I am in a dilemma. A US court has found the Argentine authorities in contempt after failing to pay off a substantial loan to two US Hedge Funds, NML Capital and Aurelius Capital Management. The Argentines in refusing to obey the court say that the US in interfering in their domestic policies.
The Hedge Funds bought the debt at a huge discount and motivated purely by greed, hoped to recover the full amount from the South Americans. The dilemma arises from an inability to decide which pleases me most; the dire economic situation of a sovereign state (Argentina) that invaded the territory (The Falklands) of the UK or the possibility of the Hedge Funds making huge and significant losses.
Sadly, whatever outcome the real losers will be the ordinary people of Argentina, pawns in a game beyond their knowing.
Tuesday, 30 September 2014
Thursday, 25 September 2014
Wednesday, 24 September 2014
Advertising today
Nobody denies that advertising sells products and that sex sells most, but at what point does it go beyond what is appropriate or even decent. It is 4.30am and I have just seen a television advert by Calvin Klein for a product called 'Reveal' which I found offensive because of its overt and gratuitous sexuality. Sadly, I realise that even mentioning this exposes the product to a wider audience and that its resulting infamy might increase its appeal to the gullible public but please can we have this sort of promotion in moderation.
So too the escalating supply of adverts for videos and computer games that resort to gratuitous extreme violence for its appeal. The television programs are punctuated by adverts for these violent and noisy products, alongside trailers for ever more violent films complete with murderous explosions and firefights. Today, children, often very young, are literally bombarded with violent images, often demeaning to women, in which widespread slaughter seems to be the attraction. Now, I'm aware that since earliest times, children have been exposed to scary stories, indeed some of them are celebrated works of literature but it is the scale of today's unrelenting recourse to what I can only describe as evil that worries me. Despite the manifest effect on children and their attitudes, governments are reluctant to tackle the problem because the gaming Companies are successful and pay tax but wouldn't you agree that their very existence says something detrimental about the society in which we now live?
As if youngsters of today are not having their childhoods reduced enough, the Socialists now want to expose them to electoral awareness by introducing voting for sixteen year olds. Like Alex Salmond's demand in the Scottish referendum, the proposal is disguised as promoting interest in their futuristic Nationalistic life but is, in reality, a blatant means of increasing your vote by appealing to the known charitable leanings of the young. Sixteen year olds are still children; they are still being educated whether in school or in work, learning about life and their role in a challenging world. Even the most precocious have been nowhere, done nothing and shouldn't be exposed to decision making until they are older. This cynical exploitation of children is typical of a political party that is not so much interested in the welfare of the British people as their success in the polls, whatever they say. Why stop at sixteen? Make it thirteen; anything to defeat the toffs especially as the Scottish MPs might lose the vote in English affairs.
Whether you are selling perfumery, 'entertainment' or votes, advertising tries to get a message across. Clearly lies cannot be told but I fear that the balance is shifting and advertisers are pushing the boundaries as to what is and is not palatable or acceptable in the society in which we live, especially for the susceptible young. Despite various 'watchdogs', the advertisers are leading the argument, not following and I suggest the consumers should be setting the agenda, not the industry as it seems to be at the moment. After all, the advertising industry, does not manufacture anything, it only adds cost to a product, ultimately paid for by you, the consumer. Despite this I recognise that we need advertising but urge that in place of smut and gratuitous violence the industry ought to be smarter, not ruder, in their appeal, especially where the young are concerned.
As for the Socialists...aaagh!
So too the escalating supply of adverts for videos and computer games that resort to gratuitous extreme violence for its appeal. The television programs are punctuated by adverts for these violent and noisy products, alongside trailers for ever more violent films complete with murderous explosions and firefights. Today, children, often very young, are literally bombarded with violent images, often demeaning to women, in which widespread slaughter seems to be the attraction. Now, I'm aware that since earliest times, children have been exposed to scary stories, indeed some of them are celebrated works of literature but it is the scale of today's unrelenting recourse to what I can only describe as evil that worries me. Despite the manifest effect on children and their attitudes, governments are reluctant to tackle the problem because the gaming Companies are successful and pay tax but wouldn't you agree that their very existence says something detrimental about the society in which we now live?
As if youngsters of today are not having their childhoods reduced enough, the Socialists now want to expose them to electoral awareness by introducing voting for sixteen year olds. Like Alex Salmond's demand in the Scottish referendum, the proposal is disguised as promoting interest in their futuristic Nationalistic life but is, in reality, a blatant means of increasing your vote by appealing to the known charitable leanings of the young. Sixteen year olds are still children; they are still being educated whether in school or in work, learning about life and their role in a challenging world. Even the most precocious have been nowhere, done nothing and shouldn't be exposed to decision making until they are older. This cynical exploitation of children is typical of a political party that is not so much interested in the welfare of the British people as their success in the polls, whatever they say. Why stop at sixteen? Make it thirteen; anything to defeat the toffs especially as the Scottish MPs might lose the vote in English affairs.
Whether you are selling perfumery, 'entertainment' or votes, advertising tries to get a message across. Clearly lies cannot be told but I fear that the balance is shifting and advertisers are pushing the boundaries as to what is and is not palatable or acceptable in the society in which we live, especially for the susceptible young. Despite various 'watchdogs', the advertisers are leading the argument, not following and I suggest the consumers should be setting the agenda, not the industry as it seems to be at the moment. After all, the advertising industry, does not manufacture anything, it only adds cost to a product, ultimately paid for by you, the consumer. Despite this I recognise that we need advertising but urge that in place of smut and gratuitous violence the industry ought to be smarter, not ruder, in their appeal, especially where the young are concerned.
As for the Socialists...aaagh!
Friday, 19 September 2014
England's traffic chaos
A short trip to England has found me caught up in traffic jams in Truro, Southampton and for mile on end on the M6. I'm sure the scene is familiar all over the country with rush hour jams and three lane motorways full to overflowing with traffic, much of it commercial heavy lorries. I'm tempted to ask what will the roads be like in five or ten years with more and more cars and articulated lorries on the road. Has anyone any idea? Do the department of Transport know? Is there a plan such as making vehicles numbers with odd registration numbers able to use the roads on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Or are they just hoping for the best?
Saturday, 13 September 2014
Wednesday, 10 September 2014
Revealed truth
I have been reading Dostoevsky's 'The Brothers Karamazov'; this hard on the heels of reading Christopher Hitchins' book, 'God is not Great'. The latter quotes the former in questioning the veracity of the very first verses of Genesis; in particular the question of the first light. According to Genesis God said, 'let there be light' in day one but it wasn't until day four that God created light to seperate the day from night; specifically stars. How so?
It is taken as evidence that the Bible cannot be relied on to provide the truth, only confusion and ambiguity but I'm not clear that Hitchins found anything of use in the texts whereas I do, and furthermore I believe the example given above is further endorsement of my arguments for a dual universe.
When one reads the creation story in Genesis there are some details but disappointingly few. To my mind this is consistent with a narrative given by a knowledgeable entity to an illiterate race. The writers of Genesis (Moses?) used what they had been told by their forebears and remembered the formation of the oceans, the arrival of flora and fauna albeit in a very doubtful timescale etc. but it is the light that interests me here. Could it be that the verses dealing with day four are referring specifically to earth, whilst the very first light described in the day one passage is the ignition of the very first star in the universe. It would have been a dramatic moment, worthy of comment. However, there is no reference to a cataclysmic explosion describing the 'Big Bang' which convinces me that it never happened. What did the author of Genesis understand? It is quite clear- no ambiguity here although stated with shamanistic spin- God created heaven and earth. If this isn't a pointer to a dual universe I don't know what is.
For more information on my concept of a Dual Universe see my book: SPIRITUAL MAN: AN INTRODUCTION TO NEGATIVE DIMENSIONS. Available for Kindle and Kobo.
It is taken as evidence that the Bible cannot be relied on to provide the truth, only confusion and ambiguity but I'm not clear that Hitchins found anything of use in the texts whereas I do, and furthermore I believe the example given above is further endorsement of my arguments for a dual universe.
When one reads the creation story in Genesis there are some details but disappointingly few. To my mind this is consistent with a narrative given by a knowledgeable entity to an illiterate race. The writers of Genesis (Moses?) used what they had been told by their forebears and remembered the formation of the oceans, the arrival of flora and fauna albeit in a very doubtful timescale etc. but it is the light that interests me here. Could it be that the verses dealing with day four are referring specifically to earth, whilst the very first light described in the day one passage is the ignition of the very first star in the universe. It would have been a dramatic moment, worthy of comment. However, there is no reference to a cataclysmic explosion describing the 'Big Bang' which convinces me that it never happened. What did the author of Genesis understand? It is quite clear- no ambiguity here although stated with shamanistic spin- God created heaven and earth. If this isn't a pointer to a dual universe I don't know what is.
For more information on my concept of a Dual Universe see my book: SPIRITUAL MAN: AN INTRODUCTION TO NEGATIVE DIMENSIONS. Available for Kindle and Kobo.
Tuesday, 9 September 2014
Scottish referendum
As Her Majesty, the Queen and numerous foreign correspondents despair over the Scottish referendum and the reasons for it, the debates intensify.
Are Scottish Nationalists, Salmond and Sturgeon- don't they sound like the contents of a fisherman's smelly creel- guilty of stoking up the emotions that lead to civil wars with family and friend breakups lasting generations. Their shameless manipulation of the framework for the referendum which gives the vote to recently immigrant Poles and children whilst rejecting generation old Scottish families currently domiciled in the rest of the UK, has been loaded in their favour but still they face a 'NO' vote. Consequently, their rhetoric that defies reason but calls on some age-old allegiance to ultimately unsuccessful patriots is not carrying the day despite their increasingly frantic appeal to some notional Scottish Nationalism.
And for what? The Scots consistently vote for the Socialists and object to the Democratic will of the whole when the Tories are voted into power. The Scottish nationalists are determined that if the Lemmings want Socialism they should have it despite the evidence that each time the Lemmings are in power they run over the cliff, each time bringing the UK close to economic collapse.
The polls show that the vote will be very close; the WORST possible result because it will foment future tensions. Whichever way the vote goes, despite previous affirmations that the result will be respected, the losers will demand re-runs amidst accusations and recriminations when the barely five million inhabitants, out of a Country of sixty-five million, feel aggrieved.
All this expense, all this tension, all the future pressures will be the result of Salmond's selfish ambition. All broken families and severed friendships should be laid at his door whilst the rest of the UK will pay the growing costs of yet more devolution by way of appeasement. I'm not sure we should be tolerant of this man with his divisive politics any longer. Make him Laird of Gruinard.
Are Scottish Nationalists, Salmond and Sturgeon- don't they sound like the contents of a fisherman's smelly creel- guilty of stoking up the emotions that lead to civil wars with family and friend breakups lasting generations. Their shameless manipulation of the framework for the referendum which gives the vote to recently immigrant Poles and children whilst rejecting generation old Scottish families currently domiciled in the rest of the UK, has been loaded in their favour but still they face a 'NO' vote. Consequently, their rhetoric that defies reason but calls on some age-old allegiance to ultimately unsuccessful patriots is not carrying the day despite their increasingly frantic appeal to some notional Scottish Nationalism.
And for what? The Scots consistently vote for the Socialists and object to the Democratic will of the whole when the Tories are voted into power. The Scottish nationalists are determined that if the Lemmings want Socialism they should have it despite the evidence that each time the Lemmings are in power they run over the cliff, each time bringing the UK close to economic collapse.
The polls show that the vote will be very close; the WORST possible result because it will foment future tensions. Whichever way the vote goes, despite previous affirmations that the result will be respected, the losers will demand re-runs amidst accusations and recriminations when the barely five million inhabitants, out of a Country of sixty-five million, feel aggrieved.
All this expense, all this tension, all the future pressures will be the result of Salmond's selfish ambition. All broken families and severed friendships should be laid at his door whilst the rest of the UK will pay the growing costs of yet more devolution by way of appeasement. I'm not sure we should be tolerant of this man with his divisive politics any longer. Make him Laird of Gruinard.
Friday, 5 September 2014
The paradox of Epicurus
Despite it being around for some time I have just come across the paradox of Greek philosopher, Epicurus who lived about three centuries before the Common Era began. It goes like thus:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Those of a religious persuasion have, of course, come up with numerous fatuous responses to this problem but each of them only offers excuses based on the fallibility of a mankind granted free will. Such responses then beg the question of why God would create a less than perfect world? In fact WHY would He bother at all? Until the Bishops and Imams come up with some plausible answer to this I cannot take them seriously and the world will go on warring whilst innocent people trying to make a living in a difficult world continue to be slaughtered in their God's name.
Shame on all you modern day shamans with your supernatural beliefs and practices.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Those of a religious persuasion have, of course, come up with numerous fatuous responses to this problem but each of them only offers excuses based on the fallibility of a mankind granted free will. Such responses then beg the question of why God would create a less than perfect world? In fact WHY would He bother at all? Until the Bishops and Imams come up with some plausible answer to this I cannot take them seriously and the world will go on warring whilst innocent people trying to make a living in a difficult world continue to be slaughtered in their God's name.
Shame on all you modern day shamans with your supernatural beliefs and practices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
