Left, left, I'm bloody well left!

¡Ole Catalunya! The end of bullfighting in Catalunya

Martyn Richard Jones — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:42:25 GMT

¡Ole Catalunya!

It ended in tears, joy and applauses, but following three months of intense public debate, Catalonia has exercised its autonomy by giving a big "no" to bullfighting, and in doing so joins the Canary Islands (they did so in 1991) in banning this tradition.

The debate and vote in the Catalan parliament, and within the wider Catalan community, was the result of a democratic response to a popular petition to prohibit bullfighting in Catalonia, one that was supported by more than 180,000 signatures.

Up until the vote in the Catalan Parliament (Wednesday) it looked too close to call, but for realists, the rejection of the proposed new Catalan Statute by Spain´s Constitutional Tribunal, was the last nail in the coffin of pro-bullfighting hopes; confirmed today, as Catalan nationalists and socialists voted in their Parliament for the end of the fiesta nacional in Catalonia.

The vote in favour of the ban (68 to 55, with nine abstentions), has provoked mild hysteria in the ranks of the Spanish conservative party. Jaime Mayor Oreja has talked of "provocation" and "revenge for the success of the national (football) team" and of "a deep national crisis", María Dolores de Cospedal described the decision as "nonsense" and attributed it to the "mania" of the ruling socialist party to "prohibit and deny freedom of the Catalans and the Spanish people", and the chairman of the Popular Party in Catalonia, Alicia Sánchez-Camacho, suggested that her party will seek to ensure that Congress and the Senate will overrule the decision in favour of bullfighting, because it's "a festival of cultural interest", whilst elsewhere, the pro-bullfighting community in France fear a knock-on effect.

The political tension is surreal yet palpable, not on the streets, but within the leadership of the Popular Party, who seem more concerned about the Catalans banning bullfighting than in fixing the economic crisis. But, for all the hubris, the legal precedent of the ban on bullfighting in the Canary Islands makes one thing clear; the Popular Party have very little wiggle room on this issue.

So why now and why Catalonia?

For more than two decades animal rights campaigners in Spain have been working hard trying to make people aware of issues related to the cruelty to animals, and have pursued many avenues in many areas where the tradition and cruelty has trumped sensibility and reason; sometimes with success. But, nowhere has the active presence of animal rights advocates been more palpable that in Catalonia.

For this motive it is perhaps reasonable to suppose that the rationale for the ban on bullfighting in Catalonia is simply make a nationalist statement to the rest of Spain, but this would be a mistaken reading, as many people in Spain already understand, and are frequently sympathetic towards the aspirations of the Catalan nationalists, even if they don't always fully understand their motives or even agree with them.

That said, it is perhaps the case that many people in the Catalan speaking regions have an innate aversion to the old tourism marketing idea that "Spain is different" (after all, who in this day and age wouldn't be against such a horribly stale characterisation), it's an anachronism after all, but especially where Catalans are concerned, because although many (broadly)) have a profound sense of identity and local tradition (and pride of place in Catalonia is quite strong), the Catalans as a nation also have strong affinity and connection with the enlightenment, arts, philosophy, theology, science, technology, political thought and the democratic traditions of Europe; and to which a number of Catalans have made significant contributions.

But, the whole range of speculation regarding motives surrounding the vote are mainly irrelevant, as I suspect that the Catalan parliamentarians, who voted for the ban, did so after carefully examining the arguments between tradition and acceptable practice in a contemporary civil society. The fact that it irritated the right-wing was just the cherry on the ensaimada – not that ensaimadas usually come with cherries – but this is a celebration.

Martyn Richard Jones

28th July 2010

Racist fachas estilo Al Andalus

Martyn Richard Jones — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 23:39:58 GMT

Here's someone who likes to mess with words - addressed to me:

A ver, hijo de puta guiri, ¿quién eres tú para decir lo que es Andalucía o no? Vete a joder a tu país con tus hijos de puta fanáticos.

Otro gilipollas extranjero que viene buscando playita y flamenkito de mierda...

ANDALUCÍA NO ES Y NO SERÁ NUNCA EUROPA

EUROPA ES PARA PERROS INGLESES, como tú

from some youtube person named: ylahumanidad

And my reply:

Otra vez, un ignorante y mal educado racista de cupón.

And humanity .. my arse. Racist, nationalist and fascist scum.

Spain's socialist moment

Martyn Richard Jones — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:55:24 GMT

Spain's socialist moment

The left in Spain is involved in a process that will culminate in a practical political programme, with a focus on social rights.

Article in The Guardian at Comment is Free

Too clever for your own good

Martyn Richard Jones — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:00:00 GMT

Even before the Duke of Gloucester had berated Edward Gibbon for his "thick, square book", the encouragement of ignorance was already a powerful force in the English speaking world.

Whilst it can be recognized that the Right get in a tizzy when the Left use the USA as a reference, the fact is our cousins across the pond do have some of the brightest and best examples. Such as Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams, both accused of being unsuitable for political office due to their intellectual pursuits.

Later, Richard Hofstadter, in a classic study of the plight of intellectualism in the USA, noted that "It seemed to be the goal of the common man in America to build a society that would show how much could be done without literature and learning--or rather, a society whose literature and learning would be largely limited to such elementary things as the common man could grasp and use".

Indeed, the widely popularised and populist Andrew Jackson, seventh President of the United States, delighted his followers with observations such as: "It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word".

In France, Sarkozy's "Cultivated Anti-Intellectualism" is something of an embarrassment, given that the Gaullist right were never "quintessentially vulgar" or anti-intellectual. That is in contrast to the situation in other G8 countries, where "bread and circuses" are served up as a daily substitute for political engagement. Indeed, if people consider that a bit of textual chit-chat on the old Dog and iBone is a political statement, then where are we? And so to Isaac Asimov, dead as he is, who thought that there was a " false notion that democracy meant that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'".

Meanwhile, in the UK, a former Education Secretary told an audience, including "gifted and talented" children, that academic success is to be celebrated as much as sporting achievement, adding "being clever is sometimes seen as a term of abuse, for example: 'Too clever for your own good'." But this was the very same person who was a cabinet colleague of a man who blamed the French for the Iraq War, because they had voted against it. It didn't stop there, because the justification for using the "blame the French" ruse was so mangled and indecipherable, that Mark Steel was lead to comment that "the Government would have done better to have their policy explained by Po off Teletubbies".

Anti-intellectualism extends to the political blogosphere, where the established principle seems to be that the way to attack the left is not to address it - because that would involve reading and comprehension - but to mock, ridicule, trivialise, deny, invent, deflect, and misrepresent, and then, when all of that has failed, to attack, with blunt adjectives and rightful indignation.

Of course, there is nothing new in that. Stewart Lee said: "you can prove anything with facts, can't you", since, when an argument cannot be sustained by reason or evidence, then gut instinct and prejudice become your friends.

It seems that giving a reasoned and well placed opinion is actually a transgression, something that decent chaps just don't do, or simply, as if political blogging was a football match, between the Right and Wrong.

The keeper in the red, effortlessly blocks a weak shot, boots the ball right up the field to his mate cruising in the opposition's penalty area, who Villa like, sends the ball crashing into the back of the opponents net. Of course, then Team Right, in the blue strip for those watching in black and white, unleash special pleading on the official in charge of the game: "Oy! Referee! The left are cheating again, that argument was well offside".

Este blog se solidariza con Baltasar Garzón

Martyn Richard Jones — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 14:36:03 GMT

Stephen Pollard: No Worries

Martyn Richard Jones — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 03:43:53 GMT

Walk away whistling

The always thought-provoking Tim Worstall asks this question, to which we all know the answer:

Absolutely every commentator even vaguely left of centre says that
the fiscal contraction (ie, the combination of spending cuts and tax
rises) is going to devastate the economy. We’re going to get a double
dip recession, unemployment will go over 4 million etc.

Let us imagine that this doesn’t happen: will we then have put to
bed the idea that only government spending can get us out of such
recessions?

Or if, in two or three years time, this hasn’t happened, will they just walk away whistling, hoping no one will have noticed?

MartynInEurope

24 June, 2010 - 04:36

Rate this:

squllion billiion points

"Or if, in two or three years time, this hasn’t happened, will they just walk away whistling, hoping no one will have noticed?"

Stephen Pollard, do you really think that people who might expect or think the worst to be somehow punished for their pessimism?

We can all imagine what we like, we can imagine that bad things will not happen, and where has that lead us, time and time again?

Really, what are you thinking?

Open season in the NHS

Martyn Richard Jones — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:05:29 GMT

Tim Montgomerie, the editor of the ConservativeHome.com blog has suggested that the NHS budget should lose its ring-fenced status; I think he is fundamentally wrong, and is completely mistaken in this proposal, wrong about the nature of the NHS and wrong about the rationale for its very existence, I also think that similar suggestions come from a dark cavernous recess of highly dubious instrumental reason and fetid dogma, rather than being the result of any well thought out, coherent, cohesive and humane rationale. Of course, I could be wrong. This is speculation and opinion after all. Occasionally, some things are idle taxi driver speculation at best, never to be taken to the level debate.

Here are my responses to an article that appeared on The Guardian's highly respect blog "Comment is Free".

The strapline on Tim's article is "If Osborne is brave enough to share out the pain equally – health cuts included – a VAT rise won't be needed". Let's look at some other things we might look at before we touch the NHS:

1. Cancel Trident
2. Nationalise the banks
3. End privatisation in Health and Education
4. Tell everyone what the deal is, how much needs to be cut - take the "we're all in this together" approach, and just don't cut because it's politically expedient but because it's an economic necessity - socialise profit and loss, and make it fair.
5. Introduce real democracy - there's an economic war on, and real democracy, from grassroots - community - up, is needed more than ever.
99. Close down parasitic think tanks.

Time goes on to say that " George Osborne's favourite slogan is "we're all in this together" and he has gone a long way to prove it". But what does that really mean:

Ring fencing essentially necessary public service is not fiscal irresponsibility but social responsibility. If the UK needs to cut into NHS spending it means that every other avenue of saving has been explored, which is clearly bollox. This is not thinking out of the box, it is thinking inside the darkest recesses nastiness. Old grassroots Tories saw that gradual socialization was not only inevitable but desirable, their major concerns were with controls and the speed of change. In that respect the old Tories were not mean minded, just very cautious - I didn't agree with that stance either, but at least it was socially responsible and intellectually responsible, as well as being relatively coherent.

Tim says that "Fairness is ingrained in the British psychology", but then goes on to completely miss the point of the reason being something taken on face value and used a s a sound bite.

The worst Tories of the Thatcherite era were clearly people who just took an instrumental reasoned approach to everything, without considering for one moment the human consequences, as if their pornographic market dogma were all that mattered. There is no place for anti-social dogma in world that cries out for justice, reason and humanity, no matter if the dogma comes from the left, the right, the centre or an intellectual cesspit. It's a mistake to misuse terms like Nazi, but in strict terms, how does the inhumane instrumental reason of the Nazis differ from the inhumane instrumental reason of anyone else?

Then ... the anonymous spanows jumps in:

spanows:

    21 Jun 2010, 10:13PM

        @MartynInEurope

        If the UK needs to cut into NHS spending it means that every other avenue of saving has been explored, which is clearly bollox.

        or perhaps teh stawman in your sentence is the real bollox. You seriously believe that the NHS budget has no flexibility? No waste? Not trimming possible?

    I didn't agree with that stance either, but at least it was socially responsible and intellectually responsible, as well as being relatively coherent.

So you would prefer a Tory government, not this coalition?

You are mistaken spanows. Just because some people hate the non-Tory voting poor, doesn't mean we all do. There is no place for anti-social dogma in world that cries out for justice, reason and humanity, no matter if the dogma comes from the left, the right, the centre or an intellectual cesspit.

hmmm, know what? I believe you'd accept anti-social dogma from the left.

You know spannows, some people will question my ideology, and hats of to them too, because I have no ideology beyond social justice, no matter who provides it. Does that mean that I respect dogma, dogma that is nothing better than the putrid ideas of those who would go against their own, their country men and women and against the welfare of their own? No,for them let's be clear about this, I have no respect, zero respect, null respect, zilch respect, iteratively and absolutely no respect, and I don't have a problem stating as much. In a democracy, decent people with decent arguments deserve respect, people who just want social aggro by pursuing hate via a socially divisive, racist and aggro position, deserve zero respect.

Now, FUCK OFF!

Liberals, who'd trust 'em?

Martyn Richard Jones — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:19:44 GMT

Comment on: George Osborne defends tax gamble as prospective chancellors clash live

MartynInEurope 30 Mar 10, 11:27am

Cable is a populist - do the liberals have any policies that they are prepared to stick with, even if it means less votes? Anyway, at least people should know where Darling and Osborne are coming from.

· Comment on: Nick Clegg at Hay: call for questions

MartynInEurope 02 Jun 10, 1:44pm

In relations between Liberals and Tories would you advise the use of protection?

· Comment on: Image conscious

MartynInEurope 15 Jul 08, 7:21pm

I dont personally know anyone on the left who is seriously interested in the US Presidential race, never mind arsed enough to be bothered by some cartoon in the New Yorker. Maybe they were liberals?

· Comment on: A postcode protest against the BNP

MartynInEurope 21 Nov 08, 6:29am

Are some people annoyed by the BNP solely because they are really disgustingly horrible, or because they stole their tactics as well? Sometimes I don't know who is more to the right, Thatcherites or Liberals.

· Comment on: It's little wonder liberal Muslims feel betrayed

MartynInEurope 16 Mar 09, 12:17am

When Nick refers to "liberals" I assume it is self-referential and nothing to do with the left, that's why I thought it was a reasonable article.

Oh well!

· Comment on: Labour's listing

MartynInEurope 12 Jan 09, 4:29pm

Why do liberals think they are leftwing?

· Comment on: Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition hopes end in recriminations

MartynInEurope 12 May 10, 9:29am

So quite a few people were suckered by Clegg and the populist Cable, but it just goes to confirm that you can fool some of the people almost all of the time.

As for a Clegg and Cable betraying their "progressive" support, it's about time that "progressives" got a clue, and stopped being so bloody naive.

· Comment on: Nick Clegg – where have you been?

MartynInEurope 29 Aug 09, 9:53pm

BeautifulBurnout:

29 Aug 09, 6:38pm

Vince Cable for PM.

That's all.

I can understand your bias, but personally I'd rather have you as PM than Vince.

· Comment on: My big idea to fix politics

MartynInEurope 20 Sep 09, 4:15pm

I have just read the comments by Vincent Cable, Jo Swinson, Norman Baker and John Curtice, and have one question.

Considering that the UK lacks a decent democratic, secular, egalitarian and just constitution; considering that the electoral system weighs rather than counts votes; and, considering the effectiveness of republican federalism in supporting the needs of a modern civil society, is this collection of frail soundbites really the best that the Lib Dems can come up with?

· Comment on: We were wrong to allow so many eastern Europeans into Britain

MartynInEurope 06 Jun 10, 4:00am

So populist it would make Hugo Chavez and Vince Cable blush.

· Comment on: George Osborne defends tax gamble as prospective chancellors clash live

MartynInEurope 30 Mar 10, 11:27am

· Comment on: Cutter Clegg

MartynInEurope 14 Sep 08, 12:37pm

In an interview with The Observer, Vince Cable, the Lib Dem treasury spokesman, abandoned the party's historic commitment to 'ever closer' European integration and its decade-long push for rapid British entry into the euro system.

Liberals = Sentimental Tory Gits.

So, 21st Century Enlightenment, is it?

Martyn Richard Jones — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:40:46 GMT

In the UK, Matthew Taylor of the Royal Society of Artists has come up with a brand new big idea, which is being touted as a call for calling for a "21st-century Enlightenment". This was my response to an article by Madeleine Bunting (guardian.co.uk, Sunday 13 June 2010 21.00 BST), Comment is free - Hail the 21st-century Enlightenment - Ideas don't come much bigger. We need to live very differently, argues a bold new text. And that calls for nothing less than a revolution of the mind.

Here is my response:

Over the two decades we have seen leaders of western democracies failing to heed the lessons of history; we have seen the likes of Blair and Bush turn western enlightenment on its head in order to justify the unjustifiable, and the abuse and misuse of institutions born out the lessons of history and the spirit of the enlightenment.

Of course, the values and notions of empathy and empathic concern are not new, even though the results of scientific research have provided additional theoretical support – see Jeremy Rifkin, The Empathic Civilisation.

But, is Mathew Taylor really doing anything more than polymorphism to represent a unified and repackaged view of aspects of the enlightenment, evolutionary biology, neuro-cognitive science, pedagogy , child development, Judaeo–Christian values, etcetera, and in order to revive interest in the fundamentals of the original enlightenment and its impact on society, as it were, a re-launch of the enlightenment dressed in 21st century social-democratic clothing?

Of course, conspiring to pretend that 21st Century Enlightenment is new and as potentially significant as the first European Enlightenment, relies on a mirage, the mirage of the enlightenment seen from a 21st century perspective. That is, our current viewpoints and our modern references can be used to recreate the enlightenment, even to the extent of pretending all of this was invented by some bloke in New Labour in 2010. Of course it can be claimed to be new, but that is a mistake. From the fundamental aspects of its broad sweep of philosophy we can even call 21st century Enlightenment modern, but in reality, it is not something new, and is certainly something far older than New Labour’s philandering with bourgeois liberalism and it’s dalliances with the soulnessness and debasing influence of the third way.

Of course, I take issues with academics who take intellectual autism to extremes, and I find Gray’s criticism of Rifkin’s ideas to be somewhat problematic, because they seem to have been derived not only from an intellectual stance, but one that seems far from empathic. In addition, whilst agreeing that empathy (as defined by Simon Baron-Cohen, etc) is something very important in a decent society, there are other aspects and values that must also be considered, such as: gratitude, honesty, sincerity, responsibility, generosity, solidarity, wisdom, learning, self-control, sensitivity, sacrifice, constructive criticism, detachment, optimism, love, compassion , responsibility, will, understanding, patience, friendship, loyalty, respect, joy, etc.

Simply stated, after the neo-liberal, neo-conservative and post-modern mugging that the European Enlightenment has suffered in the last decades, and with all the subsequent obfuscating spin, bluff and bluster that has been used against the values of the enlightenment, it’s perhaps time that we were reintroduced to the fundamental richness, values and the lessons that can be learned from the enlightenment.

But, my main concerns are thus:

1) Are the people who have brought it upon themselves to re-launch the enlightenment in the UK, really the most appropriate people to do so, and, does it matter?

2) Is this re-launch of the enlightenment going to be anything like the third way re-launch of Labour in its New Labour guise, a re-foundation that is deliberately designed to exclude a whole swathe of public and published opinion, whether they are atheists, liberal democrats, democratic-socialists or the Marxist left.

3) Is this a cunning way of reformulating the enlightenment by going back and reforming Locke, picking and mixing some Rousseau and some Kant (conveniently forgetting the categorical imperative), and then fast forwarding to the future, conveniently missing out Hegel, Feuerbach and Marx, to name just three, and packaging it all in the same way that New Labour was branded?

Let’s hope this isn’t just some more cynical and expedient posturing and manoeuvring, eh.

Liberty

Martyn Richard Jones — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:24:31 GMT

Left, left, I'm bloody well left!

¡Ole Catalunya! The end of bullfighting in Catalunya

Racist fachas estilo Al Andalus

Spain's socialist moment

Spain's socialist moment

Too clever for your own good

Este blog se solidariza con Baltasar Garzón

Este blog se solidariza con Baltasar Garzón, el juez que se atrevió a juzgar los crímenes de la dictadura franquista.

Stephen Pollard: No Worries

Open season in the NHS

Liberals, who'd trust 'em?

So, 21st Century Enlightenment, is it?

Of course, the values and notions of empathy and empathic concern are not new, even though the results of scientific research have provided additional theoretical support – see Jeremy Rifkin, The Empathic Civilisation.

Liberty