All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

rant rant rant

TorgoX on 2002-01-15T18:39:05

Dear Log,

Much of the news just washes over me, eliciting no great reaction other than "huh, interesting". But some of the stories get me thinking...

 

"On the Indian side, a call by the state's leader, Farrooq Abdullah, son of Kashmir's first leader, has called for more powers, but was dismissed by India, which argued that once one state wanted its own prime minister and supreme court, others would follow."
-- http://www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,3604,632248,00.html
Why is it that national governments seem to consider their own perpetuation (as opposed to, say, the perpetuation of the lives of the people in their charge) as the highest good? I see no grand problems with a balkanized India, which is the scenario that the current Indian government considers its worst nightmare.
Chomsky in one of his rare lucid moments said that the problem with smaller governments is that they're much easier for corporations to control. I'm no great fan of corporate control; but between a freaky-deaky Hindu nationalist govermnent that has half its citizens living in medieval squalor while it's twitching for excuses to start a nuclear war with Pakistan, the combined balkanization and Walmartization of India looks like a dream in comparison.

 

"What is likely is that within a generation, the [Anglican] priesthood will be largely female, mostly unpaid and part-time, and playing a role somewhere between therapist and community activist. Their moral authority will come from serving others instead of cosy sessions in Downing Street and Buckingham Palace."
-- http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,632252,00.html
Hopefully this will have the behoovy effect of rolling back the CoE's role of being a "sexual regulation society" (as Alan Watts put it) for pasty old men in satin robes. On the one hand, I've heard it said that the special role of the CoE in UK government could be said to weaken the potential role of the other religions in the UK. On the other hand, so what? Better the devil you know.

 

"When this government [in the UK] says it can focus on only one or two big problems at a time - schools but not universities, education but not rail - what it means is that Mr Blair and his office can only do that much. The rail fiasco is in part a price paid for presidentialism, and Downing St's destructive pretensions to micro-management."
-- http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,633580,00.html
I think that the governmental model which best epitomizes a grand bureaucracy collectively acting with less intelligence than any one of its members is not the model headed by a president (since at least presidents have cabinets), but the model headed by a Pharaoh. (Or substitute the title of any other inbred semi-divine absolute monarch.)

You know...

pdcawley on 2002-01-15T20:48:52

once upon a time Britain had a better than competent Civil Service that successfully managed the entire, sprawling British Empire.

Now, we have a government that doesn't trust its civil servants, a civil service that spends far too long chasing pointless paper whilst cutting back on the people who actually do things, and important services like the railways chopped up a ludicrous fashion and handed out to a bunch of private companies that are losing money hand over fist whilst signally failing in their duty to make the fucking trains run on time.

If one were feeling particularly uncharitable one could probably lay the blame for a large chunk of the woes of the Indian sub continent at our door. And those of Africa. We can probably pass the buck to Spain and Portugal for the woes of South America...

But, at least Blair knows the difference between eating and breathing and can manage to chew his snacks before swallowing. (I still don't understand why Dubya has been bragging about his 'mom' (how much do I dislike that spelling?) always telling him to chew when it's apparent that he was too arrogant/stupid (delete as applicable) to actually pay attention. Doesn't really strike me as something to be proud of)

Re:You know...

ziggy on 2002-01-15T22:03:14

If one were feeling particularly uncharitable one could probably lay the blame for a large chunk of the woes of the Indian sub continent at our door. And those of Africa.
Let's not forget the lands of the Levant...
But, at least Blair knows the difference between eating and breathing and can manage to chew his snacks before swallowing.
At least Tony Blair didn't have the misfortune of being elected to Parliment in a year ending in zero...

Re:You know...

pdcawley on 2002-01-16T08:39:28

Let's not forget the lands of the Levant...


Oh bugger, there is that almighty fuckup to deal with isn't there. Though the general British approach to atoning for that one is to sympathize with the Palestinians without actually going so far as to do anything for fear of pissing off the Americans.

Re:You know...

vsergu on 2002-01-16T18:13:29

'mom' (how much do I dislike that spelling?)

Maybe that's because you think of it as a spelling. It's not a different spelling of "mum" (if it were, it'd be pronounced that way) -- it's a different word. "Mom" is no more the same as "mum" than "mama" is.

Re:You know...

pdcawley on 2002-01-16T20:08:19

Okay, so I detest the fucking word then.

Re:You know...

vsergu on 2002-01-16T21:05:00

Much better.

Re:You know...

pdcawley on 2002-01-18T09:32:07

I'm glad we understand each other.