Life and the World

Oooh.... shocking, controversial, bold! Well, no, not really. Which pretty much sums up fisking too.

Fisking purports to be the line by line rebuttal of another's opinion piece. It is a feature of both left and right wing blogs (much though I dislike such labels - I use them here to be evenhanded). No doubt there is a place for such a thing, but fisking (tee hee, it sounds a bit like 'fisting' doesn't it? How terribly macho) rarely qualifies. It seems to run thusly:

1. Find a column by someone you hate.

2. Apply mildly offensive pun to their name (this confirms that you are a wit of the highest order, yes? No).

3. Read said column with prejudices firmly in place and with the most hyper-critical eye you can muster.

4. Quote a few lines from the column (wildly out of context is best) and follow with snarky comment about how idiotic they are.

5. Make half-hearted attempt at an actual rebuttal, but - careful now! - never ever concede that they might not be complete morons and merely have a different view point from you.

6. Ensure that there are plenty of snide asides about how bad their writing is and how you cannot believe that they get paid to do this (and you don't, probably).

7. Once in a while, just to prove what a reasonable chap you are, analyse a statement they have made that you agree with; be sure though to point out that although their conclusion may be correct, their reasoning is obviously flawed and that this in no way means that they are not utter cretins.

8. Sit back and anticipate sychophantic agreement in the comments box.

Yawn.

I am almost physically allergic to labels and generalisations. To adapt a phrase "I am not a member of a random grouping, I am a free woman!". Damn. Hoist on my own petard there.

This segues nicely (or not... ed) into political labeling. If someone asks, then I'd probably waffle about being a bit of a lefty-liberal type. I find myself taking care sometimes to specify that I am not a socialist, so that people can feel free to have a conversation about economics (because that happens ever so often!) without worrying that I will start frothing at the mouth. Not that I think socialists are mouth-frothers as such... (just take the continuing liberal wafty apologies, exceptions and caveats for granted, 'kay?)

But every now again, like every other bored employee, I find myself filling in one of those on-line political surveys that purports to tell you what category of political beast you are. I fill 'em in and dutifully get roughly the same answer. (Except a couple of days ago, when I found myself with Left-Libertarian in third place. Que? (Have a quick look at http://radgeek.com/politics/the_general_line for a description by one person of what it means to be a Left-Libertarian)).

But I digress. I find these surveys infruriating. Putting a 'yes' against something I sort of agree with but sort of don't, and then having to balance my sort-of agreement with a consequential downgrading of how strongly I feel about it, yada yada etc etc. Ugh. Of course I know that such things are blunt instruments, broad brush and all the rest of it, but in my current state of political confusion/clarification this only serves to heighten my problem.

I think, if I must, I shall label myself a pragmatist. I am less interested in dogmatic belief systems as such than with what works. Not that that gets me anywhere, since every advocate for a political system will tell me that theirs works the best. What I mean is that I have little time for purist believers in a utopian purist system. Neither pure socialism nor pure free market(ism/eering?) will get much truck from me - as far as I can tell, both systems assume (or would like to assume) that certain things that just ain't so (people will always work for the common good, the markets will always provide, that sort of thing).

So I find labels neither useful nor accurate. But some decent definitions would be good. Liberal. Conservative. Radical (had that one recently too). Progressive. What do they even mean? Different things to different people of course. Because that is the trouble with labels; they categorise into groups (rather like party politics, which I am singularly uninspired by at the moment) instead of recognising a continuum (or rather, a chaos) of views. More and more definitions just seem to muddy the water.

And having randomly burbled myself to an inconclusive conclusion (TM http://www.alansharp.34sp.com/weblog/), I label this blog post ended.

I have been reading a lot of political blogs recently. I know... groan. But as a continuing part of my blank slate project I have been making some effort to read a wide range of views, and have, for the most part, concentrated on the "reasonable" ones - i.e. those that do not automatically consider any one is disagreement as, variously, evil, stupid or shockingly misguided.

What I have been looking for is explanation, discussion and respect and I have been surprisingly and gratifyingly successful in finding it, for the most part. And I have learned a lot and had my eyes opened in various ways on various things. But I have also learned that starting from a blank slate politically is an almost impossible task for me. It seems that what I really want to do is to agree with myself, which rather negates the whole point of the exercise doesn't it?

Perhaps I am being to harsh on myself - I am not after all in my personal life trying to become a completely different person. What I am trying to do is to look at myself honestly and put aside prejudices about past and present behaviour. Catch my assumptions and examine them. I don't expect or intend to become a fundamentally different person - I will still be me, just, I hope, a better me or rather, a more honest me.

Politics is not quite the same as personality (no matter what some people might say), but the analogy holds I think. Whilst I am not about to fundamentally change my core beliefs (I think so far, but who can say) I do feel that I am in the process of throwing off certain prejudices and learning enough to be able to explain, discuss and modify my views with more knowledge than I had.

And for the edification of anyone who happens to be reading, here are some of blogs I have been reading:

http://www.thesharpener.net/ (something of a portal, this. A wide range of views and a wide range of debates, introduced me to many blogs that might be characterised as conservative and/or right wing that I would otherwise not have seen)

http://talkpolitics.users20.donhost.co.uk/ (hates Tony Blair. Knows his stuff. Writes at length)

http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/ (free marketeer, occasionally dogmatically so, also compiler of the mighty weekly Brit Blog Roundup)

http://www.chickyog.blogspot.com/ (also hates Tony Blair. Likewise knows his stuff. Pithy)

http://thelawwestofealingbroadway.blogspot.com/ (a magistrate's blog, not political exactly, but attracts a wide range of political views in comments, edifying about the judicial process)

http://europhobia.blogspot.com/ (despite the name, generally positive to the EU sas a concept whilst critical of the detail. Educational as to the politics of the EU which rarely get a detailed mention, let alone, analysis in the media)

http://nontrivialsolutions.blogspot.com/ (I disagree with this man on almost everything, bu gee willickers it's fun doing it)

http://liberalengland.blogspot.com/ (a Lib Dem blog, the Lib Dems being the party that I nominally support. Interestingly educationally on the number of things I don't agree with here)

http://5thnovember.blogspot.com/ (something I have just started reading, a more party political (Tory) and parliamentary blog than some of the others)

http://fairvotewatch.blogspot.com/ (for a while I thought Jarndyce was a woman. Sorry mate.)

A fair sprinkling there I think, covering a fair amount of the spectrum. Couldn't find anyone who liked Blair and Bush though (who didn't at the same time hate everyone else). And Harry's Place (http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/) - yikes. They are fighting a decades old battle. Get with the modern world guys - not everything is about a battle against fascism.

No, this is not another navel gazing episode. "Work/life balance" is a phrase often bandied about, usually signalling a bout of "woe-is-me-my-well-paid-job-is-just-soooooo-hard", but every now and again a reminder arrives that sometimes life really does means life.

Four weeks ago now a man disappeared. This man is a cog in a huge deal, in which I am also a small cog. He, however, is a much more important cog and since the deal is worth about half a billion was put under a lot of pressure to keep turning and grinding.

I spoke to him on the phone once and remember him complaining that he was having to go through day-long meetings with a broken ankle, but they wouldn't let him off to rest up. I felt very bad for him... then emailed him again hassling him about something I needed from him that was of course terribly important and yet simultaneously completely fucking meaningless.

It seems odd to be hoping for just a complete mental breakdown, but the alternative is too horrible to consider. That work/life balance that we bibble about - sometimes it really does mean that. Work or life. Work or life. Work or life.

So if you see a man driving a white Peugeot 206 van, registration YT O2 EVG, please call 0151-949 1212. And hopefully Bernard Cook can be home for Christmas.

He seems to have been a decent chap.

http://ethics.acusd.edu/theories/kant/index.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5i.htm#gdwl