jaywalker

Probably only two - there will be a dissenting judgement almost for sure I'd think. But you can't stand too much alone on such things: there have to be recognition principles for what you say. I wonder if the Welsh government's gambit might cause a surprise? As a child I could understand and support it :-), also very much the argument from the ex-pat QC that OF COURSE their rights are on the line and not to be over-ruled by our dire PM. Wonderful institution and great people. Man of the match was Lord Pannick (by a country mile). I do fear for the Attorney General when it comes to selection for subsequent matches.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And how do you know that 'the deal' we have got at > the moment is any good? We are being shafted by > 750 extra politicians who cost us ?63 million a > week- whose annual audit has never been ratified. > the current 'deal' is NOT helping the poorer and > uneducated - even the Archbishop of Canterbury has > said as much- before Theresa May said so.....some > of you are extremely verbose and I guess you have > had an excellent education but you have no idea > what the dispossessed are suffering- especially as > they watch their kids sink into a life of drugs or > petty crime... What you say is true. I have no idea what the dispossessed are suffering. However, I did not post this thread as for or against Brexit. I wanted to argue for the (relative) autonomy of the judicial system (and of parliament, the media, education, the police, and the other institutions of the state). That autonomy is currently threatened in many ways, not least in the outrage expressed at the fact that this judicial review is taking place. But you are right in that the basically Hegelian point I made in the post is only one step (the second, necessary one was initiated particularly by Althusser). That is, the state apparatuses in their relative autonomy tend to social reproduction - they stabilise an existing pattern of privilege by validating the identities formed there, so deny the dispossessed a chance. That is as true of the judicial system (who is locked up and for what) as the education system (who is recognised as 'intelligent', and can then self-recognise as intelligent to self-justify their privilege: a certain 'verbosity' here helps cloud the process). But dealing with that is not an argument against relative autonomy because without autonomy there is no basis for antagonistic democratic debate (i.e. against social reproduction) there is only a collapse to a general will unchecked - i.e. dictatorship (however 'popular').

fetish

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't forget the people voted for a government > that promised a referendum... "the people" was the target of my post. I can only apologise for not making that clear. For you that may be a good - for me it is not. Then you will accuse me of being anti-democratic. On the basis that democracy = the people I am certainly anti-democratic. This is why I opposed such an idea with the necessity of autonomy in the judiciary, media, and parliament within the powers constituting the state - as an antidote to that monstrosity.

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I think it would be improper to comment on an > ongoing court case, > > Why? For the same reason I gave in my post. This must be true of the necessary relative-autonomy of any court case: that they exercise judicial reason not common reason (the autonomy is relative because constrained by the assigned power to act only in a constitutional way as a matter of law). They express this as "impartiality" - but of course, it is really a partiality of a right to interpret the law as-such. That right's autonomy is what I argued for. What could I say about that from outside the court? I can argue about the terms of that power: but not the particularism of a case. I do not think this greatly matters - the Supreme Court is currently quite robust. But the principle seems to me worth upholding.

I think it would be improper to comment on an ongoing court case, and I've read convincing arguments by academics that take both sides of the Government's appeal; so have no idea what the members of the Supreme Court will decide. However, I think there is a more interesting general issue. There is quite a lot of comment (not least on TV) that the whole 'Justice' thing is just a distraction, that a democratic choice has been made. There is also a clamour for the executive to implement that choice without further ado - in particular, that Parliament would simply get in the way of the necessary negotiations. This seems to me to be a fundamental misrecognition of how we thwart power. We know full well that power will take unto itself all means if allowed. It will tend to concentrate itself in few hands. There will be a certainty in its execution - on the claim that "we know" this is the good for all. Embodying 'the people', this has no limits (you do not after all need to look very far to see exemplars of this). How we have at least to some extent prevented this (for sure, inadequately) has been by insisting on autonomy not heteronomy. The Times today calls for heteronomy, like the other populist tabloids. The commentators invited to pontificate by the BBC last night all called for the same. The people's voice must not be gainsaid - that is democracy. A very stupid, infantile, notion of democracy. But then we should be against it. The urgency is to re-establish a notion of autonomy. In all walks of life. Not anarchic: rather, based on a notion of the state that requires the individuated voices of the rule of law and the expression of dissensus (politics through parliament, a media uncontrolled by populism or government). This recognises that each should hold the other to account; but on powers constituted in advance: justice interprets the law, parliament establishes it, the police enforce it (not something else), and the media interrogates it. Just as we should strive against heteronomy in the ethics of our own lives.

pop9770 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh nooooo tree murder.... for people to walk on > the pavement > Hilarious > Trees before people. > > Pavements are for trees lol I am not a person, you can tell, I only have sympathies for trees. My views on trees and their benefits to people are inhuman and stupid, because I do not use pavements (I fly from tree to tree).

oats

Angelina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > are Pro-Lifers all vegan? > > Or does every life NOT count? I guess for me the problem is that the slogan 'pro-life' rather prejudges what it claims to argue. If this is life then it must count. But we do not and could not count every life as worth preserving, even if human. We do not, in fact, have much idea about what constitutes life from a biological point of view. Some kind of emergent autopoietic machination? For sure, no ontological difference to green slime, and almost certainly not to sedimented rocks either. The pro-life move is to purify the sacred human in its entirety. But there is a severe risk here with all the evil that potentially entails from such absolutism. No one here would be extremist, but there is a seductive logic to the ill-educated once the matter is ontologised as everything-human-is-sacred: if you disagree you may turn out less human than us or even anti-human - so there are people who will murder doctors who carry out abortion.

Think that must be a 4x4 buggie ... If this blocks wheelchair use then the council has a priority to build slopes off and back on to the pavement and put in a no-parking-here double yellow. Otherwise, if we cut down these majestic trees, we will turn our built environment into a wasteland.

And don't forget the little internet of things IFTTT box that will be patrolling streets like Melbourne Grove and making all the ridiculous expenditure on particulate-producing bumps suddenly appear the complete waste of money it is. In any case, new cars will be automatically law-abiding. But we need to demarcate what is and what is not good to be so.

I will give you any answers you want for 25 quid (not).

what Marx said

Some thoughts on populism: 1 In an era of mass apathy (not new but now greatly accentuated - all that was happening at least by the mid C19th after the great rural to urban migration) people will vote not in adulation (the fascist model) but in a mix of resignation, resentment (not voting for her!), and just hope-for-something-better even though we know he doesn't mean what he says (the politics of nostalgia, for having back something that has only the status of fantasy). 2 The causes of mass apathy are nothing to do with immigration, but immigration accentuates it for those who are already cut off from a sense of living-engagement with others. In the rich and growing city I love immigration. In an isolated or impoverished place it is hated. But it is fairly transparently the focal point for anger and resentment rather than the underlying condition (and is not generally meant when people find they do have a living relation to a migrant worker). Think of the many ethnic communities that have settled so well all over the UK and so enriched our inter-national culture in times of economic growth. The consequences of 1 and 2 are going to be a disaster. Trump and Brexit have promised utopias - no such place. Immigration is the life-blood of our otherwise ageing population (think Japan). There will be more disruption, not less. The resulting step-change in disenchantment will risk reactionary politics - we are already seeing this in the UK from an irresponsible and cynical government. 3 The causes of mass apathy have little to do with the growth of the narcissistic personality (again, this is a focal point for a few but not the underlying issue). It is more sensible to see that personality as a requirement of the shift from industrial to service production. Individuals here need to be personalised: not so on the assembly line (where stoic discipline is required). Like any form of personality it has its pathological variants (the narcissism of entitlement, rights without responsibility, immediate gratification, resentment of anything difficult, outrage at non-conventional forms of thought, the disgraceful (and growing) campaigns to stop freedom of speech on university campuses) as well as its great virtues: respect for the other, welcoming of alterity, disbelief in atavistic notions of nation and religion, rejections of demands for conformist behaviour in regard to gender, sexuality and drugs.

phone home

The secret is in the temperature. No fire risk, no good. However, I think they are a little d?mod?. Much better is the Simon Hopkinson (as seen on tv) procedure: steam potatoes for 20 minutes, skin (oh how I despise potatoes with their skins on), and put in the roasting tin back in the oven with the gravy whilst the bird rests. They absorb the gravy and get a little brown. Edenic.

homophobic

Yes, in exactly the same way as I want driverless trains and driverless planes: they are a lot safer (even with current technology). I do NOT want driverless nukes (I fear both the US and Russia have these), doctors (although their fallible memories and lack of up to date reading should be compensated for by expert systems), or politicians (I do need to blame something other than an abstract machine). I particularly do not want driverless teachers: the poverty of MOOCS. Nor do I want driverless police (Robocop).

I think this figure is quite revealing. A home visit by a physio only costs ?50 (I book them for my father). So, if we take the figure on trust it suggests imputed costs are completely out of control. This corroborates the fact that real spending on the NHS (i.e. after inflation) has gone up every year for over a decade and yet services are 'at breaking point'. They know this which is why hospitals now tag disposable items with their cost to dissuade unnecessary use - but that is certainly not the problem. Talking to a heart surgeon a while ago, he said he was doing half the operations he got through fifteen years ago. He is now completely encumbered by bureaucracy/paperwork. Administrators, managerialism have taken over.

date

we are certainly in a post-fascist world. one of the dangers of 'history' is that it suggests patterns that are not there, framing a sense that we can see a path ahead on the basis for example, exactly, that this is not fascism. so what is going on is ignored because it does not fit with the possibility of 'educated' expectation. if it is not fascism, then it must just be democratic. the majority of those contemplating voting for le pen (a large part of the electorate) know this only too well. they know they are not fascist and that it is just a necessary evil to vote for the NF and that this will turn out ok for France (or at least better than anything else could) and that all the foreigners they know are actually nice people and it is of great regret that it has come to this etc etc etc. we need to call this out at EVERY moment, including any who see these trends as merely the expression of 'democracy' (how on earth can people use this term?) rather than the reactionary, stupid and inward-looking-ness it is.

asylum

bob

bottle

They do seem to have a problem with the chair. But for me the truly dire aspect of this programme (as with the appalling Newsnight) is that it makes a pretence of serious discussion. Yet the format only allows soundbites. So we get people on it who are willing to give them. Can you imagine a serious thinker participating in this programme? How could they even begin to construct an argument in the slots available? The BBC is supposed to provide public service: in current affairs it has long since stopped even trying in the concern for 'audience'.