Are there any UK UNA (United Nations Association) members reading this blog?
If so, I would be very grateful indeed if you would take a look at this motion, and the link giving background details, and then, if you would like to support this initiative, please print it off, sign it and post it to :
Fanny Lines
UNA
3 Whitehall Court
London SW1A 2EL
to arrive before 1 February 2005.
This will mean that it gets discussed at the UK UNA Conference in April.
If you do send it, please let me know by email.
Many thanks
Richard Lawson
Index of Governance Motion
The United Nations Association
noting the current movement towards enabling the United Nations to take military action against regimes which act in disregard of human rights, and
noting the need for a non-violent alternative to bring pressure on inhumane regimes,
requests that the UNA Board consider and develop the proposal that UN member states should have their human rights record continuously assessed, and that the resulting score should be published annually by the UN as an Index of Governance,
and that regimes with the poorest record of human rights as measured on this Index shall suffer targeted sanctions designed to affect the ruling elite rather than the general population, and
requests that the UNA Board should, having developed this proposal, press for it to be adopted by the World Federation of UNAs, with a view to having this policy eventually adopted by the UN itself.
Signed............
UNA member
More info on the Index of Governance
Thanks.
This is a bit of a cliff hanger, as we only have about 15 days left to go. Which is why there was no blog yesterday. Not that anyone noticed, probably.
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Friday, January 14, 2005
Why do people buy newspapers and vote for Bush?
We had a flurry of activity on the Monbiot list in answer to the question of why people voted for Bush. It was felt that he mobilised the fundamentalist evangelical vote by being a fundamentalist himself, that he appealed with his folksiness (much in the same way that Ronald Reagan did), and that he had the media on his side (You can fool 50% of the people all the time if you have the media on your side).
It was also pointed out that Bush is the personable (to 50% of Americans) figurehead of the neo conservative movement. One important component of that movement is the philosopher Leo Strauss, and one of his threads (as I understand it) is that to hold power, there must be a difference between the esoteric and exoteric agenda of government - in other words, government must deceive the people as to its true intentions in order to wield power effectively.
This would fit in well with the use of the WMD threat to whip up support for the Operation Iraqi Liberation, and the current use of the threat of terrorism (the Power of Nightmares issue).
Perhaps most importantly, it fits in with Bush's Kyoto stance, which is in denial of the evidence and reasoning regarding global warming, and is also implicitly in denial of the fact that oil is a finite resource. This is Bush's prime deception, and it is amazing how effectively the deception can be sustained. This can only be explained in terms of a generalised failure of journalism in America, and to a lesser extent in the UK.
Which brings me to the suggestion that progressives should adopt the slogan
"Don't let them fool you all the time - Make April 1st a no-media day"
No newspapers, TV or radio on April Fools' Day, to signal to the journalists that we feel they are failing. Let Rupert Murdoch tremble at the curse of the Bloggers.
Or not, as the case may be.
It was also pointed out that Bush is the personable (to 50% of Americans) figurehead of the neo conservative movement. One important component of that movement is the philosopher Leo Strauss, and one of his threads (as I understand it) is that to hold power, there must be a difference between the esoteric and exoteric agenda of government - in other words, government must deceive the people as to its true intentions in order to wield power effectively.
This would fit in well with the use of the WMD threat to whip up support for the Operation Iraqi Liberation, and the current use of the threat of terrorism (the Power of Nightmares issue).
Perhaps most importantly, it fits in with Bush's Kyoto stance, which is in denial of the evidence and reasoning regarding global warming, and is also implicitly in denial of the fact that oil is a finite resource. This is Bush's prime deception, and it is amazing how effectively the deception can be sustained. This can only be explained in terms of a generalised failure of journalism in America, and to a lesser extent in the UK.
Which brings me to the suggestion that progressives should adopt the slogan
"Don't let them fool you all the time - Make April 1st a no-media day"
No newspapers, TV or radio on April Fools' Day, to signal to the journalists that we feel they are failing. Let Rupert Murdoch tremble at the curse of the Bloggers.
Or not, as the case may be.
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Patient Choice, Listeners Choice
I switch off the PM radio programme when a Government minister is talking about the new NHS computer (cost: £36,000,000,000 - about 6 Iraqi invasions -) and "Patient Choice" - a fatuous scheme where the GP helps a patient choose which hospital they should go to for their operation.
I got £15 from the Sun newspaper for this letter.
I would like to express my fury that today the Tory and Labour parties are prattling their fantasies about "patient choice" when to all intents and purposes out here in the real world my patients have no acess to meaningful services in child and adult psychiatry, nor to reasonable cardiology services nor 1001 other simple basic secondary care services within reasonable time. Whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.
Switching off is the only weapon we have in the end. Why do we listen to the news and buy the newspapers? It only encourages them.
Dont let them fool you all the time - Make April 1st No-News Day.
So it has come to this. I used to switch off Tory Ministers all the time.
I got £15 from the Sun newspaper for this letter.
I would like to express my fury that today the Tory and Labour parties are prattling their fantasies about "patient choice" when to all intents and purposes out here in the real world my patients have no acess to meaningful services in child and adult psychiatry, nor to reasonable cardiology services nor 1001 other simple basic secondary care services within reasonable time. Whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.
Switching off is the only weapon we have in the end. Why do we listen to the news and buy the newspapers? It only encourages them.
Dont let them fool you all the time - Make April 1st No-News Day.
So it has come to this. I used to switch off Tory Ministers all the time.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
What's right with Bush?
Something interesting has come up on the Monbiot Discussion List
Karen: I've been wondering what "good" argument could possibly be made for Bush.
RL: (that's me) This is a very important point. A deep rift is opening up in the political sphere between those who feel that bush is self evidently a Good Thing, and we who think he is self evidently a Bad Thing. Not all of the Bush Good group are totally stupid. In an ideal world we should go out and try to understand our opponents' line of reasoning, because understanding is always good. Has anyone on this list actually registered the Bush Good arguments?
Now do not get me wrong - I am not going soft on the shrub. But I do want to understand the opposition, not just deride them. So if anyone knows of any concise arguments in favour of Dubya, hit the Comment button, and we will have ourselves a debatitude. Thanks.
Karen: I've been wondering what "good" argument could possibly be made for Bush.
RL: (that's me) This is a very important point. A deep rift is opening up in the political sphere between those who feel that bush is self evidently a Good Thing, and we who think he is self evidently a Bad Thing. Not all of the Bush Good group are totally stupid. In an ideal world we should go out and try to understand our opponents' line of reasoning, because understanding is always good. Has anyone on this list actually registered the Bush Good arguments?
Now do not get me wrong - I am not going soft on the shrub. But I do want to understand the opposition, not just deride them. So if anyone knows of any concise arguments in favour of Dubya, hit the Comment button, and we will have ourselves a debatitude. Thanks.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
QOFFing at Blair and his mDTs
Feeling a little sad today, seeing patients. There is a perceptible distance between us now that I am just a part time locum, not their full-time GP. Seeing one old boy that I have known for 20 years made me realise just how much my personal knowledge contributes to the diagnosis as well as to the quality of the relationship.
With the sadness comes that old feeling of resentment against the bureacracy who have destroyed the quality of the doctor patient relationship with their endless quantifications (ironically, all under the heading of the QOF - Quality and Outcomes Framework), and against Government, who want to destroy small practices where the patients can see a doctor who knows them, and drive us all into huge multi-doctor MDTs (Multi Disciplinary Teams) where nobody knows anyone.
In a meeting I once asked what Outcomes meant. Nobody knew.
With the sadness comes that old feeling of resentment against the bureacracy who have destroyed the quality of the doctor patient relationship with their endless quantifications (ironically, all under the heading of the QOF - Quality and Outcomes Framework), and against Government, who want to destroy small practices where the patients can see a doctor who knows them, and drive us all into huge multi-doctor MDTs (Multi Disciplinary Teams) where nobody knows anyone.
In a meeting I once asked what Outcomes meant. Nobody knew.
Four Steps to Cancer Free Brains
Mobile phones back in the news today, with Professor Stewart gradually inching is way towards the position occupied by campaigners like Alastair Phillips of Powerwatch for two decades; decades in which thousands of children will have been exposed to unsafe levels of microwave radiation.
There are four reasons for the delay:
First, because the Precautionary Principle is not applied. Government pays lip service to the idea that if there is a possible risk, we should behave as if it is a real risk, and loosen up the restrictions if subsequent research shows that the original fears were overdone. Instead, they act on the What Do We Care So Long As Our Friends In Business Do Well? Principle.
Second, scientists are innately conservative, preferring the safety of the wooly flock to the exposure of being the one who entertains the new thoughts, particularly thoughts which their paymasters in business might not much care for.
Third, the common misapprehension that science "proves things". This enables a politician, scientist, product manufacturer or journalist to stand up any time they like and say "there is no proof that X causes Y". (End of story. Stop being such a silly little fuss pot.)
In fact, it is the case in science that nothing is ever proved, only not-yet-disproved. There is a world of difference here, and it means that we have to deal with collected evidence, not just rely on the word of a respected authority.
Fourth, we need an Unwanted Effects Restitution Levy (UERL)to be placed on every new product - just a little levy in the pot at first. Then if prima facie evidence appears, the levy is notched up to pay for necessary research (remember it took 20 years and 20,000 scientific papers to persuade the scientific community that tobacco caused lung cancer. That research cost a lot of money.) Finally, if a harmful effect is established by the research, but it is nor severe enough to cause the product to be banned, the levy should be placed at a level sufficient to pay for the damage it does. For instance, sugar would have a levy on it to pay for the NHS dental service, and another research levy ot answer the question of whether it causes diabetes. (This line is developed in Bills of Health )
The beauty of the UERL is that the product price automatically goes up in proportion to its adverse effects, so consumption of harmful products is inhibited.
There are four reasons for the delay:
First, because the Precautionary Principle is not applied. Government pays lip service to the idea that if there is a possible risk, we should behave as if it is a real risk, and loosen up the restrictions if subsequent research shows that the original fears were overdone. Instead, they act on the What Do We Care So Long As Our Friends In Business Do Well? Principle.
Second, scientists are innately conservative, preferring the safety of the wooly flock to the exposure of being the one who entertains the new thoughts, particularly thoughts which their paymasters in business might not much care for.
Third, the common misapprehension that science "proves things". This enables a politician, scientist, product manufacturer or journalist to stand up any time they like and say "there is no proof that X causes Y". (End of story. Stop being such a silly little fuss pot.)
In fact, it is the case in science that nothing is ever proved, only not-yet-disproved. There is a world of difference here, and it means that we have to deal with collected evidence, not just rely on the word of a respected authority.
Fourth, we need an Unwanted Effects Restitution Levy (UERL)to be placed on every new product - just a little levy in the pot at first. Then if prima facie evidence appears, the levy is notched up to pay for necessary research (remember it took 20 years and 20,000 scientific papers to persuade the scientific community that tobacco caused lung cancer. That research cost a lot of money.) Finally, if a harmful effect is established by the research, but it is nor severe enough to cause the product to be banned, the levy should be placed at a level sufficient to pay for the damage it does. For instance, sugar would have a levy on it to pay for the NHS dental service, and another research levy ot answer the question of whether it causes diabetes. (This line is developed in Bills of Health )
The beauty of the UERL is that the product price automatically goes up in proportion to its adverse effects, so consumption of harmful products is inhibited.
Monday, January 10, 2005
What makes a terrorist?
8-11 March 2005, Madrid, Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security in Madrid. There is an on-line forum to debate the topics. One is on what makes a terrorist? Here is my take:
If I deeply and fervently desire a certain political outcome which seems reasonable not just to me but also to many others like me, and if I first try to obtain that outcome by peaceful means, by debating, speaking, writing, demonstrating and campaigning, and all this comes to nothing, and I come to the conclusion that there are no channels available to us for progress by peaceful means; then there are three courses open to me:
(1) I can fall back into personal defeat, , feeling powerless, worthless, inert, and experience a depression or burnout.
(2) I can just give up, forget our original aims, and do something else.
(3) I can turn to violence and become some kind of terrorist.
We should remember that perhaps the greatest statesman of our times, Nelson Mandela, moved from peaceful campaigning to being prepared to use violence against property; but he was caught, and a remarkable philosophical or spiritual change took place in him during his years of imprisonment.
It follows from this that the democratic process that enables debate and peaceful persuasion is the true antidote to terrorism.
If I deeply and fervently desire a certain political outcome which seems reasonable not just to me but also to many others like me, and if I first try to obtain that outcome by peaceful means, by debating, speaking, writing, demonstrating and campaigning, and all this comes to nothing, and I come to the conclusion that there are no channels available to us for progress by peaceful means; then there are three courses open to me:
(1) I can fall back into personal defeat, , feeling powerless, worthless, inert, and experience a depression or burnout.
(2) I can just give up, forget our original aims, and do something else.
(3) I can turn to violence and become some kind of terrorist.
We should remember that perhaps the greatest statesman of our times, Nelson Mandela, moved from peaceful campaigning to being prepared to use violence against property; but he was caught, and a remarkable philosophical or spiritual change took place in him during his years of imprisonment.
It follows from this that the democratic process that enables debate and peaceful persuasion is the true antidote to terrorism.
Sunday, January 09, 2005
Learning not to worry quite so much
I have been waking in the middle of the night worrying about our Achilles 24 moored in the Yealm, not properly laid up, out there in the cold and the wet, spinning round and round in the googly winds off the steep, wooded slopes of her anchorage. So at last I get to go down and do the business of yacht tending.
It is all a learning curve. I learn not to drag the tender over the mud because mud likes sucking on boots. I learned that the outboard starts on 5 pulls with choke out and then one with choke in (which is nice). I learn that the creek is very shallow when the tide is out but you can still get out. I learn that our boat has not sunk and the various leaks in the topsides are slowly responding to treatment. I learn how to put a needle valve back into a carb (tricky). I learn that the carb still leaks petrol at a totally unacceptable rate, so I have to take it out again. I learn that unless you tie the mooring buoy on deck it falls into the water, and gets into a knitted formation with the anchor chain which takes 20 minutes of puffing and sweating and not falling in to get fixed.
Oh, and I learn not to leave my glasses aboard so you have to go back next day and pick them up.
But the main thing is that the reality was not as bad as the night time worry fantasy.
It is all a learning curve. I learn not to drag the tender over the mud because mud likes sucking on boots. I learned that the outboard starts on 5 pulls with choke out and then one with choke in (which is nice). I learn that the creek is very shallow when the tide is out but you can still get out. I learn that our boat has not sunk and the various leaks in the topsides are slowly responding to treatment. I learn how to put a needle valve back into a carb (tricky). I learn that the carb still leaks petrol at a totally unacceptable rate, so I have to take it out again. I learn that unless you tie the mooring buoy on deck it falls into the water, and gets into a knitted formation with the anchor chain which takes 20 minutes of puffing and sweating and not falling in to get fixed.
Oh, and I learn not to leave my glasses aboard so you have to go back next day and pick them up.
But the main thing is that the reality was not as bad as the night time worry fantasy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
