The Country is Ready to Sink

i cannot rationally explain why i live a moral life. logic says that i shouldnt, but i continue to. If i see wrongs being committed, i step in. if i am a witness to injustice or stupidity ever, i step in if i think that i can help. i vote conservative even though the majority of evidence tells me to either not vote or vote secular liberal. i do the exact opposite of what my mind and popular culture tell me to do.

don, i agree with you for the most part - i see modern society as absurd and corrupt and, while i want to prop it up as cultured and superior, i find that the further along in development we get, the more absurd, useless and corrupt we become

i feel like our society is like a pro-cross country biker
we, through skill and ingenuity come to the front of the race, leaving all in our wake - by the time we get to the top of the hill, our legs have broken and we continue in the front of the race, going even faster down the hill with our legs in total shambles - at this moment in our history, we are a quarter mile ahead and we have finally hit level land - we no longer have control of the bike, are about to pass out and crash into a tree, having no control of our propulsion or steering.

while it looks like we are set to win the race, our body knows that the only place that we are going is into a tree to lose the race at breakneck speed. because of all the damage and the uselessness of our bodies, we can see the outcome, but are powerless to avert disaster.

There is a sense of truth in The Matrix when we are told that the human rejected the perfect world.
We relish in all the good we have, but if we can't complain it becomes unbearable. The best that can happen to us is perfection with a single flaw we can complain about.

Look around, we like to complain in general. Lousy weather!!! When the rainclouds in fact give us beautiful sunsets. We are free to complain, and we do it. We should be happy that our complaining isn't noticed by some shady state agency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Alright, British politicians are not in the Mugabe/Suharto league, but the appropriate words would still be bribery and influence-peddling, not 'tame stuff'.

---

Well, if the UK is the eleventh least corrupt country in the world - which sounds plausible - I would say that it is pretty "tame stuff". That seems a fairer description than hopelessly corrupt.

To call it bribery, you would have to know about the exchanges that went on. Yes, businessmen may donate to the Labour Party and yes they may benefit from subsequent government actions. But that does not necessarily make it bribery or influence peddling.

The Powderject contract does smell, and I believe it is being investigated by the National Audit Office. But whether it was an instance of bribery is probably a matter between Dr Reid and his god. I'd certainly hesitate about naming it thus in public unless I could prove it in a court of law.

The Mittal affair seems small potatoes - I can't see Mittal and the Labour party making any explicit deal "I'll give you £150,000 if you help me". Maybe Blair should not have written a letter to the Romanian government and helped a bidder with a British parent company win a privatisation contract. He probably regrets doing so now, but I do not think it makes him corrupt.

Ande Geoffrey Robinson's escapades seem particular to the individual rather than symptomatic of his Party (perhaps regrettably, the Party does not attract many businessmen to its ranks).

I think there's a sort of serious point here. By saying Britain is hopelessly corrupt, the original rant is debasing the coinage of political discourse and undermining a politics that is relatively clean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

I think there's a sort of serious point here. By saying Britain is hopelessly corrupt, the original rant is debasing the coinage of political discourse and undermining a politics that is relatively clean.

---

Of course I do not subscribe to that letter to the editor, that is just reactionary drivel. I find it disappointing that an original Labour supporter such as you would find it acceptable that Mr Blair is beholden to Mr Murdoch, who spreads such drivel around the world on a daily basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

I find it disappointing that an original Labour supporter such as you would find it acceptable that Mr Blair is beholden to Mr Murdoch, who spreads such drivel around the world on a daily basis.

---

Well, I did say it was an instance of Blair debasing himself, so I am not exactly cock-a-hoop over it.

But to repeat, I think you over-estimate the sincerity and depth of the Blair-Murdoch relation. Recently, I recall reading that a Labour participant returned from a breakfast meeting with the Sun, saying it was like stepping into a Nuremberg rally or some such.

I think it's a courtesy, rather like deferring to the Queen or shaking hands with dictators, that makes life a little easier. If I seriously thought it changed government policies, I would be alarmed. But I suspect the Sun only restrains Labour to the extent that it mirrors the natural conservatism and prejudices of the British public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

Well, I did say it was an instance of Blair debasing himself, so I am not exactly cock-a-hoop over it.

---

I believe it is an instance of Mr Blair selling himself to the devil. Rupert Murdoch of course is not the devil incarnate, even though he and his editors leave a hint of sulphur wherever they set foot. The true devil would be Mr Murdoch's empire and its power to conjure up public support and popularity for political leaders. Mr Murdoch doesn't believe in anything except money and he goes for the highest bidder.

The whole 1995 episode (when Mr Blair presented himself cap-in-hand at Mr Murdoch's Hayman Island home and promised him a favourable tax regime) is reminiscent of Faust selling his soul to Mephistopheles in order to conquer his beloved Marguerite's heart. The Sun, the Times, the News of the World dropped their traditional anti-Labour stance and went for Blair. Same thing in 2001, when the PM backed the new communications bill that loosened restrictions on foreign media ownership and allowed newspaper publishers to own television stations (also known as the Lex Rupert).

Both men have seen eye to eye more than once. They went to war in Iraq together, albeit for slightly different reasons. According to Mr Murdoch 'the greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country. Once Iraq is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else.'

They have the same view on doing business with China, even though Mr Murdoch collaborates openly with the regime and their state television channel.

They have the same view about immigration ever since Mr Blair was called to order by the Murdoch papers by means of the sickening anti-immigrant campaign in August 2004. In a move that made their true relationship disgustingly obvious, Home Secretary David Blunkett interrupted his holiday to phone the offices of the Sun and ask them to please publish that he was 'not in dispute with the Sun on this week’s coverage' and that the government agreed that the borders must be made secure, that the British judiciary was 'out of control', that offenders would henceforth automatically lose their asylum rights, and that it would immediately introduce ID cards, citizenship courses, compulsory language courses and blah blah blah...

Quote:

---

If I seriously thought it changed government policies, I would be alarmed.

---

Oh, I would be worried if I were you. Next thing you know, Blair and Murdoch will join hands to strangle the BBC.

Adrian:

Stop sugar-coating things and tell us what you really think...

~;) Seamus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Adrian:

Stop sugar-coating things and tell us what you really think...

~;) Seamus

---

I already did.

I could add that I think Tony Blair is a spent force and he will have to go as soon as Whitehall and a majority of Parliament tacitly agree that the time has come for a withdrawal from Iraq. Mr Blair will never preside over such a withdrawal; Gordon Brown or Jack Straw will have to take over at that time. Might be sooner than people think.