At first they came for the smokers but I did not speak out as I did not smoke. Then they came for the binge drinkers but I said nothing as I did not binge. Now they have an obesity strategy.
This is a truly ridiculous piece of business. The British press at its hypocritical best. Aaronovitch in the Times (yesterday? today?) was good about it.
"The media filth who have worked hand-in-hand with the party elites to remove politics from the political sphere now stand outside second homes tutting in judgment over which of their top-trump rated technocrats would be less corrupt. This at a time of economic crisis.
I don't even want to get into the point that allowances and housing costs were introduced to allow the non-wealthy to enter parliament. That is to lower onself to the gutter level which the current-front page sub-kreminologist reporting and debate is currently in.
Politics involves an unending conflict over ideas and values. If there is a lack of conflict - a seeming consensus - then that is simply evidence that a particular ideology is hegemonic. Perpetuating this 'liberal' (managerial) hegemony via a single simplistic focus upon the issue of who-paid-what-when-for-what (£10 for some dirty filums!) over the exclusion of other, shall we say, more important issues, should be seen for what it is: a political act which de-politicises politics. Those who do this are enemies of democracy; of politics real. They must be treated as such.
Should those who misuse public money be punished? Yes. Should it raised to the level of the political objet petit a for the anti-political masses? No."
would this Jackie Smith be the same Jackie Smith who wants to maintain a national database of all children, introduce national ID cards, record every e-mail and google search from computers, put chips in rubbish bins, introduced legislation whaich makes taking photos of buildings illegal, allows councils to spy on parents in case they are trying to get their children into a good school?
5 comments:
Sofa presumably in the room with the TV - duh
This is a truly ridiculous piece of business. The British press at its hypocritical best. Aaronovitch in the Times (yesterday? today?) was good about it.
De-politicisation:
"The media filth who have worked hand-in-hand with the party elites to remove politics from the political sphere now stand outside second homes tutting in judgment over which of their top-trump rated technocrats would be less corrupt. This at a time of economic crisis.
I don't even want to get into the point that allowances and housing costs were introduced to allow the non-wealthy to enter parliament. That is to lower onself to the gutter level which the current-front page sub-kreminologist reporting and debate is currently in.
Politics involves an unending conflict over ideas and values. If there is a lack of conflict - a seeming consensus - then that is simply evidence that a particular ideology is hegemonic. Perpetuating this 'liberal' (managerial) hegemony via a single simplistic focus upon the issue of who-paid-what-when-for-what (£10 for some dirty filums!) over the exclusion of other, shall we say, more important issues, should be seen for what it is: a political act which de-politicises politics. Those who do this are enemies of democracy; of politics real. They must be treated as such.
Should those who misuse public money be punished? Yes. Should it raised to the level of the political objet petit a for the anti-political masses? No."
http://animadverted.blogspot.com/2009/03/de-politicisation.html
Yeah, a bit of an overinflated business. Now, though, imagine you are a blogger...
would this Jackie Smith be the same Jackie Smith who wants to maintain a national database of all children, introduce national ID cards, record every e-mail and google search from computers, put chips in rubbish bins, introduced legislation whaich makes taking photos of buildings illegal, allows councils to spy on parents in case they are trying to get their children into a good school?
Justice done, I think.
Post a Comment