What Do You Think Today?

[aliantha]

What Av said. We haven't gotten to the point of having CCTV cameras everywhere...yet. Or else they're just not telling us about it.

[peter]

We in the UK have the highest number per cappita of any country in the world. The trouble with all these measures is it's 'a little bit here' and 'a small change there'; lots of little things of small significance in themselves untill one day, the wrong guy gets his hands on the levers of power and then "whumpff" - the whole thing tightens in like a net that you never even realised was there. As the man said [and probably me before in these very pages] by the time you hear the jackboots on the stairs it's too late.

[Avatar]

Change either happens so gradually you don't notice, or so suddenly you cannot react in time.

They're just getting us used to the cameras...

--A

[peter]

It is the duty of every citizen to be ever suspicious, ever critical, and ever vocally out spoken in respect to the acts and motivations of those in power. By this means alone [if indeed it is possible at all] can their behavior be constrained and the future freedom of the masses be preserved.

[Inelegant and crudely obvious I know - but never the less always worth repeating and keeping in mind]

[ussusimiel]

It is the duty of every citizen to be ever suspicious, ever critical, and ever vocally out spoken in respect to the acts and motivations of those in power. By this means alone [if indeed it is possible at all] can their behavior be constrained and the future freedom of the masses be preserved.

Careful, peter, the Libertarians may hear you and come calling. You are singing their song. The next thing you know you'll be sitting in a circle discussing Ayn Rand and waxing lyrical about the transformative wonder that is laissez faire capitalism!

It's nice to know that the liberal part of being a 'liberal' (left-wing/socialist in Europe) includes your statement above. Still, at this stage, the creeping intrusion is so pervasive that I am coming to have sympathy for the absolute position of the libertarians!

u.

[peter]

A year or two ago, my wife and I walked out onto the main road near where we live to find a police man on a walkie talkie studying cars as they drove past him down the road. It was a dark Saturday night [we were on the way to the pub ] and some fifty or so yards down the road a further group of police were flagging down the cars indicated by the 'walkie talkie' man and pulling them into a disused Garage forecourt. Here they were being subjected to further and clearly detailed scrutiny. There were some five or six police vehicles, 20 plus officers including an armed response unit. I live in a small town in west England - not exactly the crime/gangland hub of the country. The following days/week saw nothing of this large police activity mentioned in either localtv news or newspaper. It was as though it had never happened. Now when I was young[er] such a thing would never - could never - have happened. There would have been a huge level of reportage concerning what was transpiring. The police would have had to explain their actions in full as to why they were impeding motorists in the lawfull pursuit of their activities with no observable crime or infringement of the Law having been commited. it is doubt full that such an opperation would have been given the go ahead unless the most serious of situations demanded it. Thus have we changed in a few short decades and thus will we continue to do so unless we ourselves put a rein on it. You don't want to get too hung up about such things but just how far are we from 'the knock on the door in the middle of the night' when we turn a blind eye to such state encroachments of our hard won liberties.

[ussusimiel]

We've spoken about this a good bit in the 'Tank, peter, this is probably a good place to start. Things will always be that bit more extreme in the US, but I think it is a good indication of where we could end up very quickly.

In our discussions in the 'Tank there is a consensus that politicians of both the right and the left are to blame for the steady erosion of our civil liberties. I have regularly characterised it this way: conservatives are always bigger on security and policing than liberals. When they are in power they always expand those powers. When the liberals get in they usually try to rein in police expenditure and pull back some of the infringements. However, when something dramatic happens (like a terrorist attack) the conservatives hammer the liberals for being 'weak' on security. To have a realistic chance of maintaining their standings in elections the left begins to 'harden' on security and also begins to accept curtailments on civil liberties.

The result of this is what I call 'discourse collapse'. For an issue to be the source of discourse/debate you must have at least two sides (more is obviously better), when, due to external pressures, the left and the right come to agree on an issue, it is no longer the source of conflict and debate. So, even if it is obviously still a concern for the public, it gets no airing from politicians (nor from a spavined media ).

Both sides may berate the other's policies while in opposition but once in power they adopt those exact policies. Obama in the US is the most current glaring example of this. He is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate with a 'kill list', an apologist for NSA spying and, however unwilling, the overseer of Guantanamo Bay. It is a shocking and demoralising example of 'discourse collapse'.

The single most impressive aspect of Libertarianism (classic liberalism), for me, is that they have been warning about this all along. Their position may be extreme (as little government interference as possible), but it highlights the danger of allowing the government any power to infringe liberty, because once a little is given creep immediately begins. Creep is okay so long as there is debate and discourse about it. However, once there is no longer any debate there is no longer any real way to curtail the expansion of government powers to infringe on our civil rights.

I'm afraid that because of technological advances Big Brother is more of a real possiblity now than ever before. More than vigilance is required because it is only when this issue becomes a live political one again will it be possible to do anything about it.

u.

[peter]

Nice post U. I won't batter this subject any more [for the moment at least ] because I suspect we are singing from the same sheet here, exept to say that the 'discourse collapse' observation rings absolutely true.

[Here however is another one I would be interedted in your opinion on.]

I came across the idea of 'Lifeboat Earth' the other day really for the first time in it's [shall we say] 'strong' form - and quite shocking it is.

[Actually - I think it might be worth a thread of it's own so I'll post one over in The Close and see what peoples take on it is]

[peter]

Watched Christine Lagarde [Current Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund] give the Richard Dimbleby lecture from London's Guildhall yesterday [recorded from the BBC's coverage a day or two ago].

Her theme was the economic future currently being faced by the world which was, in her view, every bit as challenging as that faced by the world in 1914. She explained how at that time after years of relative peace and stability, the world descended into 30 years of war and chaos, which was only brought to an end by the positive effect of The Bretton Woods Conference held in 1944 in the USA. At this conference the economies of the world were brought back into line by the establishment of the IMF, the World Bank and the United Nations. We are, she said, at just such a pivotal point in our histories right now - and the decision as to whether we respond in the 1914 manner, by tearing the world order apart, or in the 1944 manner, by working together to overcome the massive problems that loom ahead of us and laying the foundations for which we will be cursed, or praised, by our children to come, is entierly up to us.

Her assesment of the major problems effecting future world economic prosperity were broadly of three types:-

i) She said that the massive advances in connectivity [both speed and degree] made individual countries economies ever and ever more interdependant, to the point where ala butterfly effect small pertubations in one place could result in disproportionate effects ramifying through the system as a whole. The increase in the speed and flow of information as well as resulting in the potential for greater prosperity, also increased the risk of potential for discord between nations. She made the observation that WW1 in part could be seen as resulting from the huge rate of change of industrialisation that occured in many countries in the early 20C., and the unbalancing effect this had on the existing dynamic of world power at the time. She saw no less a risk of our current state of affairs in respect to advances in information technology. She saw that the very things that were drawing us closer together, were also paradoxically pushing us further apart in that power was becoming much less centralised in the old sense, as new and previously unknown voices [eg the proliferation of non-governmental agencies] made themselves heard.

ii) The second problem she outlined was that of environmental damage and the ability of the planet to sustain an ever growing population whose demands re living standards would be in all likelyhood greater even than our own. We were, she said, closer to a tipping point beyond which point it would be to late to correct the damage we have done, than most people cared to contemplate. The good news was however, that if [big 'if' I thought] we were able to put self-interest aside and start recognising that the time was upon us to begin thinking and acting globally in pursuit of our economic goals, then there was every reason to supose that we could overcome even this, the most challenging [and never before encountered] test that humanity had faced.

iii) Her third problem was the one that has been bandied around recently by just about everyone from Pope Benedict to Barak Obhama - that of income equality. As with her observations in respect of ecological damage and climate change, well - yes, her observations on this subject were always going to be the common sense ones, always going to be what the conensus view would demand that she said - but with no real teeth as to how to make it happen. She observed that like problem i), we had faced inequality issues across the world before. She quoted Oxfams latest 'soundbite' that the richest 85 people in the world controlled about the same wealth as the poorest 3 and a half billion. It was she said way time that people realised that we were all in this together and that only by all of us raising together, could anything like true prosperity be realised across the whole world. Nothing good could come of the increasing gap in income distribution being experienced across the western world - or indeed by the continuing relegation of women into secondary roles across great swathes of economic activity across the world as a whole. Only by a recognised and universally applied policy of inclusion, both in terms of gender and remuneration at the lower end, could the inequality of income issue be adressed. [Sure, I thought to myself, but when was the last time you heard of a boss walking into his firm and saying 'You Guys need to be getting a better reward for your efforts than you do - I'm going to take a pay cut and up your wages'. George Osborne sad he was going to increase the UK minnimum wage in 2015 and there was the most tortured howl of anguish from the business community. Similarly when Ed Balls said he would re-introduce the 50p rate income tax on earnings over £100,000 [£100,000 mark you] ther was, again rageing and abuse hurled upon him for his rabid destruction of the recovery prospects that this punitive level of taxation would cause. Can you ever see the business community as it stands ever voluntarily submitting to a process of redistribution of wealth downward from the top to the bottom end; it's niaf thinking even thbough I understand the pressure she would be under to say such things.]

So there you have it. It was an interesting talk. I liked her historical review of the different effects of 1914 and 1944 and her paralell to the situation of today. Her review of the chief problems facing the world economy was no doubt accurate and informed; her solutions were [in my view] the rather hacknyed and uninspired commonplaces that I could have scribbled onto the back of an envelope an hour before the event began. But in fairness she can't really be blamed for that; I mean, what else was she meant to say other than 'we all need to work together to sort this out'. It's true yes - but you wonder when somebody is actually going to roll up there sleves and tell us how it is going to be done. Where is our Maynard Keynes when we need him.

[peter]

The Daily Mail pissed me off yesterday when they ran a headline "The great 'statins' debate; foolish pill popping or a true life saver".

Excuse me! People take these theraputic agents at the instruction of their doctor, in whose word they have been led to place great trust. They do not take them out of 'whim' or beyond the knowledge and rccomendation of the health advisors in whom they place their medical care. If there are hidden reasons why they are being prescribed these prophylactic medications outside that which pertains to their best medical interest, then it is the prescribing doctors who should hang their heads in shame, and should justifiably be held to account! There is no 'foolish pill-popping' in this activity what so ever.

[peter]

The Ukranian situation has HUGE ramifications way beyond the geographic location of the Crimea. I hope the guys at the top end of the various players in the 'game' know what they are doing. They would do well to remeber Einstein's quote that he didn't know what the Third World War would be fought with, but he knew what the fourth one would - bows and arrows!

[Iolanthe]

The Daily Mail pissed me off yesterday when they ran a headline "The great 'statins' debate; foolish pill popping or a true life saver".

Excuse me! People take these theraputic agents at the instruction of their doctor, in whose word they have been led to place great trust. They do not take them out of 'whim' or beyond the knowledge and rccomendation of the health advisors in whom they place their medical care. If there are hidden reasons why they are being prescribed these prophylactic medications outside that which pertains to their best medical interest, then it is the prescribing doctors who should hang their heads in shame, and should justifiably be held to account! There is no 'foolish pill-popping' in this activity what so ever.

My husband is on statins. He hasn't had any side effects, unless his sudden need to rush to the loo has something to do with them. We saw the same headline in the Sunday Express!

[ussusimiel]

The Ukranian situation has HUGE ramifications way beyond the geographic location of the Crimea. I hope the guys at the top end of the various players in the 'game' know what they are doing. They would do well to remeber Einstein's quote that he didn't know what the Third World War would be fought with, but he knew what the fourth one would - bows and arrows!

We've been following it closely in the 'Tank for the last number of weeks. We have a Watch member (Effaeldm) who is Ukrainian and her insights have been really important in getting some sort of idea about actually what's going on there.

You are (a) right, berk (peter) , if Putin really puts it up to the West we could end up with a Cold War-like standoff. If Putin humiliates the West (as I have no doubt he is tempted to do) and properly invades Ukraine then the response will be a serious isolation of Russia from Europe and the US. I've no doubt that China and Russia could easily go it alone and ignore the West, but at what cost? Hopefully it won't come to that and Putin will resist the urge to show the world some good old Russian muzhskoy shovinizm (machismo). (Interestingly it looks like the translation is something like 'male flag-waving', seems fairly appropriate!)

u.

[Avatar]

Haha, I thought Effy was a guy.

--A

[peter]

Since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, ten of the twelve new member states of NATO were former Warsaw pact countries that boarder or are extremely close to Russia. All of these now have military bases that in all likelyhood have nuclear capabilities and those capabilities are directed straight at Russia.[The other two states, Croatia and Slovinia {of the former Yugoslavia} probably do to]. The Ukraine as an unalighned state was being actively encouraged in the same direction so it is hardly any wonder that Putin feels he has a vested interest in keeping the country as close to 'home' as possible. This forign policy manouvering to isolate and surround Russia in the last decade and a half does not appear to have featured much in any of the news broadcasts pertaining to the situation unfolding today.

[Vraith]

new member states of NATO were former Warsaw pact countries that boarder or are extremely close to Russia. All of these now have military bases that in all likelyhood have nuclear capabilities and those capabilities are directed straight at Russia

Emphasis mine. That is highly unlikely, though not impossible. What they surely have [I think rules of NATO membership require them to have...at least that used to be so] is aircraft and facilities that are designed to be capable of carrying/launching such weapons. But the weapons themselves?
That's crazy-talk for a host of reasons [but not everyone is sane, so I don't say no way].

[ussusimiel]

Haha, I thought Effy was a guy.

So did I at the start, but then someone suggested otherwise and I have been running with that ever since

If I know Effy's attitude to the possibilities of Internet identities I think she/he would enjoy the ambiguity

u.

P.S. I'm as male as could be, BTW

[peter]

new member states of NATO were former Warsaw pact countries that boarder or are extremely close to Russia. All of these now have military bases that in all likelyhood have nuclear capabilities and those capabilities are directed straight at Russia

Emphasis mine. That is highly unlikely, though not impossible. What they surely have [I think rules of NATO membership require them to have...at least that used to be so] is aircraft and facilities that are designed to be capable of carrying/launching such weapons. But the weapons themselves?
That's crazy-talk for a host of reasons [but not everyone is sane, so I don't say no way].

Yeah - in fairness V. that's probably closer to what is the case than my ill-researched post implied, but in fairness, I am currently seeing the world through a pair of 'Oliver Stone' coloured lenses and believe it or not, the stuff I was spouting above was actually what I was reading in his [and Kuznic's] book on the fall of the USSR and subsequent developments the very night before. Take no notice of me.

[peter]

My local paper insists on diseminating factually inacurate news despite ample time to 'get their story straight'. It concerns the rather exiting occurence in which [and I quote] "Naked Man Found Dead on Local Beach." Let's be clear - the man was *not* naked, he was wearing one shoe [or boot to be absolutely accurate], there is no evidence he was 'washed up' since he was found close by a local 'beach-bar' and finally [as yet unmentioned in any report I have seen] it was a damn naturist beach [well the back-end of it was, if you'll pardon the expression] - being naked was boardering on *de regueur*. Simple clean reportage - how hard can it be!

[edit; Update - it appears the mans underpants were stuffed in his mouth.....er......nasty!]

[peter]

The word I was looking for yesterday, and could not find, was the one that refers to the change of state occuring when a solid object becomes more and more 'sepparated' in nature ie more dispersed. [not 'eroded' or 'erosion' which is a surface phenomena - but as a whole like, if you will, the expanding Universe {only more so}.] The opposit I guess of 'to coalesce'. I eventually used the word 'dissipate' but it wasn't right. The word refers to increasing 'nebulousness' or 'amorphousness'. Am I imagining that I once knew such a word and that it is my age/booze addled brain that is at fault or have I indeed identified an unfilled gap in the lexicon of tools that we who command use of 'the english language' can utilise to convey every and any variation and color of meaning appropriate to every and any circumstance we encounter......sort of.