[Oldmanmatt]

Who ate all the Pies?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28794697

[Oldmanmatt]

Sure, religion, race and land are all tied up together. The Arabs follow Islam, the Jews Judaism. Both religions can accommodate others under their rule, but they all need somewhere to live.

Oh I forget most (all?) think all others are wrong and those who don't follow their choice of religion are damned to eternity in somewhere horrible.

And deserve death...


But then you get different interpretations within each,  some being tolerant others being extremist.

And all being Excrement...



The world would probably be a better place without religion,  even with the loss of the few good things they've bought.

All additions to Slackers post are entirely mine.

Part of me wishes that there really is a hell, reserved entirely for the Religious Right Wing of all Religions, along with all the other Paedophiles, Mass Murderers, El Presidente Farther of their People scum that pollute this planet.

[Sloper]

Sure, religion, race and land are all tied up together. The Arabs follow Islam, the Jews Judaism. Both religions can accommodate others under their rule, but they all need somewhere to live.

Oh I forget most (all?) think all others are wrong and those who don't follow their choice of religion are damned to eternity in somewhere horrible.

And deserve death...


But then you get different interpretations within each,  some being tolerant others being extremist.

And all being Excrement...



The world would probably be a better place without religion,  even with the loss of the few good things they've bought.

All additions to Slackers post are entirely mine.

Part of me wishes that there really is a hell, reserved entirely for the Religious Right Wing of all Religions, along with all the other Paedophiles, Mass Murderers, El Presidente Farther of their People scum that pollute this planet.

let's not forget that historically that 'Muslim' states were very much more accommodating to Jews and Christians than Christain countries were to Mulisms and Jews (and indeed other types of Christians). 

The situation in Palestine / Israel and Syria/Levant/Iraq are not questions about the faith of the terrorists but rather a struggle for power and the desire to impose a dictatorship, the religion is basically a side issue.  This misuse of religion is evident in Burma and other eastern states which have seen genocidal attacks perpetrated by Buddhist monks and so on. 

The poisonous antisemitic teaching in Hamas backed schools is nothing to do with the faith of Islam, it is about maintaining a population who can be manipulated to serve the wishes of the Hamas leadership.

[Sloper]

Beyond parody.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/21/biometric-venezuela-food-shortages-smuggling-fingerprints

[Sloper]

I can't wait to hear how UKIP explain the causes of this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-28918105

[mrjonathanr]

A minor adjustment??

And what was the purpose of your visit sir?  Business or Her Majesty's Pleasure?

 

[mrjonathanr]

Uh-uh:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/25/french-government-resigns-francois-hollande-manuel-valls

[Sloper]

Hilarious, if it wasn't for the harm caused to the French people and economy.  Now wasn't Hollande going to show how modern socialism-lite would succeed where Tory bastard scum couldn't (for those that don't want to know the scores look away now).

[Oldmanmatt]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/instructor-accidentally-shot-girl-9-dies



'Murica.

'Nuff said.

[tommytwotone]

I see Sloper's been back au foret magique...ironic he was spotted by a Guardian reporter though:

http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2014/aug/28/bouldering-rock-climbing-fontainebleau-france

We even spot one elderly climber enjoying a cigar atop a rock.

[Sloper]

I was in Font in late July and early August and did enjoy the odd cigar on the top of a boulder now and again so cannot rule out the reference being about me.  As for the irony I buy and read the lefty primaily because of the crossword.

Overall a decent article, no references to 'vertical chess' or 'cliffhanger' / similar bollocks.

[tomtom]

Boom...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11321930&ref=NZH_FBpage

[SA Chris]

I'd forgotten the Antipodean lollies = sweets thing. Bit of a cock up though. Bet the kids were oblivious.

[Sloper]

two things that concern me; 1. the never ending ability of the English to donate to charities to support animals rather than something worthwhile and b the lack of the ability of the guardian to deal with numbers: was the dogs home really the best part of 480,000,000 square feet?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/12/manchester-dogs-home-donations-fire

[tregiffian]

+1; picture notwithstanding.

[DaveC]

two things that concern me; 1. the never ending ability of the English to donate to charities to support animals rather than something worthwhile

It's that kind of shit that guarantee that every spare cent I have goes to just such a cause Tom, I'd punter you but I really can't be arsed.

[psychomansam]

[...] things that concern me; 1. the never ending ability of the English to donate to charities to support animals rather than something worthwhile [...]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/12/manchester-dogs-home-donations-fire

I fairly well agree on this. But the ethical issues it raises when you look deeper into it are deeply troubling. What is a worthwhile cause? Think of all the money spent on cancer research, ice buckets and even children in need. How else could that money be spent?
Rather than 'charitably' funding research into extending our own parasitic western lifespans and thus spending longer leaching global resources and causing misery in the developing world, we could give that money to causes such as water and mosquito nets. Rather than spending vast quantities to help a few children in this country, we could give the same amount and help 10 or 100 times as many in the poorest places. And by help, I mean keep them alive, not just give them a happier childhood. Of course racism, pseudo-colonialism and cultural and religious bigotry are rife. "Do they (the population of a largely non-christian, partly muslim continent the size of Europe, the USA and half of Asia combined) know it's christmas time at all?" Shut the fuck up.

Thinking deeply on charitable giving is an excellent way to realise that our sense of the right and the good is subjective bullshit and far from universalisable, that we are incredibly self-serving, that our empathies and sympathies are bounded to those with whom we have contact and to whom we relate, and that the degree of contact and relatibility largely determines our notions of responsibility. Thus determined, we then use these particular avenues to promote our own positive self-image and sense of goodness and self-worth.

A huge amount of charity is self-serving, self-defeating, feel-good outlets staffed by that branch of the middle/upper classes who struggle to come to terms with just how self-centered and privileged they are and thus try to drown it. And most other charitable causes are a mediocre, inefficient, narrow-minded and insular pursuit of a poorly defined good.

The growth of the professional charitable sector is symptomatic of deep ills in our country.

Apart from that, it's all good.

[frasermcilwraith]

[...] things that concern me; 1. the never ending ability of the English to donate to charities to support animals rather than something worthwhile [...]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/12/manchester-dogs-home-donations-fire

I fairly well agree on this. But the ethical issues it raises when you look deeper into it are deeply troubling. What is a worthwhile cause? Think of all the money spent on cancer research, ice buckets and even children in need. How else could that money be spent?
Rather than 'charitably' funding research into extending our own parasitic western lifespans and thus spending longer leaching global resources and causing misery in the developing world, we could give that money to causes such as water and mosquito nets. Rather than spending vast quantities to help a few children in this country, we could give the same amount and help 10 or 100 times as many in the poorest places. And by help, I mean keep them alive, not just give them a happier childhood. Of course racism, pseudo-colonialism and cultural and religious bigotry are rife. "Do they (the population of a largely non-christian, partly muslim continent the size of Europe, the USA and half of Asia combined) know it's christmas time at all?" Shut the fuck up.

Thinking deeply on charitable giving is an excellent way to realise that our sense of the right and the good is subjective bullshit and far from universalisable, that we are incredibly self-serving, that our empathies and sympathies are bounded to those with whom we have contact and to whom we relate, and that the degree of contact and relatibility largely determines our notions of responsibility. Thus determined, we then use these particular avenues to promote our own positive self-image and sense of goodness and self-worth.

A huge amount of charity is self-serving, self-defeating, feel-good outlets staffed by that branch of the middle/upper classes who struggle to come to terms with just how self-centered and privileged they are and thus try to drown it. And most other charitable causes are a mediocre, inefficient, narrow-minded and insular pursuit of a poorly defined good.

The growth of the professional charitable sector is symptomatic of deep ills in our country.

Apart from that, it's all good.

I'm pretty convinced that charity is simply never going to be enough to actually make a real difference to worldwide inequality and poverty. Most just seems fairly self-serving; a good way to fool ourselves into thinking that we're making a difference when in fact we're really doing very little to help people and change things. It seems like the only way to actually help poor people across the world is through serious change to global structures of power and economics, which are based on the exploitation of the poor people in question and their land and resources.

In fact, I'm sure some people might go so far as to argue that charity is an important part of the current economic order. It gives people an excuse not to call for serious change, because they can just argue that charities are doing good work etc, and that given time their work alone will be enough to sort everything out. It gives people a feeling of satisfaction from doing really not that much, and allows things to continue pretty much as they have for years, that is, based on a global system of exploitation, neocolonialism etc etc...

But yeah, I agree that apart from all that, charities are great!

[psychomansam]

I'm pretty convinced that charity is simply never going to be enough to actually make a real difference to worldwide inequality and poverty. Most just seems fairly self-serving; a good way to fool ourselves into thinking that we're making a difference when in fact we're really doing very little to help people and change things. It seems like the only way to actually help poor people across the world is through serious change to global structures of power and economics, which are based on the exploitation of the poor people in question and their land and resources.

In fact, I'm sure some people might go so far as to argue that charity is an important part of the current economic order. It gives people an excuse not to call for serious change, because they can just argue that charities are doing good work etc, and that given time their work alone will be enough to sort everything out. It gives people a feeling of satisfaction from doing really not that much, and allows things to continue pretty much as they have for years, that is, based on a global system of exploitation, neocolonialism etc etc...

But yeah, I agree that apart from all that, charities are great!

+1 to the above. I've had some interesting conversations with a relative who's done a lot of voluntary work, trying to do good, about the way in which a lot of charities, particularly larger ones, facilitate the maintenance of the status quo. They've seen it first-hand.

[psychomansam]

http://www.economist.com/news/business-books-quarterly/21606248-easing-consciences-good-thing-or-bad

Just happened across this, so thought I'd put it here.

[mrjonathanr]

Is occupation purely a matter of self-defence in those territories?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/12/israeli-intelligence-reservists-refuse-serve-palestinian-territories

[psychomansam]

Is occupation purely a matter of self-defence in those territories?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/12/israeli-intelligence-reservists-refuse-serve-palestinian-territories

Israel is an aggressive, oppressive, expansionist and fascist state.
And the Palestinians just won't learn to sit down, shut up and take it.

[mrjonathanr]

Israel is an aggressive, oppressive, expansionist and fascist state.
And the Palestinians just won't learn to sit down, shut up and take it.

I agree with you up to the last term, although Israeli politics is very right wing I wouldn't use the term fascist.

Israel is in a very difficult position but the treatment of the Palestinian people is an abomination. The two state solution is a nonsense debate, it just serves to allow further annexation to take place.

[battery]

[...] things that concern me; 1. the never ending ability of the English to donate to charities to support animals rather than something worthwhile [...]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/12/manchester-dogs-home-donations-fire

I fairly well agree on this. But the ethical issues it raises when you look deeper into it are deeply troubling. What is a worthwhile cause? Think of all the money spent on cancer research, ice buckets and even children in need. How else could that money be spent?
Rather than 'charitably' funding research into extending our own parasitic western lifespans and thus spending longer leaching global resources and causing misery in the developing world, we could give that money to causes such as water and mosquito nets. Rather than spending vast quantities to help a few children in this country, we could give the same amount and help 10 or 100 times as many in the poorest places. And by help, I mean keep them alive, not just give them a happier childhood. Of course racism, pseudo-colonialism and cultural and religious bigotry are rife. "Do they (the population of a largely non-christian, partly muslim continent the size of Europe, the USA and half of Asia combined) know it's christmas time at all?" Shut the fuck up.

Thinking deeply on charitable giving is an excellent way to realise that our sense of the right and the good is subjective bullshit and far from universalisable, that we are incredibly self-serving, that our empathies and sympathies are bounded to those with whom we have contact and to whom we relate, and that the degree of contact and relatibility largely determines our notions of responsibility. Thus determined, we then use these particular avenues to promote our own positive self-image and sense of goodness and self-worth.

A huge amount of charity is self-serving, self-defeating, feel-good outlets staffed by that branch of the middle/upper classes who struggle to come to terms with just how self-centered and privileged they are and thus try to drown it. And most other charitable causes are a mediocre, inefficient, narrow-minded and insular pursuit of a poorly defined good.

The growth of the professional charitable sector is symptomatic of deep ills in our country.

Apart from that, it's all good.

I'm pretty convinced that charity is simply never going to be enough to actually make a real difference to worldwide inequality and poverty. Most just seems fairly self-serving; a good way to fool ourselves into thinking that we're making a difference when in fact we're really doing very little to help people and change things. It seems like the only way to actually help poor people across the world is through serious change to global structures of power and economics, which are based on the exploitation of the poor people in question and their land and resources.

In fact, I'm sure some people might go so far as to argue that charity is an important part of the current economic order. It gives people an excuse not to call for serious change, because they can just argue that charities are doing good work etc, and that given time their work alone will be enough to sort everything out. It gives people a feeling of satisfaction from doing really not that much, and allows things to continue pretty much as they have for years, that is, based on a global system of exploitation, neocolonialism etc etc...

But yeah, I agree that apart from all that, charities are great!

I've worked for charities for most of my career and yea, there is a part of me that does it because I want to help people make their lives better which in turn makes me feel good. There has to be some other motivation than money for working in the 3rd sector as I could be earning a hell of a lot more money with a lot less grief in either the public or private sector.

I say tge above to agree that Charities are self serving to a certain extent. However without them much of the change you talk about, be it political, social, economic or personal, is being worked on on a daily basis by charities as they raise awareness and seek to change the system from within.

The world is a fucking mess, let's face it. Does that mean we shouldn't try? That we shouldn't support charities that try? And even if we don't always succeed in huge winds of change, is not the positive impact we have on individuals worth it on its own? 

[Oldmanmatt]

[...] things that concern me; 1. the never ending ability of the English to donate to charities to support animals rather than something worthwhile [...]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/12/manchester-dogs-home-donations-fire

I fairly well agree on this. But the ethical issues it raises when you look deeper into it are deeply troubling. What is a worthwhile cause? Think of all the money spent on cancer research, ice buckets and even children in need. How else could that money be spent?
Rather than 'charitably' funding research into extending our own parasitic western lifespans and thus spending longer leaching global resources and causing misery in the developing world, we could give that money to causes such as water and mosquito nets. Rather than spending vast quantities to help a few children in this country, we could give the same amount and help 10 or 100 times as many in the poorest places. And by help, I mean keep them alive, not just give them a happier childhood. Of course racism, pseudo-colonialism and cultural and religious bigotry are rife. "Do they (the population of a largely non-christian, partly muslim continent the size of Europe, the USA and half of Asia combined) know it's christmas time at all?" Shut the fuck up.

Thinking deeply on charitable giving is an excellent way to realise that our sense of the right and the good is subjective bullshit and far from universalisable, that we are incredibly self-serving, that our empathies and sympathies are bounded to those with whom we have contact and to whom we relate, and that the degree of contact and relatibility largely determines our notions of responsibility. Thus determined, we then use these particular avenues to promote our own positive self-image and sense of goodness and self-worth.

A huge amount of charity is self-serving, self-defeating, feel-good outlets staffed by that branch of the middle/upper classes who struggle to come to terms with just how self-centered and privileged they are and thus try to drown it. And most other charitable causes are a mediocre, inefficient, narrow-minded and insular pursuit of a poorly defined good.

The growth of the professional charitable sector is symptomatic of deep ills in our country.

Apart from that, it's all good.

It is possible, productive and worthwhile; to do the right thing, for the wrong reasons...