So, you're in public office, you owe your livelihood to the Government but you see things that, to your sense of public spirit, fairness and justice don't seem to add up. Why is this person taking payments from that person who stands to gain from a particular decision? Surely, you think, the decision, from a pubic official, should be bound by the laws of the land and the will of the people that you all serve.
Something fishy going on, but can you say anything? Your home, family, kids depend upon your income. Toe the line, accept this corruption, hold your nose and allow it to happen? It's very tempting. Too tempting or too easy perhaps?
But you're not happy about it. But the bills pile up. Life's commitments arrive as sure as eggs are eggs. You work hard and gain promotion and then it's you making the decisions. You who is targeted with financial reward for ticking a box when you know it's not right, but hell you said nothing. What difference will it make?
And then because you said nothing, because you're 'one of us', your star shines brightly and you get promoted way above your level of ability. You become chief executive of whatever it is. It doesn't really matter what it is. The NHS? The MoD? It doesn't really matter because what you do, other than fronting up the thing, is irrelevant to the operational activity of the thing - that's run by civil servants who didn't quite shine so brightly (but had exactly the same background).
And then, as you knew it would, it all fucks up. Because there was no leadership or backbone or commitment to improving services. Because you didn't have a hand on the tiller. Not that your hand on the tiller would have been any good because you don't really know what you're doing.
Anyway. You had a good run. You'll have to resign of course. Quietly if possible. But they'll pay you a few million to do so and your £150k a year pension is inflation protected.
Did you make a difference? Did you improve the service? Did you provide value for money?
Who cares? You're OK.
Monday 24 June 2013
Saturday 22 June 2013
People are fundamentally 'good'. It's God and Governments that turn us into killers and exploiters
Let's not tread too gently around the issues here (for a change). If you're easily offended by a distinctly cynical view of religion or the odd swear word it might be time to look elsewhere (you have been warned).
I have a fundamental belief that the vast majority of people are good. Or at least have goodness and generosity hard-wired into them. Our first response (I'm certain that this is not just me), on finding someone in difficulty or danger or need, is to try to help. That may not extend to 'real' help, financial or materiel, but our first reaction when faced with someone who's depressed or down on their luck is to try to offer help in any way we can.
I conducted an experiment in which I said that I needed cheering up, in a serious way. On twitter. I was amazed by the result of that plea - and have since appologised for 'crying wolf' but it was necessary to prove my point. That people are inherently generous and 'good'.
I think this is an important starting point: It's not about religion, upbringing or what we're taught, in my opinion. Nor is it about politics or nationality. It's about basic human feelings and instinct. What and who we are as a species. I am not arguing here that God doesn't exist by the way, but I am seeking to explain how, if He does, He's being used in a way that could not ever have been His intention. On balance I am skeptical; I think the goodness is within everyone and is something akin to the 'keep carrying the fire' sentiment expressed in Cormac McCarthy's brilliat book The Road (which is essentially about maintaining human decency and kindness).
My 'experiment' was not funded by science or any product-seller or Government, but was inspired by my own curiosity and my fundamental belief. It might not stand up to the rigours of the statisticians or the terminally cynical. It was not embarked upon for any ulterior motive, financial gain or anything other than to prove my premise that, in essence, people are good.
Wherever they come from. Whatever they believe in. Whoever is their 'God'. However they vote.
So having - I think - proved (at least to myself) that truism; why are we perpetually at war with each other? Why are 'ordinary' people fighting and dying every single day for centuries, when they are inherently 'good' and 'generous' and concerned about the welfare of their fellow humans? Would individuals in their heart of hearts, actively pursue conflict and war as opposed to partnership, trying to help each other if left to their own devices? I don't think so.
So what is the cause of global conflict? Idealism? Religion? Politics? Poverty? Money?
I'm not a what is often derided as a 'lefty': I believe in effort, contribution, freedom, responsibility. Most of all I believe in generosity of action and spirit. Not in a religious way - I don't need to be told what to think, by anyone - but in a fundamental way (and in the true sense of that word).
I tend to reduce my thinking on many difficult issues to that of a small village: I find that this really helps when one is considering complex issues. You may not of course! But in my small, simple village; We're happy with our lives, doing OK and if a stranger walks in he or she is welcome. Accommodated, befriended. We'll show him or her the best bits. The things that we're proud of. The things we've worked to achieve. If they want to stay they will have to, eventually, contribute to the life of the village. They will have to change, if they want to stay permanently, from 'visitor' to 'member'.
They'll have to fit in, to respect and conform to 'our' laws and belief system, to our way of life, but if they do they will be accepted and become part of the community and be protected by our community. They can share our good times and our bad times; Become 'one of us'. That's not to say that their experience from 'out there' is not valuable nor that we cannot learn from it or for it to have an influence on our thinking: we are not opposed to new ideas but we do have ideas, values and traditions of our own.
We (in my 'village') respect older people, have a belief in rightness and fairness - it's how we have functioned successfully in our past. and hopefully how we will continue to function successfully in our future. We reward effort. Acknowledge achievement both personal and collective. We're proud of our number who go on to achieve great things. (This is not necessarily an English village you understand?) ;)
Do you fundamentally disagree with any of the above?
Most people are good and generous fundamentally. We all are. Yes we strive to protect and promote, perhaps prioritise our 'nearest and dearest' but we understand that our wider 'family' is also important to us. It's why we enjoy it when our national sportsmen and women do well for example. We have a kindred spirit. We enjoy winning against our next village at Cricket perhaps, but we will enjoy a drink with their players after the game and take the jibes in good faith if we've lost.
We won't, generally speaking, start a war with them. Firebomb their houses. Attack them. That would be ridiculous wouldn't it? Because they respect us and our views, achievements and lives, just as we respect them and theirs.
So what then introduces the poison that makes us a warring species? Vested interests? The need to sell arms? The need for control over others and our own people? The need to motivate (or force) people either to do the right thing or, conversely, to do the wrong thing for the greater good or, a more sinister reason, to help 'us' (or someone anyway) to achieve some unfair advantage over others?
It's all about money, power and control in the end. And that is where the poison enters in, in my opinion.
Worshiping a 'Sun God' (when did 'worshipping' lose a 'p'?) was effectively about control: Making people subservient to a greater power could, if you wielded or harnessed that power, give you a massive level of control over your fellow citizens. 'If you don't do this, the harvest will fail and your children will starve'. That's a pretty powerful level of motivation and, therefore, control. 'If you do do this - whether it be paying a tithe or fighting for your 'tribe' against others - life will be good, and not only that but you'll have a peaceful, pleasurable, leisurely and plentiful afterlife.' Wow, where do I sign?
Of course we're much more knowledgeable and sophisticated now. We're wise to all that nonsense these days aren't we?
Are we?
As a way of generating funds from people who do not live in your country - a kind of remote taxation if you will - religion (belief in the Sun God) is still going very strongly indeed. Why was Vatican city the most powerful place on earth in the Middle Ages? It wasn't its army or military power (it didn't really have any of its own forces), but the fact that it could fund the crusades; could pay English Kings (and Spanish and French) to go and fight its competitors who worshipped (ah, there it is) other 'Sun Gods', other religions in the Middle East as it happens, so as to expand its money-generating empire in support of the great God 'Cathol'. And how could it do that? Because it could generate massive income, from mainly poor people around the globe who believed in its particular 'Sun God'. It still does.
Out of the global population of 6.7 billion, 2.2 billion are Christian, of which 1.1 billion are Catholic, 940 million are Muslims, 580 million are Hindus.
Consider the grandeur of churches just in the UK for example. These grand edifices were built when people were starving. Based on a belief in a higher being that they'd swallowed hook line and sinker. Almost every village in the UK has one - a building that would be impossible to fund - and probably to build - these days. All that wealth and land and subservience. It's fucking brilliant really. Getting poor people to give you what they cannot afford, and then to go and fight for you at your whim, on the promise that they will get a better time of it in the 'afterlife'.
The example holds true around the world for all of the major religions: palaces and places of worship that would make Solomon blush, built on the backs of people whose own domestic arrangements were considerably more modest. The Catholic Church is the third biggest landowner on the planet. Fourth is the King of Morocco, second is King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Not bad for a tiny principality near Rome huh?
The answer to that question which has recently formed in your mind, is our own dear Queen, head of the Anglican Church. Power, control, money remember?
So, control then, and most importantly, money; a source of income beyond your wildest dreams for flogging a belief with a stick and a carrot - if you don't do this you'll burn in hell, if you do you'll have endless joy and peace. Compelling.
The thing is, this is still happening. In our cynical, sophisticated, knowledgeable world. Wars are being fought in the name of 'religion' (which equals power, control and above all, income) all over the world. Ever day. A British soldier has been killed in combat in every year for more than 100 years.
Islamic 'extremists' are fighting, world-wide to get you to join their gang. But so is the Catholic church if a tad more subtly. And they all claim 'peace and goodwill to your fellow man' as their mantra, but also that you'll suffer if you don't believe in 'our God'. The more subtle religions tend to suggest that this suffering will be in the afterlife, the more aggressive seem to be intent on meting out that suffering in the here and now as we have been seeing endlessly in the Middle East.
And why a 'God' rather than a leader in human form? Well lots of reasons really to do with authority and the inability to question some one or some 'being' who couldn't be directly contacted or questioned. The ultimate 'because I say so'. But also, and crucially, because an all-seeing God, who knew what you were doing and thinking at every hour of the day, in a world without PRISM, GCHQ and CCTV, is the cheapest and most effective 'police force' ever devised.
What's happening now is that Western Governments, armed with 'real' police forces and surveillance technology coupled with the still strong force of religion, have at their disposal an even more effective means of control. We may be increasingly a 'secular society' but our values and our beliefs, with laws grounded in religion, are fundamental to our way of life. Work hard, look after your family, pay your taxes and all will be well. The controlling elite now have even more tools at their disposal in order to deliver them their control, power, income and cushy lifestyles and it seems to me that we have come to accept this in return for our 'security' and don't really notice that we're actually being fleeced along the way.
In less sophisticated/developed countries control is still being exerted via the 'old' forces of religion but in a considerably more aggressive, totalitarian and extreme way. They realise that many of the so-called freedoms that we enjoy in the west (see above, it's all relative) would be attractive to many people whose lives are much less free and so they have redoubled their efforts to enshrine religious control and beliefs within those populations. But again, I would argue that the motives remain those of power, control, money/wealth and expanding their sphere of influence in order to expand their power-base and financial contributions.
Their objectives and many of their methods are entirely similar to our own in the West. We may not - and of course we're encouraged in this regard - see it that way. We're 'free' and they're not. Bullshit.
At its more extreme the religious troubles in the Middle East and the threat of terrorism means that we need to be monitored more closely in our own countries, to make sure that we comply with the rules set for us by others. I have a really troubling concern that our Governments actually like terrorist attacks because they enable them to use the threat to keep us in line.
Keeping the threat 'real' means that we will tend not to think too much about what is really going on, that we're being subjugated into living our lives to make those who are more equal than others (I'm not advocating communism as a solution by the way) more comfortable.
And in many ways this is how the 'system' works. We go to work in a factory making a spring that fits into another machine that makes a toaster and we earn enough to buy that toaster so everyone's happy. We earn enough to buy a house and educate our kids and the cycle repeats. And we pay a government to keep us safe and uphold our laws. What's not to like?
And I have to admit that I don't necessarily have a better solution to the problem of keeping people gainfully occupied while the real business of the world goes on. But it's iniquitous and opaque, sinister and secretive. We're led to believe that if we don't like something we can 'vote them out'. And that 'they work for you'. But do you really believe that? The recent quantitative easing and bank bail-outs could have made every family in the UK multi-millionaires instead of bailing out massive failures by people who were already millionaires. Think about that for a moment. But who then would clean the streets or go to work on a Monday morning?
The thing is that our leaders seem to me to be becoming just as corrupt, money-grabbing and frankly piss-taking as the worst offenders in the Middle East and elsewhere. Expenses scandals, bribery and corruption, cash for questions, aggressive lobbying techniques abound; the very police force that we trust to keep us safe seems to have pretty shoddy standards of honesty. Public office seems to be more 'jobs for the boys' than something to be undertaken based on merit or capability, or providing value for money for the people who pay for it. Cover-ups at the NHS and the BBC; HMRC using surveillance technology to try to prosecute a whistle-blower (when they say that this technology will only be used for anti-terrorist work). Private-sector Banks getting bailed out with taxpayer money; actually private deposits being stolen, quite openly by the EU from banks in Cyprus.
It seems to me that quite a lot of what we work for, in my hypothetical little village, where we're happy, is being taken from us by force, threat and 'belief' for no other reason than to allow some people to fund wars; to kill people who are fundamentally 'good' as individuals and to fund the seemingly endemic and worsening corruption in our ruling classes. It feels like Rome before the fall to me. The worst excesses and often, utter contempt for the people they're supposed to work for and to serve.
I realise of course that I'm probably pissing in the wind here. But I think that those of us who are 'ordinary' people, fundamentally kind, generous and 'good' deserve a whole lot better and to live in a safer, fairer and more honest world. I don't know how we get to that situation, but I don't think our current 'ruling classes' have anything like a similar motivation.
Maybe there'll be a British, or a Western 'Spring', now that the internet and in particular, social media enables groups to form, promises to be monitored and remembered, campaigns to be mounted? No wonder our Governments are scrambling to increase surveillance. 'If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear', they tell us. Trouble is, it seems the wrongdoers are the ones dong the monitoring of us ordinary citizens. With impunity.
I for one hope that they themselves will soon have something to fear.
Thanks for reading.
I have a fundamental belief that the vast majority of people are good. Or at least have goodness and generosity hard-wired into them. Our first response (I'm certain that this is not just me), on finding someone in difficulty or danger or need, is to try to help. That may not extend to 'real' help, financial or materiel, but our first reaction when faced with someone who's depressed or down on their luck is to try to offer help in any way we can.
I conducted an experiment in which I said that I needed cheering up, in a serious way. On twitter. I was amazed by the result of that plea - and have since appologised for 'crying wolf' but it was necessary to prove my point. That people are inherently generous and 'good'.
I think this is an important starting point: It's not about religion, upbringing or what we're taught, in my opinion. Nor is it about politics or nationality. It's about basic human feelings and instinct. What and who we are as a species. I am not arguing here that God doesn't exist by the way, but I am seeking to explain how, if He does, He's being used in a way that could not ever have been His intention. On balance I am skeptical; I think the goodness is within everyone and is something akin to the 'keep carrying the fire' sentiment expressed in Cormac McCarthy's brilliat book The Road (which is essentially about maintaining human decency and kindness).
My 'experiment' was not funded by science or any product-seller or Government, but was inspired by my own curiosity and my fundamental belief. It might not stand up to the rigours of the statisticians or the terminally cynical. It was not embarked upon for any ulterior motive, financial gain or anything other than to prove my premise that, in essence, people are good.
Wherever they come from. Whatever they believe in. Whoever is their 'God'. However they vote.
So having - I think - proved (at least to myself) that truism; why are we perpetually at war with each other? Why are 'ordinary' people fighting and dying every single day for centuries, when they are inherently 'good' and 'generous' and concerned about the welfare of their fellow humans? Would individuals in their heart of hearts, actively pursue conflict and war as opposed to partnership, trying to help each other if left to their own devices? I don't think so.
So what is the cause of global conflict? Idealism? Religion? Politics? Poverty? Money?
I'm not a what is often derided as a 'lefty': I believe in effort, contribution, freedom, responsibility. Most of all I believe in generosity of action and spirit. Not in a religious way - I don't need to be told what to think, by anyone - but in a fundamental way (and in the true sense of that word).
I tend to reduce my thinking on many difficult issues to that of a small village: I find that this really helps when one is considering complex issues. You may not of course! But in my small, simple village; We're happy with our lives, doing OK and if a stranger walks in he or she is welcome. Accommodated, befriended. We'll show him or her the best bits. The things that we're proud of. The things we've worked to achieve. If they want to stay they will have to, eventually, contribute to the life of the village. They will have to change, if they want to stay permanently, from 'visitor' to 'member'.
They'll have to fit in, to respect and conform to 'our' laws and belief system, to our way of life, but if they do they will be accepted and become part of the community and be protected by our community. They can share our good times and our bad times; Become 'one of us'. That's not to say that their experience from 'out there' is not valuable nor that we cannot learn from it or for it to have an influence on our thinking: we are not opposed to new ideas but we do have ideas, values and traditions of our own.
We (in my 'village') respect older people, have a belief in rightness and fairness - it's how we have functioned successfully in our past. and hopefully how we will continue to function successfully in our future. We reward effort. Acknowledge achievement both personal and collective. We're proud of our number who go on to achieve great things. (This is not necessarily an English village you understand?) ;)
Do you fundamentally disagree with any of the above?
Most people are good and generous fundamentally. We all are. Yes we strive to protect and promote, perhaps prioritise our 'nearest and dearest' but we understand that our wider 'family' is also important to us. It's why we enjoy it when our national sportsmen and women do well for example. We have a kindred spirit. We enjoy winning against our next village at Cricket perhaps, but we will enjoy a drink with their players after the game and take the jibes in good faith if we've lost.
We won't, generally speaking, start a war with them. Firebomb their houses. Attack them. That would be ridiculous wouldn't it? Because they respect us and our views, achievements and lives, just as we respect them and theirs.
So what then introduces the poison that makes us a warring species? Vested interests? The need to sell arms? The need for control over others and our own people? The need to motivate (or force) people either to do the right thing or, conversely, to do the wrong thing for the greater good or, a more sinister reason, to help 'us' (or someone anyway) to achieve some unfair advantage over others?
It's all about money, power and control in the end. And that is where the poison enters in, in my opinion.
Worshiping a 'Sun God' (when did 'worshipping' lose a 'p'?) was effectively about control: Making people subservient to a greater power could, if you wielded or harnessed that power, give you a massive level of control over your fellow citizens. 'If you don't do this, the harvest will fail and your children will starve'. That's a pretty powerful level of motivation and, therefore, control. 'If you do do this - whether it be paying a tithe or fighting for your 'tribe' against others - life will be good, and not only that but you'll have a peaceful, pleasurable, leisurely and plentiful afterlife.' Wow, where do I sign?
Of course we're much more knowledgeable and sophisticated now. We're wise to all that nonsense these days aren't we?
Are we?
As a way of generating funds from people who do not live in your country - a kind of remote taxation if you will - religion (belief in the Sun God) is still going very strongly indeed. Why was Vatican city the most powerful place on earth in the Middle Ages? It wasn't its army or military power (it didn't really have any of its own forces), but the fact that it could fund the crusades; could pay English Kings (and Spanish and French) to go and fight its competitors who worshipped (ah, there it is) other 'Sun Gods', other religions in the Middle East as it happens, so as to expand its money-generating empire in support of the great God 'Cathol'. And how could it do that? Because it could generate massive income, from mainly poor people around the globe who believed in its particular 'Sun God'. It still does.
Out of the global population of 6.7 billion, 2.2 billion are Christian, of which 1.1 billion are Catholic, 940 million are Muslims, 580 million are Hindus.
Consider the grandeur of churches just in the UK for example. These grand edifices were built when people were starving. Based on a belief in a higher being that they'd swallowed hook line and sinker. Almost every village in the UK has one - a building that would be impossible to fund - and probably to build - these days. All that wealth and land and subservience. It's fucking brilliant really. Getting poor people to give you what they cannot afford, and then to go and fight for you at your whim, on the promise that they will get a better time of it in the 'afterlife'.
The example holds true around the world for all of the major religions: palaces and places of worship that would make Solomon blush, built on the backs of people whose own domestic arrangements were considerably more modest. The Catholic Church is the third biggest landowner on the planet. Fourth is the King of Morocco, second is King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Not bad for a tiny principality near Rome huh?
The answer to that question which has recently formed in your mind, is our own dear Queen, head of the Anglican Church. Power, control, money remember?
So, control then, and most importantly, money; a source of income beyond your wildest dreams for flogging a belief with a stick and a carrot - if you don't do this you'll burn in hell, if you do you'll have endless joy and peace. Compelling.
The thing is, this is still happening. In our cynical, sophisticated, knowledgeable world. Wars are being fought in the name of 'religion' (which equals power, control and above all, income) all over the world. Ever day. A British soldier has been killed in combat in every year for more than 100 years.
Islamic 'extremists' are fighting, world-wide to get you to join their gang. But so is the Catholic church if a tad more subtly. And they all claim 'peace and goodwill to your fellow man' as their mantra, but also that you'll suffer if you don't believe in 'our God'. The more subtle religions tend to suggest that this suffering will be in the afterlife, the more aggressive seem to be intent on meting out that suffering in the here and now as we have been seeing endlessly in the Middle East.
And why a 'God' rather than a leader in human form? Well lots of reasons really to do with authority and the inability to question some one or some 'being' who couldn't be directly contacted or questioned. The ultimate 'because I say so'. But also, and crucially, because an all-seeing God, who knew what you were doing and thinking at every hour of the day, in a world without PRISM, GCHQ and CCTV, is the cheapest and most effective 'police force' ever devised.
What's happening now is that Western Governments, armed with 'real' police forces and surveillance technology coupled with the still strong force of religion, have at their disposal an even more effective means of control. We may be increasingly a 'secular society' but our values and our beliefs, with laws grounded in religion, are fundamental to our way of life. Work hard, look after your family, pay your taxes and all will be well. The controlling elite now have even more tools at their disposal in order to deliver them their control, power, income and cushy lifestyles and it seems to me that we have come to accept this in return for our 'security' and don't really notice that we're actually being fleeced along the way.
In less sophisticated/developed countries control is still being exerted via the 'old' forces of religion but in a considerably more aggressive, totalitarian and extreme way. They realise that many of the so-called freedoms that we enjoy in the west (see above, it's all relative) would be attractive to many people whose lives are much less free and so they have redoubled their efforts to enshrine religious control and beliefs within those populations. But again, I would argue that the motives remain those of power, control, money/wealth and expanding their sphere of influence in order to expand their power-base and financial contributions.
Their objectives and many of their methods are entirely similar to our own in the West. We may not - and of course we're encouraged in this regard - see it that way. We're 'free' and they're not. Bullshit.
At its more extreme the religious troubles in the Middle East and the threat of terrorism means that we need to be monitored more closely in our own countries, to make sure that we comply with the rules set for us by others. I have a really troubling concern that our Governments actually like terrorist attacks because they enable them to use the threat to keep us in line.
Keeping the threat 'real' means that we will tend not to think too much about what is really going on, that we're being subjugated into living our lives to make those who are more equal than others (I'm not advocating communism as a solution by the way) more comfortable.
And in many ways this is how the 'system' works. We go to work in a factory making a spring that fits into another machine that makes a toaster and we earn enough to buy that toaster so everyone's happy. We earn enough to buy a house and educate our kids and the cycle repeats. And we pay a government to keep us safe and uphold our laws. What's not to like?
And I have to admit that I don't necessarily have a better solution to the problem of keeping people gainfully occupied while the real business of the world goes on. But it's iniquitous and opaque, sinister and secretive. We're led to believe that if we don't like something we can 'vote them out'. And that 'they work for you'. But do you really believe that? The recent quantitative easing and bank bail-outs could have made every family in the UK multi-millionaires instead of bailing out massive failures by people who were already millionaires. Think about that for a moment. But who then would clean the streets or go to work on a Monday morning?
The thing is that our leaders seem to me to be becoming just as corrupt, money-grabbing and frankly piss-taking as the worst offenders in the Middle East and elsewhere. Expenses scandals, bribery and corruption, cash for questions, aggressive lobbying techniques abound; the very police force that we trust to keep us safe seems to have pretty shoddy standards of honesty. Public office seems to be more 'jobs for the boys' than something to be undertaken based on merit or capability, or providing value for money for the people who pay for it. Cover-ups at the NHS and the BBC; HMRC using surveillance technology to try to prosecute a whistle-blower (when they say that this technology will only be used for anti-terrorist work). Private-sector Banks getting bailed out with taxpayer money; actually private deposits being stolen, quite openly by the EU from banks in Cyprus.
It seems to me that quite a lot of what we work for, in my hypothetical little village, where we're happy, is being taken from us by force, threat and 'belief' for no other reason than to allow some people to fund wars; to kill people who are fundamentally 'good' as individuals and to fund the seemingly endemic and worsening corruption in our ruling classes. It feels like Rome before the fall to me. The worst excesses and often, utter contempt for the people they're supposed to work for and to serve.
I realise of course that I'm probably pissing in the wind here. But I think that those of us who are 'ordinary' people, fundamentally kind, generous and 'good' deserve a whole lot better and to live in a safer, fairer and more honest world. I don't know how we get to that situation, but I don't think our current 'ruling classes' have anything like a similar motivation.
Maybe there'll be a British, or a Western 'Spring', now that the internet and in particular, social media enables groups to form, promises to be monitored and remembered, campaigns to be mounted? No wonder our Governments are scrambling to increase surveillance. 'If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear', they tell us. Trouble is, it seems the wrongdoers are the ones dong the monitoring of us ordinary citizens. With impunity.
I for one hope that they themselves will soon have something to fear.
Thanks for reading.
Monday 10 June 2013
Loyalty.... on the cards?
I don't have a loyalty card. Maybe that says more about me than otherwise. Maybe I'm not that loyal?
Perhaps it's that I was always terrified that at the checkout, with a long queue behind me, the alarm would go off noisily and publicly; the store manager would be summoned and tell me, in front of all the other shoppers - and neighbours - that I'd only bought two bottles of gin this week instead of the usual four and 'is there something wrong sir?'
I believe that there is something similar in place when one shops online for groceries: 'You appear not to have ordered any herpes medicine for three weeks, you must be running out by now sir?'
'And you've bought tampax this week sir, as you did four weeks ago, can we interest you in a lawnmower?' (all together: because you'll not be doing anything else this weekend).
Joking aside, you do know of course that a loyalty card and the benefits that accrue therefrom, is all about gathering more information on you so that the retailler and product manufacturer can more carefully target you as a customer. That's obvious.
Advertisers use them so as to reduce the money they have to spend on 'broadcasting' their message on TV and radio, which is very expensive, and instead they can target someone they know more about via packaging, leveraging their 'partner' products etc.
And that's fine really because it means that you will tend to be 'communicated with' about products that you're interested in. A win-win then for everyone.
But what if you're vulnerable? This kind of targeting adds massively to the pressure that retailers can put on you to buy their products. 'People who bought this also bought this (and if you don't, you're an idiot).'
If people know what you buy they know your habits and largely, your lifestyle. And they can do so in a way which entices you to spend more money with them. Perhaps money you weren't planning to spend, but the offer's just too good to miss. And next week there'll be another offer that you cannot afford to miss too.
Eventually you might get to wonder who is making your shopping choices: you or the retailler?
Still, the lawnmower's quite good.
Thanks for reading etc.
Perhaps it's that I was always terrified that at the checkout, with a long queue behind me, the alarm would go off noisily and publicly; the store manager would be summoned and tell me, in front of all the other shoppers - and neighbours - that I'd only bought two bottles of gin this week instead of the usual four and 'is there something wrong sir?'
I believe that there is something similar in place when one shops online for groceries: 'You appear not to have ordered any herpes medicine for three weeks, you must be running out by now sir?'
'And you've bought tampax this week sir, as you did four weeks ago, can we interest you in a lawnmower?' (all together: because you'll not be doing anything else this weekend).
Joking aside, you do know of course that a loyalty card and the benefits that accrue therefrom, is all about gathering more information on you so that the retailler and product manufacturer can more carefully target you as a customer. That's obvious.
Advertisers use them so as to reduce the money they have to spend on 'broadcasting' their message on TV and radio, which is very expensive, and instead they can target someone they know more about via packaging, leveraging their 'partner' products etc.
And that's fine really because it means that you will tend to be 'communicated with' about products that you're interested in. A win-win then for everyone.
But what if you're vulnerable? This kind of targeting adds massively to the pressure that retailers can put on you to buy their products. 'People who bought this also bought this (and if you don't, you're an idiot).'
If people know what you buy they know your habits and largely, your lifestyle. And they can do so in a way which entices you to spend more money with them. Perhaps money you weren't planning to spend, but the offer's just too good to miss. And next week there'll be another offer that you cannot afford to miss too.
Eventually you might get to wonder who is making your shopping choices: you or the retailler?
Still, the lawnmower's quite good.
Thanks for reading etc.
If you're not doing anything wrong..
I used to think surveillance was a good thing. It would catch the 'baddies' and enhance my freedom. And if I was doing nothing wrong then I had nothing to fear.
And in your own mind you do go about your daily business 'doing nothing wrong'. You don't steal, you don't hurt anyone deliberately, you don't do anything that could remotely be described as 'wrong' in your own head or indeed in the eyes of the law. You go about your daily life; a good citizen with your family at the centre of your actions, disseminating cheer and good will at every turn.
But what if, out of curiosity and boredom, you once visited a porn site online? What if you had a brief meaningless 'fling' with someone else? What if you did 85mph on the motorway in a 70 limit? What if you got paid in cash for doing the old lady's garden next door and didn't declare it on your annual tax return? What if you went to watch the cricket as the guest of a supplier and then didn't declare it to the taxman? What if you told the local 'good' school that you go to church every Sunday so that your kids might get in? When in reality you go at Easter and Christmas?
None of these things are a hangable or even cautionable offense. You therefore retain your sainthood and your blemish-free outlook on life. Your 'good family man' status. And that's great. Good for you.
But what if you then have a dispute at work as a Government employee? What if you oppose a Government policy and find yourself in a position to be recognised and taken seriously. Someone of good standing, credibility and influence. You believe that your are doing the right thing. You might be a whistle-blower perhaps, exposing corruption within an organisation that shouldn't be there. And that demands that you speak up for the greater good.
The trouble is that if your opponent knows everything about you; that you once, on a rainy afternoon visited 'debby does dallas.com' or flirted with the girl in the typing pool, got pissed at a Christmas party and did a Hitler salute; tried to see how fast the new Merc would go at 4am on the motorway...
If you did any of these things and a vast array of others that, I would argue, prove you're alive, human and real, then you're in deep shit.
It doesn't matter that the people you're accusing of wrongdoing or sexual infidelity or massive financial corruption are guilty of doing so. What happens is that you are labelled as a pervert or a speeder, a law-breaker, a hypocrite. And your 'revelations' fall at the first hurdle, that of being a credible witness.
Because in the wrong hands, the information that essentially proves you're human, and flawed, just like everyone else, can be used against you to discredit your argument, your revelations, your accusations. To the point where whatever the magnitude of the wrongdoing of the people you are exposing will not be taken seriously because of your minor human frailties and foibles.
Knowledge is power they say. I think that's probably more true than we know. I don't think that surveillance is such a good thing anymore.
I don't necessarily know what the answer is. But I don't think it's being controlled by snoopers.
I don't think it's always about exposing MPs for their foibles either. If they're doing a great job for the country we should cut them some personal slack in my opinion. If they're telling us how to live our lives (which they increasingly are) and are found wanting in their own lives that's another matter of course.
Overall, them having information on 'us' when we do not have access to information on 'them' is a bad thing. The balance should, if anything, be in the opposite direction if they're making laws for us to abide by.
If you do live an unblemished lifestyle you can throw the first stone. If not - and I'm guessing you don't - then you should be against surveillance and against the creeping spying that we're now encountering.
Thanks for reading. Sleep well, if you're not already. ;)
Mark
And in your own mind you do go about your daily business 'doing nothing wrong'. You don't steal, you don't hurt anyone deliberately, you don't do anything that could remotely be described as 'wrong' in your own head or indeed in the eyes of the law. You go about your daily life; a good citizen with your family at the centre of your actions, disseminating cheer and good will at every turn.
But what if, out of curiosity and boredom, you once visited a porn site online? What if you had a brief meaningless 'fling' with someone else? What if you did 85mph on the motorway in a 70 limit? What if you got paid in cash for doing the old lady's garden next door and didn't declare it on your annual tax return? What if you went to watch the cricket as the guest of a supplier and then didn't declare it to the taxman? What if you told the local 'good' school that you go to church every Sunday so that your kids might get in? When in reality you go at Easter and Christmas?
None of these things are a hangable or even cautionable offense. You therefore retain your sainthood and your blemish-free outlook on life. Your 'good family man' status. And that's great. Good for you.
But what if you then have a dispute at work as a Government employee? What if you oppose a Government policy and find yourself in a position to be recognised and taken seriously. Someone of good standing, credibility and influence. You believe that your are doing the right thing. You might be a whistle-blower perhaps, exposing corruption within an organisation that shouldn't be there. And that demands that you speak up for the greater good.
The trouble is that if your opponent knows everything about you; that you once, on a rainy afternoon visited 'debby does dallas.com' or flirted with the girl in the typing pool, got pissed at a Christmas party and did a Hitler salute; tried to see how fast the new Merc would go at 4am on the motorway...
If you did any of these things and a vast array of others that, I would argue, prove you're alive, human and real, then you're in deep shit.
It doesn't matter that the people you're accusing of wrongdoing or sexual infidelity or massive financial corruption are guilty of doing so. What happens is that you are labelled as a pervert or a speeder, a law-breaker, a hypocrite. And your 'revelations' fall at the first hurdle, that of being a credible witness.
Because in the wrong hands, the information that essentially proves you're human, and flawed, just like everyone else, can be used against you to discredit your argument, your revelations, your accusations. To the point where whatever the magnitude of the wrongdoing of the people you are exposing will not be taken seriously because of your minor human frailties and foibles.
Knowledge is power they say. I think that's probably more true than we know. I don't think that surveillance is such a good thing anymore.
I don't necessarily know what the answer is. But I don't think it's being controlled by snoopers.
I don't think it's always about exposing MPs for their foibles either. If they're doing a great job for the country we should cut them some personal slack in my opinion. If they're telling us how to live our lives (which they increasingly are) and are found wanting in their own lives that's another matter of course.
Overall, them having information on 'us' when we do not have access to information on 'them' is a bad thing. The balance should, if anything, be in the opposite direction if they're making laws for us to abide by.
If you do live an unblemished lifestyle you can throw the first stone. If not - and I'm guessing you don't - then you should be against surveillance and against the creeping spying that we're now encountering.
Thanks for reading. Sleep well, if you're not already. ;)
Mark
Saturday 8 June 2013
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to be a complete c*nt
There's been loads of stuff on twitter about freedom of speech lately. Many people lauding the fact that they tolerate, embrace even, views with which they don't agree so long as they're genuinely held and come under the remit of free speech.
What's that old chestnut that's always wheeled out at times like this? I may disagree with what you say but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it. I think some people have become a bit carried away with that sentiment.
There's a lot to be said for it: Tolerance is always good. Intolerance is probably the biggest cause of conflict in the world today. So that's all good then.
I also agree that 'being offended' is not a crime. It is, in effect, your problem and not something that can or should be rectified by the long arm of the law. Prosecuting people for saying or posting offensive things on twitter for example is not really what we should be about as a society. Mary Whitehouse could always have switched channel of course.
But this last sentiment, for some people, seems to be an 'absolute' and they use it as an excuse to 'push the envelope', a get out of jail free card of sorts. They seem to be saying: 'I can say or type anything - it's only speech after all, not physical violence - and you cannot take offence.'
And that's where I become a bit uncomfortable with the whole 'crusade' as it seems it is becoming. You see, to me, something doesn't quite stack up about free speech when viewed in this way.
I had a twitter conversation with a gay friend of mine about the anti gay ads being run in London on buses (which were eventually pulled by Boris): He said they should be allowed to run (even though they were proposing something that was scientifically proven to be untrue - that being gay can be 'cured') on the basis of freedom of speech.
The thing is that these ads were not one person espousing his or her views, but instead designed to influence opinion. And that changes the ball-game as far as I am concerned. And just if you think that bus ads or any other form of advertising doesn't influence opinion, ask yourself why then do people pay a lot of money to run them? Of course it influences people about their views and choices and opinions.
And so does what people read on twitter. Yes we might say that we're a bit more worldly-wise than some, a bit more cynical, but twitter rumours spread like wildfire, presumably on the basis of our gullibility and belief in what we're being told. You starting to see the problem here?
So one could begin to make an argument about freedom of readership; that what we read should be - as far as possible - fair and true. That should be a 'right' for us? The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has volumes of rules to that effect. But that, when adopted and used by Government, is the other extreme, the way of total control, of Brave New World and 1984 and all that and not something that I would ever advocate.
It is, however a direction in which we have been travelling in recent years with our anti-discrimination laws and, I would argue, the growth of the nanny state. So to a degree I can understand the backlash about freedom of speech that is now emerging.
I'm just not sure that replacing one extreme with another is very helpful.
I think freedom of speech a bit like a child. It's something you can have and love and nurture and value and protect It is perhaps something that you would fight for. Die for even, as many have in one way or another. But if you abuse it, mistreat it, use it wrongly, it should be taken away for its own protection. So that it can thrive and so that others who have children can love, nurture, protect etc.
Using it as a means to cause offense - not so you might offend someone who has differing views but to offend them personally when you're not making a reasoned point but deliberately insulting someone for whatever reason - is abusing that hard-fought freedom in my opinion.
And doing that, in my opinion, puts in jeopardy the freedom of speech that is afforded to everyone else. By abusing freedom of speech in the way I describe, you are effectively threatening my freedom of speech and that is unacceptable to me.
And as you have (presumably) said, threatening freedom of speech is unacceptable to you. You see what I mean when I say it doesn't quite stack up?
Anyway, I think I've said as much as I can on this issue for now without going around in circles. The following are my feeble attempts to put the issue into 140 characters for twitter. Unsuccessfully of course - this is too big an issue for that, but nonetheless I'll share them with you. Because I have freedom of speech. For now anyway. ;)
Is freedom of speech more important than respect? More important than getting on with your fellow human beings? More imp. than generosity?
Using freedom of speech as a shield allowing you to blatantly abuse someone is moronic. What does it achieve?
Freedom of speech is valuable & worth fighting 4 but using it in an arrogant: 'I can insult more people than you can' way is just stupid imo
With freedom of any kind comes responsibility & that means responsibility 2 respect other people just as they respect your freedom of speech
Using freedom of speech to deliberately cause offense, knowing that there is no other possible outcome from what you say, is half-witted.
Freedom of speech should be used to make a point and influence a debate not just to abuse people. Do that and you're abusing the freedom.
You can make a point by being rational, polite & reasonable: Using insults, even under the banner of 'freedom of speech' = lost the debate.
So whilst I might fight to the death etc etc., if you then use freedom of speech 2 talk utter shit, you might find me less willing next time
And if you miss-use freedom of speech to abuse people, don't be surprised when that freedom becomes more limited 4 the rest of us who don't.
So there you have it. Enjoy your freedom of speech, but remember that it does not give you the right to be a complete cunt.
I've never used that word on twitter before and probably won't again. Feels good though.
Thanks for reading
Mark
What's that old chestnut that's always wheeled out at times like this? I may disagree with what you say but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it. I think some people have become a bit carried away with that sentiment.
There's a lot to be said for it: Tolerance is always good. Intolerance is probably the biggest cause of conflict in the world today. So that's all good then.
I also agree that 'being offended' is not a crime. It is, in effect, your problem and not something that can or should be rectified by the long arm of the law. Prosecuting people for saying or posting offensive things on twitter for example is not really what we should be about as a society. Mary Whitehouse could always have switched channel of course.
But this last sentiment, for some people, seems to be an 'absolute' and they use it as an excuse to 'push the envelope', a get out of jail free card of sorts. They seem to be saying: 'I can say or type anything - it's only speech after all, not physical violence - and you cannot take offence.'
And that's where I become a bit uncomfortable with the whole 'crusade' as it seems it is becoming. You see, to me, something doesn't quite stack up about free speech when viewed in this way.
I had a twitter conversation with a gay friend of mine about the anti gay ads being run in London on buses (which were eventually pulled by Boris): He said they should be allowed to run (even though they were proposing something that was scientifically proven to be untrue - that being gay can be 'cured') on the basis of freedom of speech.
The thing is that these ads were not one person espousing his or her views, but instead designed to influence opinion. And that changes the ball-game as far as I am concerned. And just if you think that bus ads or any other form of advertising doesn't influence opinion, ask yourself why then do people pay a lot of money to run them? Of course it influences people about their views and choices and opinions.
And so does what people read on twitter. Yes we might say that we're a bit more worldly-wise than some, a bit more cynical, but twitter rumours spread like wildfire, presumably on the basis of our gullibility and belief in what we're being told. You starting to see the problem here?
So one could begin to make an argument about freedom of readership; that what we read should be - as far as possible - fair and true. That should be a 'right' for us? The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has volumes of rules to that effect. But that, when adopted and used by Government, is the other extreme, the way of total control, of Brave New World and 1984 and all that and not something that I would ever advocate.
It is, however a direction in which we have been travelling in recent years with our anti-discrimination laws and, I would argue, the growth of the nanny state. So to a degree I can understand the backlash about freedom of speech that is now emerging.
I'm just not sure that replacing one extreme with another is very helpful.
I think freedom of speech a bit like a child. It's something you can have and love and nurture and value and protect It is perhaps something that you would fight for. Die for even, as many have in one way or another. But if you abuse it, mistreat it, use it wrongly, it should be taken away for its own protection. So that it can thrive and so that others who have children can love, nurture, protect etc.
Using it as a means to cause offense - not so you might offend someone who has differing views but to offend them personally when you're not making a reasoned point but deliberately insulting someone for whatever reason - is abusing that hard-fought freedom in my opinion.
And doing that, in my opinion, puts in jeopardy the freedom of speech that is afforded to everyone else. By abusing freedom of speech in the way I describe, you are effectively threatening my freedom of speech and that is unacceptable to me.
And as you have (presumably) said, threatening freedom of speech is unacceptable to you. You see what I mean when I say it doesn't quite stack up?
Anyway, I think I've said as much as I can on this issue for now without going around in circles. The following are my feeble attempts to put the issue into 140 characters for twitter. Unsuccessfully of course - this is too big an issue for that, but nonetheless I'll share them with you. Because I have freedom of speech. For now anyway. ;)
Is freedom of speech more important than respect? More important than getting on with your fellow human beings? More imp. than generosity?
Using freedom of speech as a shield allowing you to blatantly abuse someone is moronic. What does it achieve?
Freedom of speech is valuable & worth fighting 4 but using it in an arrogant: 'I can insult more people than you can' way is just stupid imo
With freedom of any kind comes responsibility & that means responsibility 2 respect other people just as they respect your freedom of speech
Using freedom of speech to deliberately cause offense, knowing that there is no other possible outcome from what you say, is half-witted.
Freedom of speech should be used to make a point and influence a debate not just to abuse people. Do that and you're abusing the freedom.
You can make a point by being rational, polite & reasonable: Using insults, even under the banner of 'freedom of speech' = lost the debate.
So whilst I might fight to the death etc etc., if you then use freedom of speech 2 talk utter shit, you might find me less willing next time
And if you miss-use freedom of speech to abuse people, don't be surprised when that freedom becomes more limited 4 the rest of us who don't.
So there you have it. Enjoy your freedom of speech, but remember that it does not give you the right to be a complete cunt.
I've never used that word on twitter before and probably won't again. Feels good though.
Thanks for reading
Mark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)