Google+
This blog has moved. Please go over to this link to see my new website.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Tuesday, 28 October 2014

Ruled by Intellect or Emotion? Tips on Word Choice #8

The Houses of Parliament are situated within t...
The Houses of Parliament are situated within the Palace of Westminster, in London. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
There are words/phrases that can induce fairly specific responses in readers. As writers, we all know this, but do we use the power of emotion in our work?

For the next few weeks, I’ll be looking at something subjective: how to choose between emotional and intellectual words for effect. You won’t always agree with my interpretation, of course; you’re writers. But, hopefully, my suggestions will get the thought processes going.

In this series I’m looking at the difference between words that seem intellectual as opposed to those that invoke a more emotional response. How you use them is obviously up to you. The point is that the alternatives have the same, or very similar, meanings, but their effect upon the reader can be markedly different. I’ve made some suggestions here, but I’m sure you can think of others.

Intellectual: Anticipate
Emotional: Expect

The major political parties all anticipate a landslide in the General Election, as the majority of people never actually give much thought to their choice of candidate but vote on an emotional rather than an intellectual basis.

I expect most voters will do their usual thing and either fail to make their mark or do so on the ignorant say so of some friend or partner.

Intellectual: Concerned
Emotional: Worried

Many parents are concerned about the nature of the world in which their children will have to live.

I’m worried my daughter will inherit a very uncomfortable world because of the selfish attitudes of my own generation.

Intellectual: Futile
Emotional: Hopeless

To oppose the status quo is a futile exercise bound to result in disappointment for the protesters.


No matter how hopeless our cause appears, we must fight for it for as long as we’re able.

Sunday, 4 November 2012

The American Election: a View From Over the Pond.

IN MY VIEW


Why should I care what happens in the USA Presidential election? It’s a sad fact of life that the USA has a hugely inflated influence in the world. US foreign policy impacts far more deeply, far more widely than the nation deserves, with its inward obsession. And that’s the problem: US policies, regarding the world as a whole, are entirely based on what’s best for the US, rather than what’s best for the world.

Obama at least has an awareness and an interest in what happens beyond the shores of his own continent. I fear not only for the women and the poor of America, but for the world as a whole if Romney succeeds in gaining the post of the most powerful man in the world.

Where Obama displays concern for the poor and disadvantaged, and tries his best, against strong opposition from the right, to do what he can for them, Romney has shown himself indifferent or even worse in his attitude to society’s victims. The wealthy have stripped the poor of their resources and rights for centuries and Romney belongs to that class of people who hold the view that the poor deserve to be poor. He has no conception of the realities of life for those without personal wealth. His attitude to women is appalling: his many statements demonstrate that he has no interest in the views of women and simply wants them to remain silent and under the control of men. This cowardly stance is fed, of course, by his religious background, which, in common with the backward paternalistic culture of many third world countries, considers women as second class citizens or, worse, as no more than goods and chattels. It staggers me that any woman could even consider voting for this man who appears to reside in a Hollywood version of the stone age, where men are depicted as superior beings and women are no more than decorative slaves expected to pander to male whims and fancies. Of course, it’s probable that such women have been brain-washed, often via extreme forms of religion, into not only accepting their subservient role but into evangelising this Neanderthal philosophy.

I hope, without any expectation of satisfaction, that the women and the poor of America will rise up and demand their rights by voting for Obama, kicking the right wing in the teeth for their lack of compassion and their inhumanity regarding all underdogs. There are just two days to go before the momentous decision is made. I appeal to all women, disadvantaged citizens, and right-thinking folk of the wonderful land of America to go out and vote for President Obama. The rest of the world will applaud you if you do. If you wonder how I know this, follow this link.

Saturday, 6 October 2012

Is Society Organised for Business or for People?

International Money Pile in Cash and Coins
International Money Pile in Cash and Coins (Photo credit: epSos.de)

An odd question, or one you think should be considered? I suspect your view will be influenced by your basic attitude to the place of money in society.

Why would I even ask the question? I look at the world around me and view the priorities cited by government, commerce and those with a real interest in environment. What I see is a society slewed toward the making of money as a primary purpose. But isn’t money supposed to be the tool, the helpmate of humanity? Isn’t trade, and all those services involved with manufacturing, production and delivery, intended to serve mankind?

When I look at the world, I see that the production of wealth is actually the prime purpose of most commerce. Now, I fully understand that we can’t live in a society where barter takes the place of currency, but I do question the value we place on the process involved in increasing wealth. Businesses appear to exist primarily for the benefit of their shareholders, so that their customers are, in fact, at best a secondary consideration rather than the primary cause of activity.

Banks are probably the best illustration of what I mean: Banks were set up to provide a service that would allow the lending, borrowing and security of the funds of their customers to operate to the benefit of those customers. But the current system benefits primarily the bankers and those institutions and individuals who hold equity in the business itself. The customer who wishes to take advantage of the lending system is now seen more as a threat than a natural client. Customers are viewed as a source of extra income, often by the employment of questionable schemes to extract more money from them to be placed into the banks’ coffers. (There are many examples of this, the recent scandal of mis-sold PPI is simply the most obvious).

Sport is another area where money has become the prime purpose of participation. Football, in particular, has fallen victim of the money men. What used to be local clubs, with locally trained and selected teams, and whose object was the raising of local pride in association with the clubs’ successes, have now become simple businesses. They no longer have any real connection with the locality in which they reside. The teams are made up of international ‘stars’ of questionable value who are paid obscene amounts of money in order to progress their teams to gain more money for the club owners. In the rush to make more and more money from sport, all ideas of sportsmanship have receded to be overtaken by cynical gamesmanship. And this change is so pervasive that many of the fans and players aren’t even aware that cheating, play-acting and tricks are damaging both the sport and society in general. And all this because huge sums of money are on offer from the various media companies who distribute the product to the masses.

Religion has joined the rush for money, in spite of the injunction to the faithful that they should eschew material riches in favour of spiritual rewards. The Roman Catholic church is an obscenely rich organisation that begs for more income from its impoverished congregations whilst keeping its leaders in ostentatious luxury. The Church of England cries out for public funds to repair and support its many crumbling buildings, whilst remaining one of the richest landowners in the country.  I don’t know much about the Jewish and Islamic institutions, but I’m willing to bet they are similarly wealthy whilst many of their adherents remain in poverty.

I could go on with examples, but that would be pointless. My concern is with the way in which we have allowed money to become our master and, in the process, allowed those who own the most money to have power over the vast majority who have little or none. What was intended as a tool to aid interaction and prevent chaos in a growing population has become a weapon in the hands of a very few powerful institutions and individuals. A weapon of control, which promises to become eternally self-perpetuating unless we do something radical to overturn the supremacy of money in the use and abuse of power and return governance to the mass of people.

It is demonstrably unjust that there are individuals who have personal incomes and wealth greater than the GDP of some small nations. It is demonstrably absurd that some individuals have colossal wealth when there are many who have none. We have been sold the idea that those with wealth have somehow deserved it, that they are solely responsible for the good fortune that has happened their way. Please don’t spout the old chestnuts about ‘getting what you deserve’ and ‘work hard and you’ll succeed’ at me. I touched on those two lies a while back and the links (one below) will take you to my arguments.

The simple fact is that no individual ever has been or ever will be deserving of wealth disproportionate to their efforts. The tycoon who claims to be a ‘self-made man’ conveniently forgets that he could not even have risen from his bed in the morning without the help and input of a multitude of other people. For those who find this concept difficult to grasp I feel I must give an example. We all need food to survive. Let’s take the basic loaf of bread, without which our tycoon could not perform, due to hunger. Someone has first to plough and till the ground so that it can be seeded with grain. The crop has to be gathered and transported along roads, made by many more individuals using the tools and machines made by other individuals. At the bakery, more people are involved in turning the raw material into a food product, using machinery and electricity that depends on other individuals for manufacture. Once baked, using power derived from sources mined or generated by yet more people, the product is transported, using fuel and materials produced by other individuals. Eventually, the loaf arrives in the shop to be sold and is there dispensed by even more people. Along the way, we have also to consider the road sweeper who keeps the highway clear to permit the transport to move, the rubbish collector who disposes of the waste that would otherwise clog up the works, the teacher who educates all the people involved in the various process, the nurse who cares for those who fall sick along the way, the unpaid parents who ensure the children get to school…do I need to go on? The reality is obvious. But we seem to have fallen into the trap of believing that certain individuals somehow contribute a great deal more than the rest of us. It simply isn’t true.

The only real difference between the wealthy and the poor is often due to luck, preferential birth circumstances, the possession of a peculiar talent or the wicked selfishness and greed that allows some to ignore the needs of those over whom they wield their power.

Of course we need to reward those who initiate those ideas that are of benefit to the mass of humanity. Of course we must recognise those who possess rare and valuable talent. Of course we should ensure justice for those who accept high levels of responsibility. But none of these people is worth the huge difference in value that is ascribed to them.

In the UK, and I suspect, elsewhere in the world, there is a minimum wage, set so that unscrupulous businessmen cannot exploit too heavily those who produce their wealth for them. If a minimum wage is a sensible barrier to excessive poverty, then a maximum wage can easily be made a similar barrier to excessive wealth. It requires only political will. But, as long as we have a system of government that depends only on the value falsely accorded to money, we will have a control system that prefers the wealthy over the vast majority of hard-working people. Is that what you want?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, 8 April 2012

As it Seemed to Me, by John Cole, Reviewed.


This political memoir examines the journalist's thirty-odd years in the trade. It covers a period through which I lived, not quite contemporaneously with the author, who's senior to me by twenty years. Nevertheless, I watched his television reports through the period and, in reading this work, I could again hear the tortured vowels of his Ulster accent.

I always admired the man as a political commentator and reading the book only serves to increase that admiration for someone for whom honesty and pragmatic realism were clearly guiding principles. His neutrality continues, as it did during his long and illustrious career in a field for which he was truly fitted. Moving from his native Northern Ireland to England early in his working life, he served on such august bodies as the Guardian, the Observer and, of course, the BBC in various roles from reporter to editor, ending up as the senior political commentator for that broadcaster.

The book is written very much from the point of view of the observer of political life and there are places where the author's assumption of the reader's knowledge and interest in some of the minutiae is taken for granted. I never reached that level of absorption at the time and so certain passages became less clear to me and there were a number I skipped completely. But there are over 400 pages of dense prose here, so some skipping is, perhaps, excusable.

John Cole's delivery is clearly that of the experienced and professional journalist, with never a word wasted. He packs a great deal into each sentence and the writing can hardly be faulted for its presentation of a complex period of British history.

That I find myself in sympathy with his misgivings about many events and the attitudes of some politicians, particularly the imperious and overbearing Margaret Thatcher, obviously makes me more sympathetic to what he has to say. It's encouraging to know that my impression of our first female Prime Minister as an inflexible martinet with fixed ideas based on ideology rather than pragmatic reality is reinforced by this man who lived close to the action.

This is a book I read initially because it was on my shelves and I'd promised myself I'd read all such volumes before I bought any more. I can't recall how I came by it. Probably, it was one of a package offered by one of the many book clubs I've belonged to during my lengthy reading career. I'm sure I didn't buy it as a separate and targeted book at the time. But I'm glad I've given it the time it deserves, even if somewhat belatedly (it was published in 1995).

It's reinforced some of my impressions of the period, repudiated others, educated me about many and filled in gaps I hadn't realised existed in my knowledge of the time I lived through.

For any reader whose idea of a good book is restricted to the fantasies of fiction, there's nothing here for you. But for those interested in recent British history, the shenanigans of politicians or the profession of journalism, this is a damn good read and I recommend it to you.

Thursday, 12 January 2012

The Republic, by Plato, Reviewed.

The Death of Socrates
Image via Wikipedia

This classic, in the true sense of the word, was written by Plato some time after the execution of his admired narrator, Socrates, in 399BC. The supposed dramatic setting for the narrative is around 420BC.
Taking the form of a discussion between Socrates and friends, the work is a philosophical treatise founded on the theme of justice. It touches, along the way, many other aspects of life and thought and can be seen to be a foundation stone in the building of Western thought, politics and ideas.
That Plato wrote in an era when slavery was not only accepted but was an everyday normality, and where women were perceived as inferior beings, permeates the text for a modern reader. There are many places where I felt like grabbing the narrator, and his fellow conversationalists, by the metaphorical lapels and shaking them out of their complacency over these two issues. But that is more a reflection of my attitudes about these issues than of the quality of the writing.
I started reading this tome, which requires a good deal of concentration, before Xmas and the season rather interrupted the serious read. But I became determined to finish the book before starting on the editing of the novel I'd written the preceding November (NaNoWriMo challenge for those interested). The reason was that it immediately became clear that The Republic deals with many of the themes I included in my novel and I wanted to see what this seminal work had to say on these ideas.
The ideas expressed are remarkably contemporary in many cases. I was surprised by references to personality, character, political systems and religion that I'd previously considered to be relatively modern. There were times when I completely forgot that this book was written almost 2,500 years ago.
What I found most disturbing, however, were some of the theories and philosophical ideas that have clearly been responsible for the way we think and live today in the Western world. That some of these ideas have been distorted, misunderstood, partially comprehended or, in some cases, deliberately taken out of context, to justify certain modern political decisions became clearer as I read. I understood, for the first time, some of the classical references I've come across in life and many of the underlying reasons for our current way of life became obvious. It's clear that many of our current leaders are steeped in the arguments put forward in this narrative. The teaching of the classics is, of course, fundamental to the education supplied by most private schools. That it isn't generally included in the curricula of state schools is equally clear. I'm not a lover of conspiracy theory, but it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that there has been a deliberate policy of discouraging the reading of such books as this, lest the general populace become aware of what leaders have always known.
It's impossible to do justice to this text in the space of a simple review. I can only suggest that those who have the intellectual stamina and the necessary curiosity about the nature of thought and life read this book. There is much that the modern reader will deplore, disagree with and denigrate. The benefit of living long after the work was completed provides us with a greater understanding of many things that must have been mysteries to Plato and his contemporaries. But the fundamentals of his thesis on politics, rule and the actions of leaders and the general populace are sound.
Those who love the superficial and the easy will find this book indigestible but those who like depth, provocation of the grey cells and stimulus for the imagination and curiosity will find this a singularly rewarding read. I thoroughly recommend it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, 25 October 2011

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: Vacillate

Logo Liberal Democrats UKImage via Wikipedia
Vacillate: verb - sway or swing unsteadily; in unstable equilibrium, oscillate, stagger, vary, fluctuate; waver between different opinions, options, actions; indecisive.

'There is a perception, amongst those of a fixed political view, that the Liberal Democrats vacillate on most points of policy; this is false, of course, as they merely tend to take the middle path, rather than either of the offered extremes in most things.'

25 October 1961 Private Eye was published for the first time. I doubt Ian Hislop, the current editor, was even around at that time. It’s been responsible for deflating many a political and celebrity ego along the way. Long may it continue to do so.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, 18 October 2011

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: Whether or if?

UK Conservative Party poster from 1929 warning...Image via Wikipedia
Whether or if?

These two conjunctions are more or less interchangeable. However, 'whether' is generally used in more formal writing. And 'if' gives a better idea that possibility or probability is involved with the alternatives on offer.

So:

'Whether you vote Labour or Conservative will make no difference to your life: both parties will screw you unless you're part of the club.'


'If you vote Labour, you can feel that you've tried to be socially responsible, but if you vote Conservative, you'll have to accept you've displayed no social conscience. Of course, the reality is that neither vote will improve matters for you, unless you belong to the small group making the decisions.'
 


Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, 16 June 2011

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: Laborious


Laborious; adjective – distinguished by or involving labour or exertion; entailing labour in construction or execution; not fluent; giving birth with difficulty; of labour - difficult.

‘The prisoners in the chain gang found the manual digging of drainage ditches a laborious task.’

‘The vicar’s sermon on moral decline in the modern age was so laborious that half of his congregation fell asleep before he’d finished.’

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, 15 June 2011

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: Compliment or complement

A dinner is set up on black, gold-rimmed dishe...Image via Wikipedia
Compliment or complement: A compliment is praise given to your lover in hopes of the rewards of love. You may complement a collection of objects by making it complete, or add an item to some others for the same reason.

‘Frank was apt to flirt with the girls and compliment them on their figures and appearance in the hope that they would favour him with, well, favours.’

‘Jesse brought in a bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon to complement the meal of roast beef.’ 

15 June 1996 – Central Manchester was bombed by Irish dissidents.
Another example, fortunately now well past, of idiots believing they can achieve their unpopular aims by terrorizing populations indiscriminately. Terrorists rarely actually achieve anything that couldn’t be better changed by normal, if slow, democratic processes. And when governments and journalists dress up the activity of such sociopaths by referring to mass murder as something other than what it is, they aid the terrorists.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, 12 June 2011

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: Byronic hero

Lord Byron at Missolonghi, by Theodoros VryzakisImage via Wikipedia
Byronic hero: A jaded and flawed hero, founded on the life and works of romantic poet, Lord Byron. He is usually erratic, disrespectful, self-destructive. His emotional behaviour often isolates him from the world. Byronic heroes appear throughout literature: Heathcliff is a good example. They are still common in certain types of romance, and the Phantom in the Phantom of the Opera is a relatively contemporary example, though there are doubtless innumerable modern examples.



12 June 1991 – Boris Yeltsin became first democratically elected President of Russia.
For all that he was perceived as a drunk and a buffoon in some circles, and was undeniably eccentric, he was a symbol of the emergence of the USSR from its communist straightjacket and into the modern political clothing of democracy. Still far to go before the corruption of the past is purged and yet to throw off the traditional urge to appoint a dictatorial figure as a leader, the Russians are slowly modernising their government to bring it into line with contemporary ideas. 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, 22 March 2011

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: Gabble

James Craggs the Younger (d. 1721) british whi...Image via Wikipedia
Gabble: noun - confused and unintelligible talk; an example of this; inarticulate noises made by some animals.

'Miriam stood by the entrance to the chamber, where the political leaders were supposed to be debating a serious issue but all she heard was gabble from these representatives of the people.'

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, 23 February 2011

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: Fabian

Julius Henry "Groucho" Marx, cropped...Image via Wikipedia
Fabian: noun - member of the Fabian Society, or a sympathizer with its ideals: adjective - pertaining to the manner of the cautious and delaying tactics employed by Roman general, Fabius Maximus; to wear out an enemy; pertaining to a socialist society founded in 1884, which advocates a policy of cautious and gradual political change.


For this definition, I felt I could do no better than include the introduction from the Fabian Society's own website:

The Fabian Society has played a central role for more than a century in the development of political ideas and public policy on the left of centre. Analysing the key challenges facing the UK and the rest of the industrialised world in a changing society and global economy, the society's programme aims to explore the political ideas and the policy reforms which will define progressive politics in the new century.
The society is unique among think-tanks in being a democratically-constituted membership organisation. It is affiliated to the Labour Party but is editorially and organisationally independent. Through its publications, seminars and conferences, the society provides an arena for open-minded public debate.
All Labour Prime Ministers have been members of the Fabian Society, while the Young Fabians have been influential in creating debate and as an arena for young people with an interest in politics to both influence and learn from influential political figures.

I must tell you, though, I have no affiliation to or connection with the Fabian Society. In fact, I think party politics is the antithesis of democracy and polarises opinion in the most unhelpful way. In a distortion of Groucho Marx's words, 'I wouldn't join any political party that would have me as a member.'

Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, 13 December 2010

Is There Such a Thing as an Honest Politician?

The House of Commons in Wilberforce's day by A...Image via Wikipedia
Does politics only attract the wrong sort of people? Is it a place for control freaks to get their fill of domination of others, grafters to squeeze the public purse for whatever they can steal from it, attention seekers to bask in limelight? Of course, there are some good politicians out there; those who do a good job of the duties the office imposes. But the general picture we receive is of corruption, ambition and condescension. My own local MP doesn't see eye to eye with me on a number of topics, but when he refuses to take into account the views of over 80% of his constituents on a given issue, is he being 'honourable' by following his own conscience, or is he simply failing in his duty to those who elected him? He is, after all, supposed to be our representative in this democratic land, not an abuser of the office he has attained.  
What do you see when you look at your local representative in government? What do you see when you look at government in general?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, 21 September 2010

Accept or Except

Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. Blair was...Image via Wikipedia
Away from the desk and all things computer for the moment. So, I’ll keep things going with scheduled blogs dealing with the language we use as writers. I hope you’ll forgive me if I don’t reply to any comments for the time being, but I’m having a very well-earned (I think so, anyway) rest from work for a couple of weeks.


When to use Accept or Except:  


accept: to agree to, to receive, to believe, to answer positively.  ‘Though it pains me say this, I accept your argument about Tony Blair.’


except: excluding, not including, omitting. ‘Raffles, the burglar, took everything except the kitchen sink.’
Enhanced by Zemanta