Brexit get over yourself

Most of the “out” reasons are based on a deluded sense of hurt national pride, the notion that our greatness is being tarnished by outside meddling. The leave campaign, when it’s not just being racist or xenophobic, makes great positive claims of how our assumed greatness will ensure that we prosper even without the safety net of the European Union. No need to prove it, just make a claim to greatness and offer offence at the suggestion that we might need support, as that is the voice of the dissenters who are talking down Britain. Great Britain.

 

Some Tories believe this in all earnest; why should we be shackled and guided by our inferiors. At times it’s an extension of the selfish sentiment behind the cry “why should I pay for someone else’s benefits”, only this time “someone else” isn’t even a “lazy feckless British benefit scrounger”. Other Tories, all Tories, really, as there’s a big overlap with the previous more xenophobic group here, simply want to break free of socialism through the back door. Well, since it’s the only door it’s ever likely to come through, I’m happy to keep that portal open for the sake of employment rights and social justice.

 

The right-wing (for the most part, although, in truth, anti-EU feeling is a depressing cross-party prejudice) peddle the notion of Britain as the Sun attracting the moths from all the dark corners of Europe. Soft Touch Britain: our largess being taken advantage of by non-tax payers. No one in other European countries could love their country, or have as good a lifestyle at home. They all want in to our little island. This other Eden.

 

The fact is it’s not one way traffic, many who can rightly call this sceptred isle home, have successfully taken advantage of the freedom of movement within the union and moved off somewhere else.

 

The sad truth is that we never asked for this referendum, or, to be more precise, our political classes never campaigned for it on our behalf. It’s just that Cameron promised it to his party in a futile attempt to smooth over the massive EU fault line that runs through his party. Trouble is, he colluded with the anti-Europeans when he hid the results of the government’s report on immigration; as that report stated clearly that benefit tourism was a myth and that UK benefits greatly from immigration. This wasn’t what the Tories wanted the report to say, so they sat on it. They wanted to get the (exaggerated) UKip vote back and they wanted to appease their own euro-sceptics. Now, Cameron needs to tell the positive truth about Europe and has one hand tied behind his back, as he can’t make a convincing case on immigration without contradicting his party and himself.

 

Of course, there are problems with the EU. Is it democratic enough and is it overly wasteful, bureaucratic and corrupt. These are things that need reform and we should be making the case to be a huge actor in making those reforms. Instead, we piously shout about corruption because we like to imagine ourselves above it, and talk about how corrupt these individual democracies are, apparently, even within their own borders. Yet, when the nasty UKip people manage to get voted in as MEPs they don’t use it as a platform to raise awareness against corruption, instead they take full advantage of any gravy going around.

 

Personally, I believe that all countries within the union are equally concerned about their traditions and culture, their own sense of sovereignty. That they have much to be justly proud of and to be admired for, and all nations have their sceptics who agitate against the European project. So, can’t we accept that none of these nations would sign-up to a plan that required them to surrender their individuality or lose their cultural identities? Why instead do we think the union is set to work against our self-determination?

 

Our laws are our laws; the laws that govern the EU to do not precedence over our own rules. We also have a veto, as do all member states, over any changes in EU rules. So, the rules we have now are ones that all governments have signed-up to, otherwise they couldn’t have happened. We should stop complaining about the rules of the club that we campaigned to join, stop thinking of ourselves as outsiders being taken advantage of and recognise that we are equal partners: we are Europeans.

End of the Line

My heart broken. My soul destroyed. 

My self esteem baseless. My reputation trashed. 

I hear the train. It's coming. 

My feet are at the edge. Beyond the yellow line. 

I can't go back. I can't go on. 

Giving Up

I'm giving up on humour

I'm giving up on reason

I'm giving up on kindness

I'm giving up on fairness

I'm giving up on balance

I'm giving up on hope

I'm giving up on love

I'm giving up on people

I'm giving up on me

I'm giving up

Pressure

A: Can you help x and y financially; I can give them half of what we need - if you can manage the other half. Anyway, no pressure - I've not mentioned it to anyone, so no one's going to feel let down if you can't. 

B: No, sorry I can't. It's a great idea - I just can't help at this time. 

A: Oh, dam. Well, that's a shame. I'll let z know that it can't happen. 

A: Oh, I see you can give some money to Q and U but not x and y. Well that's typical. Shows how little you care. This was a chance for you to redeem yourself in x and y and z eyes. They're really upset about it. 

B: I'm not giving any money to Q and U. I'm sorry I couldn't help. I doubt I can ever redeem myself. 

What happened to no pressure?

Republican Religious Myth

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/28/the_rights_ayn_rand_hypocrisy_why_their_religious_posture_is_a_total_sham/

That salon article on the right's hypocrisy in espousing Randian views whilst proclaiming a Christian conscience was interesting and troubling. In exposing the fact that their personal economic needs outweigh any tenants of their chosen faith, it was well founded and well put. 

Of course the Christian Right is led by charlatans and half wits who follow received wisdom with little intellectual curiosity. Many of them believe that their's is the party of Christianity, being perhaps young enough, and ignorant enough of their own party's history, to be unaware of the decision to adopt an evangelical approach to politics in order to secure forever the suffrage of the faithful. Rove, and perhaps his forebears, use of the three Gs to grab the attention of those use to being led from a pulpit, was a cynical and successful move that not only bought much of the religious vote, but shielded the party from accusations of heartlessness with the assumption of goodness that comes with religiosity. 

They have pushed religion in the same way that Woodrow Wilson pushed Americanism as religion. No quicker way to bind people, and retain them without question, than to define their bond as something the requires faith, and that there is no greater loss than the loss of faith. The right, in the main, have been so successful in both of these things that it is now impossible to stand for election without professing religious belief and without asserting a belief in the nation. The right claim to be able to define both of these things: what is Christian and what is America, to the point where arguments can be swiftly silenced on the grounds that they are un-American. In a nation that rightly sanctifies free speech, it seems odd to let any one side define what it is to be an American. 

This is what troubled me about the salon piece. It didn't seem upset that atheists had, had their free speech denied. In fact the tone of the piece seemed to suggest that Rand and atheism are the same thing. That she might be an atheist doesn't mean that all atheists are Randian. Rand's issue with the crucifixion being unbelievable as an act of god because it's selflessness was obvious folly, and therefore proof that it had no divinity, is not a core atheist tenant. 

On the whole, atheists, I believe, seek to liberate people from oppression and self hatred. 

My personal feelings about the crucifixion are twofold: 1) it didn't happen because Jesus did not exist and there is no verifiable historical source to suggest otherwise; 2) even if you take the four different and conflicting accounts found in the gospels, I've never understood how it was an act of martyrdom: Jesus argued against the claims that he was supposedly on trial for - he did not: make claims, stand by them and face harsh injustice to make a point. Quite the reverse, we are asked to sympathise with Jesus as an innocent put unwillingly to death. The only sense of martyrdom comes from a belief that he is the son of god, and as such could have found a divine way to avoid this natural fate. To that end, the bible offers us its usual proofs that its word is divine, by serving up a miracle in the form of the resurrection. Surely, defeating the idea of his being a martyr. After all, his being the son of god as mere mortal is blown to bits as soon as he cheats death to say goodbye to his friends. So keen they are to offer proof of his divinity, that they put the lie to their original premise. Surely, faith alone is needed. Well, that and some conjuring tricks. 

For me Socrates is the greater martyr. He died for the right to think freely. To question. He really did too. He existed, verifiably. He stood by his convictions, even though falsely brought to trail on the lie that he had denied the gods - which he had not - he didn't attempt to wriggle off the hook on that technicality. Instead, he said he would continue to question all things; was ordered to put himself to death by taking poison and did so. A martyr for our right to think. Not an innocent, falsely accused by a political conspiracy, who repeatedly denies the claims aimed at him - standing for nothing in the process - only to be slain and for that death to be used as a proof of the inherent sin in man and the redemptive power of faith in god alone. In other words a martyr to the idea of obedience (although oddly depicted as a rebel). 

Christianity, of course, has some wonderful values. Ones that would be far more powerful if they were spoken as a philosophy and divorced from bogus religious authority and separated from the Hebrew text that stands before the gospels and stands in stark contrast to them. 

Without god to hide behind Christians would have to follow Christ because they believed the man and not because they subordinate themselves to a higher power. Act like a man who followed a philosophy and not just a man who joined a club. Then what would the religious right do?

Reasonably Stupid

Something happened to me just now. An interaction between me and a couple of strangers, two young girls. It was the sort of shit that most people pay no mind to, in fact they most likely just get pissed off and then let it go. In short: it was something and nothing. Except that it typified a lot of the interactions I have, even with people I know. 

I was driving my car down a road narrowed by a line of parked cars on one side. The road had a gradual curve to it, meaning you couldn't see oncoming cars that far ahead. I'd stopped before the line of cars, to let a car I could see have priority. Before I could restart, I saw another approaching car and gave way to that car too. Then I set off only to see two oncoming cars, I was now level with the obstacle and it was difficult for cars to pass. The first of the two cars saw that I'd moved closer to one side and there was a gap to pass and passed. The second car didn't advance. The driver and her friend both gestured to suggest I needed to resolve the issue. So, I crept forward and put as much of my car as I could into a small gap between two of the parked cars. The girls drove their car at mine, to pull close along side so they could wind down their window to talk to me. Even though I knew they would just bark angry nonsense at me, I too wound down my window - as I didn't want to ignore their obvious overture. The driver using heavy sarcasm pointed out that she couldn't pass me where I was originally and that she felt she had the right of way, and didn't want to mount the pavement to travel past. 

I listened to all of that. Then I said: I understood what she was saying but...whereupon she drove off. 

I felt horrible. I wanted to point out that I couldn't have seen her car or stopped earlier and that I had twice, in the end, moved to make way for her and another car had managed to pass by. What did she expect I could have done better? And what point is made by belittling anyone when the situation has been easily remedied. 

Why did I care? Why couldn't I just ignore her or brush it off as a silliness or arrogant person who needs to correct everyone else's behaviour?

In the first instance it's an inbuilt thing in me: I feel I must allow all questioning, to not to do so would be an arrogant act saying: you can teach me nothing. Allied to this is the fact that I want to be reasonable and been seen to be reasonable. To do that I must listen, and respond only when I feel my motives had some virtue to them that in part or whole justified my action. Accept wrong when no reply can be offered, accept wrong when motive is fair but doesn't cover the resulting action or receive acceptance when the reply satisfies the original query or complaint. 

The trouble is this invariably leads me into encounters where I'm unreasonably attacked, I respond giving the attack legitimacy of sort, only to be ignored or accused of not being able to accept when I'm in the wrong. Accused of the opposite of what's allowed me to accept the discussion moving towards what many might consider ad hominem attack and not proper discussion and just angrily reject it. 

These girls felt they could tell me off. In the end I allowed them to do just that. And was left feeling wrong and wronged. Hurt and embarrassed. Feeling guilty because i couldn't see if my motives were good because those I'd offended, hadn't accepted them - leaving me to implicitly accept that I was wrong. 

Other peoples perception is always more important than mine. If I think I'm reasonable that is meaningless if others don't. If I can't appeal to reason and find out what if any case I need to answer, I'm left feeling unreasonable but unable to fix it. 

Social Media is it worth it

Recently, Twitter’s share price fell 23% following announcements that the take-up of new accounts had slowed down, and engagement with the social network had dropped. The social network makes huge losses year on year which investors happily overlook while more users are caught in the network’s dragnet. The hope is that they will find a way to monetise the service but if use of the service is in decline, and the trend suggests it is (ever so slightly) the investors run scared.

Given the prevailing wisdom that all software should be free, I wonder how Twitter can make more money for its investors – if they can't hope to get its users to pay for its services. Of course saying that social media is free is a delusion and one that all users subconsciously are happy to subscribe too. After all, we know that these services aren't really free; they let us natter over peer to peer networks, while they mine our personal information for advertising revenue.

While users consciously decry their information being sold-on without their explicit permission, they are also happy to implicitly give their permission for it to be used by logging on for free, knowing as they click-in that their information will be exploited by the service; exploited in ever expanding ways if these companies are ever to make up their losses and provide a real return on their investment.

So what value do we place on social media services, and what value do we place on our personal information?

It would appear that we place a low value on our personal information because, it would seem, we don't value the social media services enough to want to pay for them – so the hidden cost of selling our personal information must mean less to us than whatever annual fee we fear might be levied.

Put another way: many people say they would stop using Facebook or Twitter if they required an upfront fee. So, they’re not worth actual money – so our personal information must mean less to us than money because we will tacitly exchange that for the service.

I suspect that a fee would turn off users less than it would the vendors, as a fee would probably generate less revenue than advertising solicits. Yet, it would be a more honest transaction – pay for the software that enables the services, as that’s the real commodity these companies offer you. It’s a different proposition viewed from the providers’ side, where the users are their commodity and corporations are their real customers.

If social media giants got paid only to provide users with peer-to-peer gossip sharing software they'd not be super-rich. They'd maybe have fewer users too, as a few would keep to their threat and cease to logon. I wouldn't overstate the user drop-off, though, as it’s like a crack addiction, I doubt the buzz wears off after the free sample runs out.

Would it not be better to pay for the service and keep your personal information private, doing away with the pretence that you were ever getting something for nothing?