“I advocate returning to limited government, accompanied by a minimal amount of confiscatory taxation to support only essential services along with Pay as Go budgeting; means testing for all government assistance programs; abolition of all member item pork barrel spending, balanced budgets; actual surpluses and payments to reduce long term state debt”
This person is also influenced by Hayek, Friendman, Mises and Rand. You probably have in your mind an aging, balding, probably overweight man. Another Ron Paul. Guess again.
Hmm. My first reaction is “Just because something is awesome and/or totally tits does not mean society must bend over backwards to provide it to you”.
Real Human Rights, of course, are the absence of violence upon your person or property, be it economic or social. It means not having anyone or anything else, be it The State, big business, or some random guy in the street, coming up to you and enforcing a way of life, or unfair responsibilities on you. It does not mean using a God damn leviathan of The State to rob others of their lives in order to improve your own.
In other words, just because you want something, do not assume you have the right to use violence to get it.
In Japan, Mexico and Russia, nearly 75 per cent of respondents said they could not cope without their internet connection.
Hmm. Is this “I couldn’t cope” as in “I would die without Red Tube”, or “I couldn’t cope” as in “It would cause me a bit of inconvenience- I’d have to actually buy a porno mag!”? If the former, which is, er, unlikely to say the least, then you’ve got one messed up disease there. If the latter, (yes, it’s the latter) then you can just continue paying your monthly bill to your ISP. Simples.
“The right to communicate cannot be ignored,” Dr Hamadoun Toure, secretary-general of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), told BBC News.
Just as freedom of speech does not imply a right to be given a platform, freedom of communication does not imply a right to be given a mode to do so.
“The internet is the most powerful potential source of enlightenment ever created.”
He said that governments must “regard the internet as basic infrastructure – just like roads, waste and water”.
And, just like roads, waste, and water, stay the fuck away from the internet. It’s too important to let statist hands control. As demonstrated here:
However, many web users expressed concerns about the dangers of hacking, fraud and privacy. A majority of internet users in Japan, Germany, France, China and South Korea were not confident about expressing their opinions online.
But government regulation was not viewed as the correct method to solve these issues, with over half of the 27,000 respondents agreeing that that internet “should never be regulated by any level of government anywhere”.
Yes. Too important for the dead hand of the state.
“Despite worries about privacy and fraud, people around the world see access to the internet as their fundamental right,” said Doug Miller, the chairman of GlobeScan which conducted the survey. “They think the web is a force for good, and most don’t want governments to regulate it.”
You can’t have internet provided by government yet not regulated by it. It’s not possible. In the extreme case, putting the internet into “public” (read: State) ownership is paving the way for our own version of The Great Firewall of China. In the more likely case of having private/public mixtures, we can only end up with a corporatist mess of special interests and bureacratic waste.
If the internet is to remain a good thing for freedom, it needs to keep on a voluntary, free market basis.
Ironic, given that Labour appear to have copied Mugabe’s economic manifesto to the letter.
“Conservatives are bold, (Tony) Blair and (Gordon) Brown run away when they see me, but not these fools, they know how to relate to others,” he added.
Tories? Bold? Not sure what tories he’s been hanging out with, but it’s not Cameron’s lot. I can totally understand wanting to run away from Mugabe, though.
In short, statist cunt supports statist cunt. No real surprise.
The hallmarks of a regime which flouts the rule of law are, alas, all too familiar: the midnight knock on the door, the sudden disappearance, the show trial, the subjection of prisoners to genetic experiment, the confession extracted by torture, the gulag and te concentration camp, the gas chamber, the practice of genocide or ethnic cleansing, the waging or aggressive war. The list is endless. Better to put up with some choleric judges and greedy lawyers. ~(ex)Lord Bingham, The Rule of Law.
Gorillaz, cartoon band that critics insisted on calling “just a gimmick”, despite 15 million sales and a decade of cult following, are, after another of their trademark several year absences, back on the scene with their third album (if you exclude B side collections, which are worth picking up on their own merits), Plastic Beach.
If, like me, you prefer the fantasy put forward by the band’s videos etc, to the reality of Ex-Blur man Damon Alburn with a load of session musicians, then having abandoned their previous hideout, Kong Studios, in favour Plastic Beach (“The most isolated place on the planet”, says Murdoc) built on tons of trash thrown to sea (Ah, environmental themes are becoming clear already and we’re hardly past the album cover), the band (or at least, Bassist Murdoc and vocalist 2D- obese drummer Russell and guitarist Noodle currently MIA) are free to pursue musical experimentation to their heart’s desires. Once again packed with guests, ranging from Mos Def to Lou Reed, the band churn out another success of an album, that manages to hold your attention from the opening track, an orchestral piece that balances suspense and tranquillity in an oddly disquieting way, to the last, Pirate Jet. In the 58 minutes between those two points, a dedicated listener will be treated to a huge variety of sounds.
In the first ten minuites, you’ll have heard hip hop (Welcome to the World of Plastic Beach) and- Gorillaz have never shied away from World Music influences- an Oriental inspired pan pips fused with the above (White flag). But both these tracks are mere warm up for what follows.
Lead single Stylo, (Why yes, that is Bruce Willis in the video) with Mos Def and Bobby Womack stands comes a few tracks in. Possibly consisting of not a single “real” instrument, this synthesizer heavy tune features an addictive bass line and good vocals from guests Def and Womack as well as 2D. Although Stylo was probably the best choice for a single, since most of the other tracks need to be heard in the context of the full album to be fully appreciated, Stylo is in fact one of the album’s low points. Not at all fitting in with the tranquil beach theme or the reflecting-upon-affluent-society ethos, Stylo almost seems to be an added extra to the album than part of the album itself. Not that’s its a bad song; it just doesn’t seem to fit in with its neighbours.
Superfast Jellyfish, on of said neighbours, is a bouncy and uplifting tune, which is as far as I can make out is about fast food. Sure to become a fan favourite, Jellyfish contains good vocals provided by long time Gorillaz colaborator De La Soul (Clint Eastwood and Rock the House from the debut album) mixed with the trademark Gorillaz oh-so-slightly avant garde style. It’s a more upbeat and energetic tune than most on the album, but after every MSG driven energy rush comes a crash, in this case in the form of Empire Ants.
Much more slow paced and relaxing, Empire Ants may remind some listeners of the repetitive, “Muzak” often deployed in hotel lobbies and elevators. At least, until the 2 minute mark, when the drums and synths really kick in, alongside Yukimi Nagano’s vocals. Then, the tune takes a totally different direction.
On Melancholy Hill will give fans of MGMT a buzz; 2D has obviously been listening to Oracular Spectacular. The album continues, never letting go of it’s “peaceful beach” theme- To Binge, again with Nagano, being a prime example. It’s impossible to be angry whilst listening to this song, it’s simply too peaceful on the ears.
These are just a few standout tracks on the 16 track, hour long album; many of the songs are great on their own, such as Stylo and Superfast Jellyfish, but like it’s predecessor (and unlike it’s predecessor’s predecessor), Plastic Beach comes out as an album, much like Pink Floyd’s The Wall, or Rush’s Power Windows, that to be properly enjoyed needs to be listened to as a whole rather than as the sum of its parts. As usual for the band, it’s ambitious, and covers more genres than you could throw a stick at, but once again it all comes together beautifully.
No review could skip the underlying theme of the album; not quite explicitly environmentalist, the record exudes concern for humanity’s apparent disdain for dear old Mother Earth. Albarn himself says of the records lyrical content:
I suppose what I’ve done with this Gorillaz record is I’ve tried to connect pop sensibility with … trying to make people understand the essential melancholy of buying a ready made meal in loads of plastic packaging…
We didn’t create plastic, nature created plastic. And just seeing the snakes like living in the warmth of decomposing plastic bags. They like it. It was a strange kind of optimism that I felt… but trying to get that into pop music is a challenge, anyway. But important.
The blog is now live. I think it’s a good idea, and since I need an excuse for the blogging bug to bite again, I’ll give it a shot. I may write a review of the Gorillaz new album- or perhaps talk about Zappa. I dunno yet.
(Presumably) Written at the start of the 20th Century, this list of predictions is better than reality. Sort of
The right/sort of nearly there vaguely:
A weird prediction of air conditioning, or “Hot or cold air from Spigots”. Oddly, this guy predicts it would be run in the same way as electricity, from central plants.
Predicting the internet. This is actually three of the entries in one; “Photographs will be telegraphed from any distance”, “Man will see around the world” and “Telephones around the world”.
To England in two days. His expectations were low. Make it 6 to 8 hours. Also predicts the hovercraft.
The half-way to being right:
Ready cooked meals. We have a shit load of cheap, nasty microwave food, but it’s not sent to us by pneumatic tubes. You can get a pizza delivered at moments notice, though. And, no, we don’t cook food in labs. Well, the Slug might.
No food exposed to air. There’s a lot of health and safety regulation (some of it useful, some just wasteful), but we’re not that paranoid about germs.
There will be Air-ships. Planes exist all right, but they turned out to be more than the passing fad he predicts.
Grand Opera will be telephoned. That one itself was wrong, but predicts the invention of synthesizers, pedals, and other electronic music doodads.
How children will be taught. Eh, partially right, partially wrong.
Store purchases by tube. The closest we have is internet shopping. I’ll mark that up as partial credit.
Few drugs will be swallowed. We actually have an affinity with popping pills to solve problems, but the guys scores points for predicting x-rays
The utterly batshit and wrong:
US to have 500 million citizens. It’s got around 300m. Also, Nicaragua isn’t yet an American State.
C, X and Q being removed from the language. The way things are going with txt msgs, it’s more likely to say vowels will be removed first.
No mosquitos or flies. They’re not extinct yet, the bastards.
No cars in large cities. Bristol is determined to get rid of them in favour of bikes, but so far no luck.
Cars cheaper than horses. Maybe if there wasn’t so much tax on fuel and cars, but not under today’s conditions.
Everyone will walk ten miles. But we’re the biggest bunch of lardasses to ever attempt to walk the earth. 10 metres is more like it.
There will be no wild animals. We have rats. Mostly in Westminster, but they’re not exterminated. In his defence, we do breed animals to produce the most food possible.
There’s a few more I left out, since I honestly have no idea if they’re true or not. Stuff like “People will be two inches taller”.
Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas known for his libertarian views, ran for president in 2008 but was never a serious contender for the GOP nomination.
Ron Paul has ended Mitt Romney’s three-year run as conservatives’ favorite for president, taking 31 percent of the vote in the Conservative Political Action Conference’s annual straw poll.
Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas known for his libertarian views, ran for president in 2008 but was never a serious contender for the GOP nomination.
Romney, former Massachusetts governor and also a 2008 GOP candidate, has won the last three presidential straw polls at the annual conference. This year, he came in second, with 22 percent.
Sarah Palin, who didn’t attend the conference, was a distant third in the straw poll, with 7 percent, followed by Tim Pawlenty, the Minnesota governor, and Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana.
The straw poll is not binding — and not necessarily a good forecaster, given that in 2008, John McCain went on to take the party’s nomination over Romney.
Results of this year’s poll were announced just as the crowd prepared for the conference’s keynote speaker, Fox News host, ehh, some nutjob loon.
Update: Fox already dissed the poll above, now they bring us this.
Ron Paul’s surprising win in the 2010 CPAC Presidential Straw Poll spurred audible gasps and boos in the room. Only about 25 percent of the nearly ten thousand CPAC registrants turned in ballots, but partication was very high among the younger attendees.
Fox news have never liked Paul. During the election debates, when Paul won a fox news poll judging who was the most popular candidate for the Republican nomination, and Paul won by a landslide, the hosts slagged off their own poll. (There’s probably vids, but I can’t find them at this moment in time). This is just more of the same.
The day when the ruling of the country was decided by the Royals are long since gone. The Government and House of Commons took on that role, a long while ago, and seem to manage that job with the same efficiency that the Keystone Kops solve crimes (Google it kids…it might even be a bit before my time…) ~ Murdoc Niccals, bass guitarist that doesn’t actually exist.
Purely because the Monarchy is a bit of a hot topic at the moment for bloggers. Personally, I have no strong opinion either way.
It was upon reading the article, which talks of the manipulation of advertising, that I began to ask myself “What damage are we discussing, exactly?” Well:
I don’t notice it, it doesn’t really bother me until I see something that reminds me advertisement is largely manipulation. Adults are grown up enough to be left to it themselves (Yes Compass, you, shut up) but when adverts are aimed at kids it does a little stick in my throat.
So I was quite happy to see the advert opposite advertising “Coco Pops after school” disappear this week.
It was a pretty straightforward example of Capital seeking a new market – a forth meal in the day no less! – and sinking to new lows in doing so.
This is a view held by many, and not just by socialists. Just yesterday, in my Student Union (a horrible place I go as little as possible) I saw, stuck to the wall, a copy of a Guardian article speaking of the evils of “teh kapitolist advurtizin!!!!*
Personally, I just don’t get it myself. I can’t follow the logic.
So, we are being held that advertising is manipulative. Is this because it “tells” us to buy a certain product, for instance? That can’t be it. You try getting people to buy a product they have no idea exists. More to the point, a piece of paper on a wall is not like a law; it doesn’t result in a gun (proverbial or otherwise) against your head making you act in a certain way. Adverts are not the tax man. And so on through various objections I have heard. But I digress.
LO tells us there’s no problem regards adults, since they have this wonderful thing called thought. This is all well and true.
It seems LO’s problem is with advertising aimed at children:
…but when adverts are aimed at kids it does a little stick in my throat.
Ok, so we have the argument that adverts aimed at children are liable to cause them more damage than those aimed at adults.
…No, I don’t get it. Take the Coco pops advert. It speaks to children the horror of this alleged new fourth meal (I used to eat cereal as an after school treat a lot as a kid- it was perfectly normal. In fact, even as a university student Frosted Shreddies remain a major part of my diet), and the objection is that this is a form of manipulation.
Again, I just plain old don’t get it. Parents have this wonderful thing called free thought; children have these wonderful things called parents. The parents, who have a much bigger interest in the well being of their child than Kellogs (or the State, for that matter), are in a much better decision to decide for their children whether or not Coco pops are a good thing for their kids to eat for breakfast, or indeed for this (apparently) new after school meal. This, surely, is the only protection needed? Not some new fangled pathetic regulation saying that all adverts must carry health warnings (”WARNING: This advert may make you inadvertently happy by enticing you to buy a product you enjoy”)?
Again, just one of many examples.
But this is just one example of why I’m not at ease with marxist/socialist etc interpretations of advertising. It begs more basic questions of “When is advertising just free speech?” and “are humans really that manipulative? For instance, if a picture of a monkey in a jumper is enough to rot the brain of a child, how much damage is being done in schools? How can that not be manipulation to an at least equal, if not greater degree?
Interestingly, LO goes on to attack the many government nanny state adverts:
Apparently that second glass of Pinot Noir is going to kill me. Fuck Off and bring back that greedy monkey.
Now, that’s something we call both agree with. As an aside, I wonder if LO is horrified by this:
As for myself, well, the logic above really applies here to. I remember much fuss being raised over this advert. I never really understood it.
