Meme: What were you doing when ...? - 4 comments

I noticed this at Sadie's Tavern and thought I'd have a go (having not been invited to) while I had a spare moment. So what was I doing at the key moments in human history? Or indeed the following ones?:

Princess Diana's death - 31 August 1997
I spent that summer working at a certain "one stop" convenience store in lovely Warsash, Hants., and this being a Sunday, I was sleeping in - prior to the early afternoon shift - when I was informed. As I was already known for producing scurrilous poetry about the Royal Family, I confess to not being able to summon up too many of the finer feelings over this particular tragedy, and as I unloaded the black-bannered newspapers early the next morning, I could feel the moralistic bandwagon gathering pace...

Margaret Thatcher's resignation - 22 November 1990
Though an avowed atheist, I wasn't an especially politically-advanced 13-year-old. I vaguely remember asking my Dad earlier on that year how it came to be that the Thatcher administration wasn't getting credit for the seemingly remorseless decline in the (headline) unemployment figures. Labour I might have been within 12 months (anyone remember those brightly-coloured Labour newspapers??), but liberal I certainly wasn't. Anyway, from my diary entry:

"[...] Had lunch - went to the shop with N- L- and bought a Count Suckula (!?). Got back. [...] Had Double Chemistry - that methodist S- has not thanked or congratulated me about the Chemistry Quiz. Got back in a mood [...]
Main news story: Mrs. Thatcher stands down as Prime Minister today.
Football: Chelsea beat Manchester Utd. 3-2"

Attack on the twin towers - 11 September 2001
I was working in a little software company in the West End and, shocked, we watched the events unfold on the BBC News website, and the rec-room TV.

I vaguely remember a feeling of: "Everything's going to change. Where do we go from here?" Amid the horror, being an idealist, a radical, and generally pro-USA, I hoped that some good must come of this.

England's World Cup Semi Final v Germany in - 4 July 1990
The 1990 diary reminds me that I was supposed to be watching Hampshire v. India at the old County Ground, but that it was cancelled due to rain, forcing us to remain in school, playing Top Trumps, Battleships, Subbuteo, and other worthwhile pursuits.

I did watch the football later, describing it thus:

England should have won, but lost on penalties.

Which, I think you'll agree, captures all the atmosphere of the evening. I also remember watching an episode of Sorry!, the classic Ronnie Corbett "vehicle", as well as continuing my love-affair with this song.

President Kennedy's Assassination - 22 November 1963
Not even the CIA could place me there.

*

Feel free to join in, if you feel like it.

Anti-capitalism and conspiracy theories - 1 comment

That I was surprised to read this:

That is why on this issue of Civil Liberties I will be voting and campaigning for David Icke in the by Election.

from a Labour blogger, is one way to sum up my reaction. This is a bit worrying, too:

There are plenty of us in the Party who have some similar views to David Icke [...]

And, here, we get to the root of it:

What interests me about Icke is his commentary on how Democracy is used as a cover for Global Capitalism's control of the media and politics, we are kept in the dark over so many things, from the environment, medical progress through to basic Human Rights and the surveillance of the Orwellian 1984 society.

Surely anyone who puts capitalism on a par with the (reptilian!) Illuminati is more to be pitied than condemned, but I wonder how far people who habitually talk about "corporate interests", and who employ the "You're only saying that because..." argument, have travelled down the same road. It's a complex world, but belief in conspiracies and all-encompassing forces that are beyond our ability to rationally assess them, even with all our political, economic, philosophical, sociological, and scientific tools, is not a rational decision: it marks a deliberate opting-out of the rational inquiry that created the world we know, and a deliberate step into the arbitrary, untestable world of cranks.

Perhaps it's a sign of the widespread ignorance of economics, philosophy, etc., that the only bits that register when people learn about capitalism concern size, scale, ubiquity, and so on, rather than how the economy works; the interaction of governments, firms, workers, consumers; alternative economic systems, etc.; let alone any material between Marx and The Economist. Lumping all economic issues under 'capitalism', and discrediting the discipline, not only limits our ability to (sensibly!) criticise capitalism, it also makes it more likely that future systems of distribution will be based around normative political principles, like 'need', 'desert', and 'right'; rather than liberal principles like 'desire', 'preference', and 'motivation'.

Moreover, to ascribe God-like powers to 'Global Capitalism' is the kind of thing we'd expect from someone on an island who has been introduced to other human beings for the first time, who might easily associate the unknown with the magical and superhuman. Perhaps it's a sign of the degree to which workers are alienated from the economic system: if they can't see that their boss is the slightly fatter one with the top hat in the office upstairs, he might as well be a Reptilian Zionist who does his work at the North Pole.

Whatever the reasons for its existence, the capitalism-as-conspiracy-theory argument needs to be stamped out, because it encourages people to support cranks; to read drivel, rather than the many fine works that make up the left-wing canon; to elevate motives above actions and ideas; and it also makes it impossible for them to conduct an argument with sensible people from the political right. As Orwell says in "Through a glass, rosily", while apparently taking a break from predicting surveillance-based societies:

[...] genuine progress can only happen through increased enlightenment, which means the continuous destruction of myths.

*

Dermot's piece continues:

[...] belief in God has as much evidence behind it as David's thoughts about the so called Illuminatae being descended from giant lizards when you bring it down to basics.

What these basics are is unclear, but logic is not involved. No, there is no direct evidence for the literal existence of God, but that doesn't allow belief in the Illuminati to grab a piece of the support moral authority that organised religion has built up. Moreover, if evidence is irrelevant, there's now no reason not to believe in any competing viewpoint: every belief is now of equal value.

Here's another myth with a life of its own:

Yes, he [Icke] has some pretty bizarre beliefs, but then again Dubya and Mr. Tony invaded Iraq because God told them to [...]

Norm has dealt with this little misrepresentation already. I think it shows that, for some people, the fact that there might be genuine reasons (in this case, a desire to topple one of the worst dictators of the last century) for others to make a particular decision is no match for a far-fetched explanation that is more politically convenient for the observer.

If one's instinct is to give oneself credit for disinterested actions ('I did it for England'), but deny it to one's political opponents ('they did it out of greed'), that demonstrates to me a combination of: moral dishonesty, alienation from others, and political calculation.

Of course it tells us nothing about which version of events is actually, or likely to be, true. Cynics are probably right more often than optimists, but the person who prefers to be right seeks a debate on honest terms, and doesn't poison the well for others.

So they got to you, too - no comments

Perhaps it was too easy a target, but I had been about to post something about the "Diana whitewash", when I spotted a comment on Tom H's blog too hilarious to miss. In response to a post about "showbiz" jurors serving on televised juries, adjudging fictional crimes, an anonymous individual held forth as follows:

Oh yeah, like this is the most important story today. How convenient that you blog about this stupid issue when you know full well the Stevens whitewash, sorry 'report' comes out today, and maintains the fiction that Diana died in an accident. No wonder Nick Palmer wants you to stand for Parliament - you're nothing more than an establishment lacky (sic).

A rival report carried out just this afternoon will serve to demonstrate public support for his apparently crackpot claims:

[...] Whilst 31% put Diana's death down to not wearing a seatbelt, and being driven at high speeds by a drunken, drugged driver; a whopping 40% felt the scenarios of a British secret agent loosening crucial nuts within the car's braking system, or operating an experimental "sonic weapon" from a safe distance, were more plausible explanation for the high-speed, drink and drug-fuelled crash.

[...] No fewer than half of these respondents pointed out that the Duke of Edinburgh "doesn't like foreigners, does he?", and recalled something someone told them once about the Duke of Windsor liking Hitler.

Only 9% of Daily Express readers polled felt they had a duty to refund British and French taxpayers for wasting police time. Meanwhile strong interest was expressed from some quarters for Express Newspapers to laminate the front cover of future editions...

Sources have so far failed to deny suggestions that Diana has been attempting to manipulate public opinion from Heaven, channelling stories and photographs to journalists through a medium employed by Express Newspapers, in a bid to secure her reputation on Earth.