EXTRACTS FROM FORUMS

and some other small thoughts.

070404: Bad Behaviour.

Prison is where you learn how better to break into houses and cars and to get really fit and strong so that you can hit coppers harder, or run away from them faster. Imprisonment is very, very expensive. (That is generally why magistrates give bail to offenders when the cops have refused it). There is not enough space in prisons. (One very good alternative is to put those convicted of, e.g., football violence into prison on Saturdays and other match days). 

The duration of sentences is of little relevance - what happens to the individuals inside is what counts, and if once inside nothing is done to put offenders' heads straight then they will quite probably re-offend when they leave.  

Within a controlled setting, the provision of "street" drugs FREE to those who are addicted would enormously reduce crime AND the cost of crime AND would have a very significant effect on the black market. If the government won't fund free drugs, then the house and car insurance companies should.

Alcohol is a far greater cause of violent crime than drugs are, (in both street and domestic settings). Many people who consider themselves to be both "normal" and "law abiding" are tremendous p*ss-artists. Those who overdo it are tolerated for years and years because alcohol is not generally considered to be a drug. 

Many of today’s offenders are the sons and grandsons (or daughters and granddaughters) of prolific offenders. Society has an awful (literally) lot to answer for. UK society contains a high proportion of thoroughly inadequate people from thoroughly inadequate homes with thoroughly inadequate parenting.  

Massive social reform is the only answer to reduction of the massive sub-culture of dishonest, selfish, reckless and, at present, apparently useless people in the UK. Never doubt for one minute that those who are abused become abusers of drugs, abusers of alcohol, abusers of property and abusers of people.

Three strikes and you're out doesn't work, because there aren't sufficient spaces into which to put the bad dudes. Even at present as things stand in the UK, many offenders have been convicted 20 times or many more than that.

If there were sufficient prison space to apply the three strikes rule, at the very least we would then be compelled to seriously consider how horrid a nation we are becoming, or have already become, to have produced so very many nasty and f*cked-up people.

If your van's running badly you might (possibly) decide to thrash the a*se off it, but it's far more likely that you'll spend time and money on it and give it lots of TLC until it, and you, feel better. That's because you understand your van and you love it too!

If you rip its nuts off and stick it away in a (cold, damp, dark?) garage it's not going to like you when it gets out and it's going to behave just as badly as it did previously and probably much worse AND it will lose value too. 

A lot of people are of the opinion that the prospect of very long prison sentences will make crims think, "Bollox to this, i aint thievin' nuffink cos i'll get locked up for a long time"? (N.B. thief-speak).

But do crims apply logic to their situation(s)?! 

Many of them don't, at least not for long. Many don't even know what logic is. Many are sad (literally), hopeless (literally), and desperate, (as in having no hope). They have very limited self-respect and prop themselves up with the thrills of drug and / or  alcohol abuse, fighting, thieving (and sometimes fairly indiscriminate sh*gging too).

I think you'll agree that locking up ALL crims for EVER is impractical. It cannot and will not be done. There will therefore remain a large proportion of offenders who will continue to do all the bad things they do. 

And they will still produce offspring! And bring them up badly. Compulsory sterilisation not being an option, then we're back to the urgent need for massive social reform. And new ideas.

Zen and the Art of Societal Maintenance.

Back

********************************************************************

"Eat local" sounds like cannibalism, doesn't it. I'm interested in linguistics, but know too little about it. I sometimes wonder whether or not such clumsy short-handed, (have I just made up that term?), use of English originates  via mainly German immigrants from North America , the German language being so deficient in descriptives, (hey, have I just made up a word?).

Soon we may all be speaking English as badly as we do in a multinational conversation on a campsite in the middle of Europe! 

We are learning (North) American. We are increasingly speaking (North) American

1. They watched him get in the car.

3. They watched him getting into the car.

4. They watched as he got into the car.

5. They watched. He got into the car. 

6. They watched him into the car.

1. They watched him get in the car.

Though normal in conversational use, especially in the USA, [perhaps due to the German-speaking, (ins Auto – into the car), origins of many of the continent’s English speakers?], this is “baby talk”. It is inaccurate.

2. They watched him get into the car.

Into shows movement, (which there was). Without the movement he could have been getting a sandwich, a kiss, a headache, etc. while he was in the car.

3. They watched him getting into the car.

Getting indicates that they may not have seen what happened after he got into the car.

4. They watched as he got into the car.

This makes it clear (so far) that they did not see what happened after he got into the car. It does not make it totally clear what they were watching.

5. They watched. He got into the car.

Gives pace. It does not make it totally clear what they were watching.

6. They watched him into the car.

Concise and, I suggest, not open to any misinterpretation. Get, (is an ugly word), which generally means acquire. There is no indication in 1 – 5 / 6 that anyone acquired anything. Get is unnecessary. Latin, a very concise language, often, I recall, omits the verb to go. Back

************************************************************

Ask your partner or very close friend to tell you truthfully what your reaction would be if an unknown driver approached you from behind on a motorway and flashed their headlights at you.

Well, I'm not the most wonderful driver in the world, but I'm generally not slow, not in the wrong lane for mile after mile and, strange though it may sound, I'm not inconsiderate! I do give it some thought and I do allow some time to pass before I give the long headlamp flash(es).

Re: what would I do if flashed? 

Hell, in the last few years it's only happened two or three times. They were in France in the van on dual carriageways while I was overtaking not quite fast enough for a car coming up behind me, (and which hadn't been in view when I started the overtake). Once it was in view, I pretty much expected the headlamp flash, but being committed to the overtake I stayed as I was and completed it. Back

**********************************************************

090804: Communication

(I can't remember where I found this). An Australian aborigine who worked on a ranch could be seen talking to a tree. After a few moments he turned and with tears in his eyes announced that his father was very ill and that he had to go home. As he lived several hundred miles away it was over a week before he was back at the ranch. When asked how his father was, he replied that his father had died only a couple of hours after he got home, but that every thing was OK now because they had said their goodbyes.

Modern man has lost the ability to "see" or communicate in this way, because of modern distractions like radio, TV, telephones and the internet. Most of us are no longer in tune with the world about us though our forefathers obviously were. Back

*****************************************************************

you make the response I was fully expecting - it seems like you are one of the many that believe that we're the ones who have made these countries the way they are.

Many Western European countries colonised non-European countries and exploited them and their resources, (human / animal, vegetable and mineral) and not solely on an economic basis either. We also imposed our own religious, social and legislative values. Nowadays we tend not to colonise, but continue to exploit unfairly.

And nothing gave us the right to do this.

The US, once a colony of ours, is now doing on a far bigger scale what Britain and France did to North America.

Other civilisations, though run very differently from ours, can be considered very civilised without any need for them to match our Western European interpretation of civilised.

A MINORITY of extremists are doing everything they can to disrupt all the efforts to help the MAJORITY of people.

**************************************************

180804: 

AC/DC, Motorhead, Rainbow, Deep Purple, Frank Zappa, Heart, REO Speedwagon, Chicago, Journey, Boston, Queens Of The Stone Age, Grandaddy, Sparklehors, System Of A Down, Rage Against The Machine, Soundgarden, Stone Temple Pilots, L7, Faith No More, Guns & Roses, New York Dolls, Iggy & The Stooges and BLACK SABBATH, Bruce Springstean, Ministry, The Cramps, Nirvana, 80 Matchbox B-Line Disaster, Mountain, Placebo, Green Day, Muse, The 5,6,7,8s, The Dead Kennedys, Iron Maiden... The Ramones, The Misfits, Blackfoot, Ted Nugent, Mountain, Whitesnake, Saxon, Girlschool, Anvil, UFO, Hawkwind, Smashing Pumpkins, Van Halen, Scorpions, Accept, Y&T, Molly Hatchet, Judas Priest, Pixies, Rose Tattoo

I've no idea why anyone should be interested, but I'll press on anyway.........

My most preferred music has to have at least some undertones of bluesy dirt in it. Is that why you missed Jimi Hendrix out of your list? You did, didn't you? He was undoubtedly a bluesman of the first order.

I'll gladly stretch to country-influenced rock 'n' roll as long as it dates from before the modern country and western goons got hold of it.

And I'm horrified that you included Queen. 

Much of the music you've listed I consider to be ugly, without anything positive about it, but equally there's much of it I like a lot.

I like to hear a high degree of musicianship, which is not the same as complexity. If I needed headbanging, I could do it without musical accompaniment of any sort.

Still rock though isn't it?, (referring to the music of 10,000 Things).

I'm going to make you a fabulous offer........,

Call me a pedantic bastard, if you like, (there's the offer), but it's not rock, it's rock 'n' roll. 

Once upon a time there was rock 'n' roll and soul and blues and other stuff, but there was no "rock" music. Then there was, about the same time that Led Zeppelin, apparently without shame, guilt or remorse, started to rip off old black men's songs and play them too loud.

Subsequently and consequently a load of relatively talentless twonks who'd been excited by shrieking guitar solos, scrambled on board a tuneless bandwagon and played in a style which girls didn't like. And what use is a form of music if (most) girls don't like it? Back

***************************************************************

If the global view, which is the only relevant one, is proving difficult to grasp, try imagining this unlikely scenario:

Whizzy-Wash Dishwasher Manufacturers donate, (as if!) a dishwasher, (let's say it's somehow solar-powered for that added touch of realism), to every poor b*stard family in the so-called developing world who happens to have a spoon and a plate.

The individuals who made the dishwashers were very poorly paid;

These dishwashers cause pollution in their manufacture;

They cause pollution in their use;

Pollution is caused in the producing the packaging for the dishwashers;

Pollution is caused in the manufacture of even the greener detergents;

And in the manufacture of the containers in which the detergents arrive;

And in the transport of the dishwashers

And in the transport of the detergents.


Even so, the dishwashers which worked really well, but were of course fully equipped with in-built obsolescence, eventually break down!

And despite the astonishing resourcefulness of the owners they can't be repaired;

And they have to be disposed of........

So we end up with Mount Dead Dishwasher somewhere round the back of Bangladesh, Nepal, the Sudan, Albania, East Timor, Darkest Peru, etc., etc., ad inf. Back

**************************************************************

Just wandered off tangentially, (or Tangierily? http://i-cias.com/morocco/tangier.htm ), to Morocco, and it got me thinking about how easy it is to find a reason not to do something, or to do hardly anything?  

I'd like to see Morocco, but they have a http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGMDE290082004 dreadful human rights record, so I know I won't be going there until that record improves a lot. Yes, there I am, or rather, here I am trapped (almost) into, and by my own, inaction.  Except I suppose, I might be taking a little action by possibly drawing someone's attention to something of which they were unaware. 

And "Inaction IS a weapon of mass destruction" - Maxi Jazz. Back

It's generally accepted that peace and love are hippy principles, borrowed from the adopted and adapted Zen of the beats, but the real hippy movement is no more. Effectively. No-one says it's the hippies who recently caused some particular change for the better.

There are many things about which I feel strongly: vegetarianism / veganism, environmental issues, (about which with my two motor vehicles I feel compelled to do something, but seem to be willing only to recycle "rubbish" with a frantic fanaticism), religion and the wrongs of it, fair trade, etc.

What principles do you feel that you have? 

What do you do about them? Back

 ************************************************

all our efforts should be supporting our boys that are dying in the middle east and everywhere else where were peacekeepers NOT going on marches as dont you think it would be nice for them to know the country they support is supporting them ?

Are you British???

Yes.

I ask merely for one reason - you seem really PROUD of the fact that you can bring up points of history from hundreds of years ago

After what period of time do you feel that history becomes irrelevant?

There's a great deal about which I'm not proud. Are you proud of all of this country's history?

in an attempt to slag off the history of this country.......

In an attempt to put wars and colonialism into perspective.

I presume you feel the same resentment towards the Greeks, the Italians (Romans), the Spanish, the Mongols, any Scandanavians (Vikings), Germans (Hun), French (Gauls), etc, etc, etc.

I don't feel any resentment towards those nations, nor ours. I had forgotten though that the Gauls were invaders. They invaded Rome in order to get their country back, didn’t they – in these modern times does that sound familiar? After that they became quite cocky it seems and went on to invade the Balkans, (and in these modern times does that sound familiar?), and Greece.

I mean, what did those bloody Romans ever do for us???? Made this country a RIGHT mess they did!!!!

Is this from Monty Python? (It was). I understand also that the Romans were not given a whole-hearted welcome when they arrived and that while they were here they imposed a lot of religious ideals and exploited Britain's resources to a very significant extent. When they left, even after all that time, we, being just another "uncivilised" people, fell into The Dark Ages.

From M Python:

R: .........And what have they ever given us IN RETURN? (he pauses smugly)
X: The aqueduct?
R: What?
X: The aqueduct.
R: Oh yeah, yeah they gave us that. Yeah. That's true.
MC: And the sanitation!
S: Oh yes ... sanitation, Reg, you remember what the city used to be like.
R: All right, I'll grant you that the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans HAVE done ...
M: And the roads ...
R: (sharply) Well YES OBVIOUSLY the roads ... the roads go without saying. But apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation and the roads ...
MC : Irrigation ...
O: Medicine ... Education ... Health
R: Yes ... all right, fair enough ...
MC : And the wine ...
ALL : Oh yes! True!
F: Yeah. That's something we'd really miss if the Romans left, Reg.
MC: Public baths!
S : AND it's safe to walk in the streets at night now.
F: Yes, they certainly know how to keep order ... (general nodding) ... let's face it, they're the only ones who could in a place like this. (more general murmurs of agreement)
R: All right ... all right ... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order ... what HAVE the Romans ever done for US?
X: Brought peace!

How are we 'exploiting these countries'??? By removing a dictator??

If only that were half the picture.

By trying to restore the wealth that Iraq has under it's soil that used to see it as one of the richest countries in the Gulf region??

Not restoring, but taking that wealth for US gain. Already US generals are complaining about being under the control of US corporations in Iraq.

By providing basic (and not so basic) medical aid where there is none???

And why is there none? Entirely because of sanctions which were imposed after a US tantrum. And don't forget, because you're surely aware, that during the early '80s the US supported Saddam while Iraq invaded Iran and had long-range nuclear aspirations. Known terrorists were harboured in Baghdad while Saddam abused the human rights of his citizens and used chemical weapons on Iranians and on his own people.

Well, **** it, perhaps we should have left Hitler too it as well!!

Not worth a reply, fellow VW driver.

quote: Could it be because they're furious about uncalled for interference (aka intervention) by other nations in their countries' affairs

Who's country???

Note “Countries”, plural, and in this example any and all where we and the US enter uninvited.

A great number of these people aren't even from Iraq!!

Roughly how many, (you see, I’m always interested), and from which other countries?

Some of them are even from this 'great' country of ours - over there fighting against OUR troops in their 'jihad'!!

I don’t expect you to agree with them fighting, and neither do I, but you can understand it? If you lived in Australia and Britain were invaded by a non-Christian army with a long history of exploiting weaker nations, would you just lie on the beach flicking through your right-wing(?) newspaper?

Even before this war the CIA had compiled a report arguing that a US war against Iraq could inflame sentiments in the Middle East against the US and bring about more terrorism, not less.

And US corporations’ private military firms are filling a large number of roles in Iraq, including combat.

You really haven't got a CLUE what you're talking about,

You’re not sure about that, which is why you SHOUT.

before I get really pissed off and start throwing insults around,

I had thought it might come to that.

I'll go and leave you to your ramblings.

We’ll see. (He came back).

You understanding citizen's of this country fighting against troops of this country and our allies - are you ****ing real????

Yes.

Have you ever heard of treason??

Yes.

Don't you think these people are committing it???

Attempting to overthrow the government of one's country? They're not doing that. Assisting its enemies in war? The Bush administration say that the war had ended by 30 May 2003. The war is officially over!

If you in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM agree with what they are doing, then you are truly pathetic!!

Concentrate, dude.

You said - quote: Some of them are even from this 'great' country of ours - over there fighting against OUR troops in their 'jihad'!!

I said - quote: I don’t expect you to agree with them fighting, and neither do I.

The death penalty is too good for them - that's all I have to say!!

What would you prefer for them?

You know what, I give up -

We'll see.

you're not worth the effort!!

Perhaps, but the situation is.

Come back and tell me you've got FIRST HAND experience of what you're talking about - or don't bother coming back at all!!

Another contributor: Iraq is a big country, with a lot going on. perhaps it would help us if you give us the benefit of your first hand knowledge. How long were you their? How many Iraqis did you speak to? What were their backgrounds? Perhaps some first hand knowledge of what the Iraqi people think would also help? Perhaps the first hand knowledge of some devout Muslims wouldn't go amiss? You know what I mean, an all round balanced view.

Well, thanks for the advice.

BTW, I don't read newspapers - right or left wing - because unlike you, I know how full of shit they are!!

All of them? And books as well? How have you gained your knowledge and opinions?

If you want to believe all you read, then that's fine by me

Of course, I don't believe all I read, but thankyou.

- but don't lecture me based on some crap you've read in any newspaper!!

As for the Sanctions v. Saddams greed, although Saddam was undoubtedly an evil man, the UN in 1995 wrote to the British Medical Society stating that sanctions were responsible for the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children. In 1995!

None of my contributions have been intended as a lecture, I don't take any newspaper, (other than flicking through the Independent on-line), and I had hoped that this would remain a reasoned argument, or discussion. 

 

immigrants not asylum seekers.... big difference

Migrants, which ever way they're going, but I'm sure we can safely assume that they do both believe the grass is greener on the other side, which, from memory, was the point I was making.

Who, or what organisation, has determined, and how, (with such apparent authority) whether or not the soldiers claims are accurate?

This is exactly the point that X made a few pages ago, with you arguing against him 

(with additional laughter smilies),

Did you feel that you'd caught me out? "Exactly" the point X made? Well, it's a question, but I suppose it might also be a point of sorts. As I recall though, X quite simply and repeatedly said that the news media were unreliable, or worse, liars.

X will have to admit to himself, if not to us, that some things the media tell us about Iraq are totally reliable, e.g. no WMDs have been found. Dispute that if you like.

I will quite happily admit not everything that the media tell us is 100% reliable. I don't expect it to be. I would hate to feel clueless, but I don't go looking particularly hard for knowledge of the Iraq war. I'm not the fount of all knowledge, that's for certain, nor have I claimed to be.

I think my contributions so far has been reasonable, i.e. capable of being reasoned by a reasonable person. I thought, and still do, that my inclusion today of that link would indicate that I am a reasonable dude, not blinkered as some participants in this discussion do seem to me to have been.

I've tried to be fair. Certainly I've tried not be unfair. Essentially, isn't fairness pretty much what we've been discussing here? Back

*****************************************************************

We can't really talk about corrupt politics over here 

Er, yes! We can, and should. What's the alternative - not talking about it? Just letting it slide on by?

those people are in the business of making NEWS - and to hell with the truth in most cases. 

Do watch Bowling for Columbine. Bush's US (and likewise Mr B Liars' little island), rely on creating a climate of fear. The news media lap up all the storms and squalls and the climate created tends to ensure that we soon come around to thinking that it's all very worrying and far too big and serious for us to contribute to any decision making. We as a nation are implicated in everything our government does, right or wrong. I'd go so far as to suggest that it's close to immoral not to be involved in politics at some level, otherwise complacency, and therefore complicity with wrong-doing, rule. Well, that's what I think and hell, I might just be right! Back

 *****************************************

Quote: All you have to do is change your mind after all God just wants us to be happy

Now there's a historical viewpoint!! Ever since shortly after Jesus, the Christian church has worked on the basis that theirs is the only right way and that everyone else is wrong. That thinking fuelled the Crusades and formed much of Bush's justification for the wars against Iraq. If "God" wants us to be happy, do you think it's only us, (WASPs) who are entitled to be happy? 

'God wants us to be happy' isnt a christian point of veiw its bhuddist

Unfamiliar with Buddhism? Check the spelling.

and refers to the higher self,

My interpretation is that the higher self has little to do with being happy and a great deal to do with being realistic.

I dont think I put anywhere that only christians are entitled to be happy????

No, but you appeared to me to be espousing a Christian "ethic".

and I certainly dont believe that to be true........is it because I mentioned God????

Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. It appeared to me that you were ignoring non-Christian religions, (the Muslim's god, for example, is very different to the Christian god).

I'm sorry if that word sends you off the deep end

Nowhere near.

There are things I can change out there

Like improve?

but an awful lot i cant so why feel bad about them??

So if you don't feel good, and you don't feel bad, do you feel nothing?

its just spoiling my time here, its much nicer

And much easier.......?

to allow some people to enjoy their trip to McD's than to start a war about it.

The war was started long ago, a war of aggressive marketing. We (collectively) are (effectively) doing very little, if anything, to stop that war. Back

******************************************************************

190604: From elsewhere: "George was adopted as the patron saint of English soldiers after he was said to have appeared to the Crusader army at the Battle of Antioch in 1098. Many similar stories were transmitted to the West by Crusaders who had heard them from Byzantine troops, and were circulated further by the troubadours. When Richard 1 was campaigning in Palestine in 1191-92 he put the army under the protection of St George."

The Crusades were, I think, wicked religious wars. Essentially they form the basis for the belief that white is right, English (rather than British) = right = might = everyone different from us is wrong / must be crushed / deserves everything they get. (Our) god is on our side = the other dudes have got it wrong, etc.

It's much the same outlook that has powered the US into running the world as its government seems to think fit. Self interest and selfishness is the key. Everyone who isn't us is unworthy and wrong.

PS: That Jesus, 'e was a larf though, wunnee?..... Really I think the guy himself was probably a Dude of the First Order, but it did all seem to get rather out of hand after he died. Back

******************************************************************* 

quote: I thank the bloke who put the baked beans in the can for me, and whoever it was who made my pc in a factory somewhere

Well, I guess he'll be glad to know that. Go and see if you can find that bloke and thank him properly, and while you're there find out about the production process, see how much the bean growers are paid, calculate the transport and advertising costs, see the sugar being tipped into the beans, see the finite resources going into the pc manufacture and see if you could live on the wages of the guys who put pcs together.

Hell, it really is disappointing to see such a high degree of complacency here, and elsewhere.

What politicians and big business, (i.e much the same thing), very heavily rely upon is Mr Average Voter / Consumer not giving a damn. If you don't care, they can do what they want to do. And that isn't good.

They can continue to feed us sh*t, literally and figuratively and get their own way, which if only we gave it some thought we'd realise is not the way for us. There is nothing good about exploiting animals, exploiting people, exploiting anything for no good reason.

This is nothing to do with a conspiracy theory - it's too bleeding obvious to be a "conspiracy".