only give treatment to racist incidents in which the perpetrators are native, white and nominally Christian. This has certainly been the view voiced by Laban, DumbJohn and others.
But that can’t be it. We can’t just say, because the left has so far monopolized this field of policy, the right shouldn’t touch it. This is even more indefensible given that the leftwing approach to combating racism is not going to work in the long-run. We are after all an increasingly multi-cultural society, so racism that doesn’t exclusively originate from white English men is going to be an increasing issue. Non-whites can be racist too, you know. And there is no reason to think that this would in any way be directed against whites either. The recent rioting between blacks and Asians in Birmingham is a good case in point. Conservatives can’t just pretend the problem doesn’t exist. It’s time we had something serious to say ourselves.
One thing that got me thinking was this post by Clive Davis that made it clear again, if it ever needed to be, that the left is right when it says that bigotry excludes. If you normally scoff at this sort of thing, think about how you feel at attempts to dilute and distablish any vestiges of traditional Britishness. Then accept that someone of minority background will feel the same when he is confronted by bigotry. What is always happening in these instances is that people are being excluded from the group they belong to. And this is where the Left gets it wrong.
So what group are people being excluded from here? The nation. And what’s the Left’s answer? Destroy the nation. Being polemical here, but there it is. Anti-racism should really be all about national unity, natural conservative territory. Conservatives in future should play more on this point. This is after all a big issue and a great potential strenght. It is something this country seems to long for from time to time. And I think it is fair to say that a lot of racism stems in fact from insecurities about national identity, so this policy approach is effectively coherent as well.
Time to flesh this out then.
Labels: Conservatives, nation
Friday, November 11, 2005
REMEMBER . . .
. . . .the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month . . .
. . . .the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month . . .
Sunday, November 06, 2005
MORE NOTES: AZERIS VOTE, GUY FAWKES, IRAQ INQUIRY, TROOP MORALE AND QUIZZES
Very busy in my real life at the moment so still no proper posts . . .
Very busy in my real life at the moment so still no proper posts . . .
There are elections in Azerbaijan today. The Economist has a good primer on this, Katy of blogrel is there now and Eurasianet is a good source for incoming news. This is quite an important event in a region whose strategic relevance has grown due to oil and being in the neighbourhood of Iran and the Nastystans. How the elections run today will have important ramifications. Ideally the elections will run smoothly and be fair. This in turn will enable the country to reform, make Western engagement such as military bases acceptable and help a peaceful resolution of the Karabagh conflict with Armenia. If this doesn't happen, and there is a real risk of this, there are two basic scenarios that are problematic. If incumbent holds on to power illicitly and the West stays, we will be compromising our moral standing and credibility. On the other hand, if we pull out, this might heighten the propensity of the Azerbaijan regime to seek a military solution to the conflict with Armenia. Needless to say such a war would be catastrophic for all involved but that's never stopped unstable dictatorships from going down that route for their egos and to cement crumbling regimes at home. As long as there is Western engagement in the region and the country, the West will try to quell any war as this would be deeply damaging to our interests. So I think we have a bit of a dilemma to solve if the current regime hangs on to power. (As for solving the Karabagh conflict, the first rule that outsiders should lay down and enforce would be one of absolute non-violence. And whichever side violates the ceasefire should then be treated as an illegitimate aggressor.)
Remember, remember, the fifth of November . . . The 400th time this year round. Clive Davis has some disappointing observations to make. Certainly the past five years the tradition of Bonfire Night has been pretty hollowed out. While I was at uni there was not a single event, but there were countless Halloween parties. I have nothing against Halloween, seeing as it connects to warm childhood memories, but it is still a shame that it is driving out Guy Fawkes. But that's the thing you see, if you abolish or downgrade national traditions like that what you end up with is not some bold global humanist utopia but rather more you will end with the resulting vacuum being filled by the commercially most available alternative. And that will normally be American for better or for worse. (I wrote an essay on Guy Fawkes' enduring relevance yesterday, but the footnoting went awol so you'll have to wait a little for that.) On the other hand, as our penchant for turning everything into a booze-fuelled mess, we all know what any festivities in this country tend to descend to . . . ;)
By the sounds of it so far this looks like an Iraq inquiry that makes sense: The failure to plan for the aftermath is likely to be at the heart of the committee’s inquiries now that Iraq is in the grip of a violent insurgency, says the Tory MP Douglas Hogg, one of the inquiry’s architects and who is canvassing support for the move.
For once we might actually get an investigation into the management of the war, particularly the post-invasion planning, rather than the endless and irrelevant arguments about wmd.
Sticking with Iraq, news is in that the stress levels of our troops have now reached those of World War Two. Things must have got much worse in Iraq, right? Well, not quite. It's mainly down to a fear of being prosecuted for killing an insurgent. The trial against seven Paras that collapsed this week is a good case in point. Despite no credible evidence for wrongdoing and witnesses who were allegedly being paid to make stuff up, it is fairly bizarre that the whole sordid affair could be drawn out for more than two years. DumbJohn is on form on this.
And now: quiz time! Oh dear, again? I hear you poor reader groan, but I'm having too much fun with this:
Sticking with Iraq, news is in that the stress levels of our troops have now reached those of World War Two. Things must have got much worse in Iraq, right? Well, not quite. It's mainly down to a fear of being prosecuted for killing an insurgent. The trial against seven Paras that collapsed this week is a good case in point. Despite no credible evidence for wrongdoing and witnesses who were allegedly being paid to make stuff up, it is fairly bizarre that the whole sordid affair could be drawn out for more than two years. DumbJohn is on form on this.
And now: quiz time! Oh dear, again? I hear you poor reader groan, but I'm having too much fun with this:
| You Are 50% Boyish and 50% Girlish |
You are pretty evenly split down the middle - a total eunuch. Okay, kidding about the eunuch part. But you do get along with both sexes. You reject traditional gender roles. However, you don't actively fight them. You're just you. You don't try to be what people expect you to be. |
Although not immediately apparent fromt his blog's politics, but in my real life this is probably quite true:
| Your Hidden Talent |
 Your natural talent is interpersonal relations and dealing with people. You communicate well and are able to bring disparate groups together. Your calming presence helps everything go more smoothly. People crave your praise and complements. |
Labels: Armenia, Azerbaijan, blogging and the blogger, defence, Iraq, nation, USA
Thursday, October 13, 2005
THE FUTURE OF BRITAIN - THE CHALLENGE
As I mentioned before, Richard North's paper on military technology integration has now been published by the Centre for Policy Studies. North has an article in the Spectator introducing his work which means it has at last a slight chance this issue will get into the wider debate. As I have said before, this is THE most important issue the UK is faced with. Our future as a sovereign indepedent nation state rests on how we answer the problems that North outlines. However you feel about the issue, you must give it some thought; even though I admit this is not always as exciting an issue for everyone as it is for me. But remember, if we lose our ability to carry out military operations independently from the EU, we have lost our sovereignty. Sovereignty is after all the ability to decide over war and peace.
Links: Here's the CPS press release, a summary of the report and you can download the full paper
As I mentioned before, Richard North's paper on military technology integration has now been published by the Centre for Policy Studies. North has an article in the Spectator introducing his work which means it has at last a slight chance this issue will get into the wider debate. As I have said before, this is THE most important issue the UK is faced with. Our future as a sovereign indepedent nation state rests on how we answer the problems that North outlines. However you feel about the issue, you must give it some thought; even though I admit this is not always as exciting an issue for everyone as it is for me. But remember, if we lose our ability to carry out military operations independently from the EU, we have lost our sovereignty. Sovereignty is after all the ability to decide over war and peace.
Links: Here's the CPS press release, a summary of the report and you can download the full paper
here.
Go hence and read it. That's an order.
Go hence and read it. That's an order.
Labels: defence, EU, nation, politics
Thursday, September 29, 2005
THE DECLINE OF BRITISH TRADITION, TODAY: TEA
Apparently a lot of people are unhappy with the quality of tea being served in Britain. No really? How long did it take to discover this? Strangely, leaving aside the odd traditional tea room in the countryside, this has been a well known fact for years. Or at least to me it has. But you know, the solution is fairly simple: don’t drink the stuff. Myself, I love tea, preferable black, so I am not bashing tea drinking here. But there is little point in trying to ignore reality and insist on drinking tea when being out and about. As a coffee hater, I always turn to hot chocolate or fruit juices when I go to cafes. So if you don’t want to be disappointed, just follow my example and keep your tea drinking at home. Or alternatively, if you have the time and the drive, open your own proper tea shop. Or, if you’re really ambitious, why not set up a whole chain? A sort of Starbucks for tea?
Also, pretty dispiriting is the spread of herbal and fruit “teas”. Yes, I know their healthy, but come on, not that healthy and they taste weakly. Not the stuff the Empire was built on, I say ;)
Though I have to say actual consumption of tea looks pretty strong to me:
Apparently a lot of people are unhappy with the quality of tea being served in Britain. No really? How long did it take to discover this? Strangely, leaving aside the odd traditional tea room in the countryside, this has been a well known fact for years. Or at least to me it has. But you know, the solution is fairly simple: don’t drink the stuff. Myself, I love tea, preferable black, so I am not bashing tea drinking here. But there is little point in trying to ignore reality and insist on drinking tea when being out and about. As a coffee hater, I always turn to hot chocolate or fruit juices when I go to cafes. So if you don’t want to be disappointed, just follow my example and keep your tea drinking at home. Or alternatively, if you have the time and the drive, open your own proper tea shop. Or, if you’re really ambitious, why not set up a whole chain? A sort of Starbucks for tea?
Also, pretty dispiriting is the spread of herbal and fruit “teas”. Yes, I know their healthy, but come on, not that healthy and they taste weakly. Not the stuff the Empire was built on, I say ;)
Though I have to say actual consumption of tea looks pretty strong to me:
On average every person in Britain drinks three cups of tea a day
Although those statistics could be skewered by people like me, who drink at least three pots o tea a day . . . Time to put the kettle on!
Labels: nation
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
SLOPPY REPORTING, TODAY: THE TIMES
(As a blogger it should of course be my duty to rap the msm over the knuckles noe and then, and this is certainly a duty I have neglected. But betterment begins today.)
The Times reports today on a study which claims that Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side':
(As a blogger it should of course be my duty to rap the msm over the knuckles noe and then, and this is certainly a duty I have neglected. But betterment begins today.)
The Times reports today on a study which claims that Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side':
RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.
According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.
The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.
. . .
“The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”
I have my doubts. Either way, the report in the Times is not actually helpful is it? For the most interesting aspect for me would be the question, why a decrease in religiosity would improve society causally. Simply listing statistical correlations, which is the only part of the research the Times reports here, doesn’t really get us very far in understanding the problem. I haven’t read the full article yet so at the moment, so I can’t make any statement about the article’s utility or otherwise. What I want to criticise here is they way that the Times’ religion correspondent Ruth Gledhill has reported the academic article (or maybe it was editor’s cutting?).
Her story doesn’t show up the possible causal connections between atheism and a good society made by the academic Gregory Paul. Equally she doesn’t ask or query what his statistics show or don’t show. Undoubtedly on a lot of indicators such as murder and abortion, the comparatively secular European societies perform better than the more religious US. At the moment that is. What I would need to know as a reader though is, what the rates of change are. That is what really matters. Religion has rebounded in America in the past two decades, while it has kept floundering in Europe. How have the indicators developed in that period? Did Paul make a difference between people in the US who (re)embraced religion and those who didn’t? Did the study look at differences between people who believe in the existence of God and people of a religious mentality? The two are not the same, certainly not for me. Did the study take into account other factors that would influence society’s wellbeing, such as character and extent of a welfare state?
I only mention these factors, not to disparage Paul’s research which may have serious political, social and cultural implications, but simply to question the quality of the Times’ report. Without taking stock in any way of the issues about methodology I raise above the article is clearly of little informative value. Additionally I wonder why Gledhill reports no criticism of the article which there surely is. Was there no time? Surely this news story was not such a priority that it couldn’t incorporate different views on the subject due to time constraints.
The disappointing conclusion is that the Times shouldn’t have run the article. Instead of enlightening its readers, it simply provides a possibly misleading first impression, and thus makes its readers less well informed than if the page had been left blank.
(More to follow when I have done my homework and actually read the study. . . )
Her story doesn’t show up the possible causal connections between atheism and a good society made by the academic Gregory Paul. Equally she doesn’t ask or query what his statistics show or don’t show. Undoubtedly on a lot of indicators such as murder and abortion, the comparatively secular European societies perform better than the more religious US. At the moment that is. What I would need to know as a reader though is, what the rates of change are. That is what really matters. Religion has rebounded in America in the past two decades, while it has kept floundering in Europe. How have the indicators developed in that period? Did Paul make a difference between people in the US who (re)embraced religion and those who didn’t? Did the study look at differences between people who believe in the existence of God and people of a religious mentality? The two are not the same, certainly not for me. Did the study take into account other factors that would influence society’s wellbeing, such as character and extent of a welfare state?
I only mention these factors, not to disparage Paul’s research which may have serious political, social and cultural implications, but simply to question the quality of the Times’ report. Without taking stock in any way of the issues about methodology I raise above the article is clearly of little informative value. Additionally I wonder why Gledhill reports no criticism of the article which there surely is. Was there no time? Surely this news story was not such a priority that it couldn’t incorporate different views on the subject due to time constraints.
The disappointing conclusion is that the Times shouldn’t have run the article. Instead of enlightening its readers, it simply provides a possibly misleading first impression, and thus makes its readers less well informed than if the page had been left blank.
(More to follow when I have done my homework and actually read the study. . . )
Labels: media, nation, religion, society
Monday, September 26, 2005
THE FUTURE OF BRITAIN
I will flag this up, when it's released, but there's news that Richard North's paper on EU defence integration will be published soon. And this is not before time. EU Referendum blog has been tracking how the development of new military technolgies and doctrines is putting the UK in a position, where one day we will have lost all ability for independent military operations and planning. While it has become almost a cliche to say that Britain sort of stands between the US and Europe, in this instance the Government has pretty clearly made the decision to throw our lot in with the EU. North shows, how the changes in military operations, coupled with the industrial policy of EU-over-US procurement, will mean that in the near future it will become impossible for British forces to fight alongside US forces. So, whatever happens diplomatically, we can only fight together with EU forces, and increasingly only with the permission of other EU governments. The possible consequences of this could be catastrophic for the future of our country. To be clear, this process of EU defence integration, as it is now, will determine Britain's future. Full credit to North and the CPS for taking this issue up and providing a proper study. Perhaps this will wake up the otherwise sleepy UK media to pay some attention to this development, which they have so far ignored (stories on Kate Moss are sooooo much more important, or more lurid tales on how Bush bungled teh Katrina-response, hardly a vital issue for Britain's national interest and future, etc.). Undoubtedly this is caused by a pretty ramshakle defence reporting, in itself an oddity, given the British public's large appetite for military-related stuff. The papers, at least the serious ones, really need to get their act together on this.
I will flag this up, when it's released, but there's news that Richard North's paper on EU defence integration will be published soon. And this is not before time. EU Referendum blog has been tracking how the development of new military technolgies and doctrines is putting the UK in a position, where one day we will have lost all ability for independent military operations and planning. While it has become almost a cliche to say that Britain sort of stands between the US and Europe, in this instance the Government has pretty clearly made the decision to throw our lot in with the EU. North shows, how the changes in military operations, coupled with the industrial policy of EU-over-US procurement, will mean that in the near future it will become impossible for British forces to fight alongside US forces. So, whatever happens diplomatically, we can only fight together with EU forces, and increasingly only with the permission of other EU governments. The possible consequences of this could be catastrophic for the future of our country. To be clear, this process of EU defence integration, as it is now, will determine Britain's future. Full credit to North and the CPS for taking this issue up and providing a proper study. Perhaps this will wake up the otherwise sleepy UK media to pay some attention to this development, which they have so far ignored (stories on Kate Moss are sooooo much more important, or more lurid tales on how Bush bungled teh Katrina-response, hardly a vital issue for Britain's national interest and future, etc.). Undoubtedly this is caused by a pretty ramshakle defence reporting, in itself an oddity, given the British public's large appetite for military-related stuff. The papers, at least the serious ones, really need to get their act together on this.
Labels: defence, EU, nation, USA
Sunday, August 21, 2005
THOUGHT FOR SUNDAY
CONNECTIONS, CONNECTIONS - LIBERALISM, PLASTIC SURGERY AND SUCH
Two items this week, not superficially immediately linked to each other caught my attention and got em thinking if they're not in fact about something very similar.
First up, Blimpish has this great posting on the relationship between liberalism and patriotism. It's a great posting and I urge you to go and read all of it. But basically this is what I'm interested in right now:
CONNECTIONS, CONNECTIONS - LIBERALISM, PLASTIC SURGERY AND SUCH
Two items this week, not superficially immediately linked to each other caught my attention and got em thinking if they're not in fact about something very similar.
First up, Blimpish has this great posting on the relationship between liberalism and patriotism. It's a great posting and I urge you to go and read all of it. But basically this is what I'm interested in right now:
This is a big part of my problem with the current 'values' fetish: it's a symptom of liberal horror at embracing a particular, parochial tradition. As discussed here, the same problem afflicts the Tory leadership campaign - they all line up to say how patriotic they are, but it's only now that a few have made noises about the specific roots of British identity besides vague, abstract values that could be claimed by anybody in the West.
The second piece is by Jo Anne Nadler in the Groan about the return of Bridget Jones. Again, only this short bit is relevant for my posting here:
If a man is what you are after, the message from her diary is to be yourself and ultimately you will have one - or even two competing for you. And in the workplace too, Bridget's lesson is that real personality wins out over contrived perfection.
Sadly it appears that Jones's real-life contemporaries find the conclusions of her fictional story too saccharine. It seems that we don't have sufficient self-confidence to believe that we deserve such happy endings, unless we are as glamorous as celebrities. According to women in their late 30s surveyed for this month's Top Santé magazine, celebrity culture has made men's expectations of women too high. As a result, we feel increasingly obliged to diet, and to submit to makeovers and even cosmetic surgery, to impress men in the bedroom and the boardroom.
It is certainly true that increasing numbers of women, and men, are bringing about a boom in a cosmetic-surgery industry now worth about £300m a year.
At a first glance the two don't immediately connect to each other, right?
What all these two snippets have in common I think is the issue of accepting oneself as oneself or not, and particularly what to do, when you're dissatisfied with yourself, or part of your identity. In a way the liberal running away and trying to submerge his affection for his country into some vague, undefineable abstract such as "tolerance" and the woman (and man too, these days) who tries to change bodily appearances by surgery are doing something quite similar - they are trying to gloss over the essence of their being and their uniqueness.
Now, it is entirely ok to be dissatisfied with certain aspects to one's identity; perhaps xenophobia in one's own country, or having bad skin or whatever. We will always be bound to feel that things could be better, a feeling that is one of humanity's strongest impulses; after all without it, we'd still be hanging in trees eating bananas. (On second thoughts, I love bananas, so perhaps that wouldn't be such a bad thing. . . .ok, ok, but I think you get my point.)
But you know, things are as they are. It is simply self-loathing to want to change the basic givens, whether it be by in the act of turning your country into a set of abstract nouns, or by submerging it into a soulless and meaningless "European" state project, or by having your nose shape reset by plastic surgeons. This kind of self-loating is of course a simple mirroring of an approach of unthinking chauvinism or the kind of people who take no care whatsoever with how they present themselves to their fellow beings or what they do with their lives; you know the type, who seem to do everything to be as unhealthy and visually unappealing as possible, where you can palpably sense the depressive self neglect.
It is clear to see, that these two attitudes are very negative and self-destructive. The better way is of course to accept wholeheartedly those things we can't change, so we can then focus on real self-improvement. Patriotism is an affection that we have for our country, when we feel connected to its fate and also responsible for where it goes and what gets done in its name. Patriotic people vote for example; non-patriotic people will simply shrug their shoulders and say "whatever", after all they don't feel it has anything to do with them. It is similar on the level of personal psychology. Low self-esteem doesn't lead people on a course of improving their lives and what they dislike about them, but rather it drives them either into despairing passivity (with tv and fast food addiction right round the corner), or to frantic attempts to cover up their own identity and to be turned into somebody else.
I sometimes get the impression that there is a trend that these kind of negative approaches have spread. Undoubtedly this has many factors, but what weighs heavy on my mind on a Sunday is certainly the Christian element. Anglicanism once offered a framework in which the more positive approach was centred. By accepting the inherent imperfection of humankind, sometimes extrapolated out to evil, the C of E managed nonetheless to instill in people enough self-worth as God's creatures that they were motivated to better themselves.
All of which brings me on to last week's Economist (yes yes I should stay up to date more), and its article on George Bush's "muscular Christianity":
What all these two snippets have in common I think is the issue of accepting oneself as oneself or not, and particularly what to do, when you're dissatisfied with yourself, or part of your identity. In a way the liberal running away and trying to submerge his affection for his country into some vague, undefineable abstract such as "tolerance" and the woman (and man too, these days) who tries to change bodily appearances by surgery are doing something quite similar - they are trying to gloss over the essence of their being and their uniqueness.
Now, it is entirely ok to be dissatisfied with certain aspects to one's identity; perhaps xenophobia in one's own country, or having bad skin or whatever. We will always be bound to feel that things could be better, a feeling that is one of humanity's strongest impulses; after all without it, we'd still be hanging in trees eating bananas. (On second thoughts, I love bananas, so perhaps that wouldn't be such a bad thing. . . .ok, ok, but I think you get my point.)
But you know, things are as they are. It is simply self-loathing to want to change the basic givens, whether it be by in the act of turning your country into a set of abstract nouns, or by submerging it into a soulless and meaningless "European" state project, or by having your nose shape reset by plastic surgeons. This kind of self-loating is of course a simple mirroring of an approach of unthinking chauvinism or the kind of people who take no care whatsoever with how they present themselves to their fellow beings or what they do with their lives; you know the type, who seem to do everything to be as unhealthy and visually unappealing as possible, where you can palpably sense the depressive self neglect.
It is clear to see, that these two attitudes are very negative and self-destructive. The better way is of course to accept wholeheartedly those things we can't change, so we can then focus on real self-improvement. Patriotism is an affection that we have for our country, when we feel connected to its fate and also responsible for where it goes and what gets done in its name. Patriotic people vote for example; non-patriotic people will simply shrug their shoulders and say "whatever", after all they don't feel it has anything to do with them. It is similar on the level of personal psychology. Low self-esteem doesn't lead people on a course of improving their lives and what they dislike about them, but rather it drives them either into despairing passivity (with tv and fast food addiction right round the corner), or to frantic attempts to cover up their own identity and to be turned into somebody else.
I sometimes get the impression that there is a trend that these kind of negative approaches have spread. Undoubtedly this has many factors, but what weighs heavy on my mind on a Sunday is certainly the Christian element. Anglicanism once offered a framework in which the more positive approach was centred. By accepting the inherent imperfection of humankind, sometimes extrapolated out to evil, the C of E managed nonetheless to instill in people enough self-worth as God's creatures that they were motivated to better themselves.
All of which brings me on to last week's Economist (yes yes I should stay up to date more), and its article on George Bush's "muscular Christianity":
THE phrase "muscular Christianity" is more resonant of Victorian England than modern-day Washington, DC. The idea was invented by British public-school headmasters (most notably Thomas Arnold of Rugby) who believed that a combination of sport and religion could develop the all-important quality of "character".
This kind of practical religiosity has helped turn around many lives with George Bush being the most prominent current example.
This is not really a theological argument about eternal truths, but rathermore an argument about being gratious for the gift of life, and by expressing our gratitude and improving our enjoyment at the same time by making the best of our time. The connectedness to faith that helps in this path, and accepts that problems can be found everywhere, can be conveyed accurately and dramatically as follows:
This is not really a theological argument about eternal truths, but rathermore an argument about being gratious for the gift of life, and by expressing our gratitude and improving our enjoyment at the same time by making the best of our time. The connectedness to faith that helps in this path, and accepts that problems can be found everywhere, can be conveyed accurately and dramatically as follows:
Where’er ye meet with evil,
within you or without,
Charge for the God of battles,
and put the foe to rout.
