An oxymoron can be either when a moron wastes valuable oxygen by breathing, a moron from Oxford or phrase that has contradictory terms. In a rare perfect moment today, all three came together in perfect unison when David Cameron who just happens to be a moron from Oxford University and continues to waste valuable oxygen that could be breathed by someone who isn't an utter twonk, made a speech that the word oxymoron was invented for when he said he wanted to see 'responsible, popular capitalism'.
So after everything has fallen apart, our dear leader is trying to do a PR job on capitalism, to make it all warm and cuddly. Rainbows and lollipops for everyone so we all feel better about things while the people who make the big money carry on making the big money because if capitalism is to survive, people have to believe it is a system worth supporting and while the evidence around us is boarded up shops, massive unemployment and bankers continuing to receive million pound bonuses, it won't be an easy sell.
So how does Dave spin us this vision of capitalism that will change it's evil perception and have us all clambering to back it?
How about.....hmm, that won't work.......maybe if he put it this way...nope......he could point out...boy, they wouldn't go for that....there's always....no, forget that.....no chance of that either......nobody would swallow that for a second....put the coffee pot on Dave, it's gonna be a long session!
10 comments:
wah wah wah,
there still isn't a better alternative. all that will happen is destruction of the current democracies that are based on capitalism - only to be followed by the emergence of new democracies based capitalist economies. then the cycle repeats itself again, and again, and again - read first 50 pages of "our oriental heritage".
q
Dear Lucy, capitalism is like religion: you either believe in it or you don't.
Actually, believers in religion are often avid capitalists which is rather strange given that Christians are supposed to sell what they have and spend their lives spreading the Christian message.
But the human mind is a wondrous thing and religious believers have bastardized the Christian message so they can become rich AND go to heaven.
And they have also taken the THOU SHALL NOT KILL edict and happily kill people by the millions.
Both capitalism and religion are simply rorts which immoral humans use to justify and promulgate their brutal, greedy, exploitative ways.
It won't happen because
a> he won't be able to sell it to the public
b> he doesn't actually want it to change
This is just him trying to talk up and salvage a system that has gone horribly wrong for the majority but works for him and the minority. He doesn't want it to change, he wants to paint it another colour and tell us it's something else.
I have often wondered how the rich and religious squared the rich man through the eye of a needle thing david.
david g – one of those rare times when I agree with some of the things you wrote.
Lucy - the quote you used is taken out of context and that affects the meaning radically.
Christianity has a two major themes.
1. Father (creator), Son (savior), Holy Spirit (access to the creator through the savior).
2. Hope, Love, and Faith.
The Bible is full of parables that have a point. At the time (context) rich people were also slave owners and tyrants. The point in this parable was targeted at the Jews who believed you went to heaven for your deeds (conformance to rites and laws). In other words Jesus was saying forget the laws, you can't be a slave owner or tyrant and go to heaven. The Jews did not like this. However, Jesus went further and said all you have to do to get to heaven is accept me as savior. Most Jews did not like this either. Later Jesus said you need to help your fellow humans, but didn’t say you have to be broke or possession less.
I didn't know that q, i assumed it was all about money.
i'm not a theologian. mostly repeated what i've heard for decades. the fact that nog didn't correct it could mean i repeated it appropriately...
most of the comments attributed to Jesus were an attack on the jewish laws. you have to know the situation to understand most of the points. for instance, in the good samaritan story a priest and a levite (both church officials) pass the beaten, robbed jewish man, but a samaritan stopped to help. in today's terms that is like a serb stopping to help a croat or a bosniak.
the story is the response from Jesus when asked by a jewish lawyer, who is our brother... the fact that the guy asking was a lawyer is also germane.
q
"This is just him trying to talk up and salvage a system that has gone horribly wrong for the majority but works for him and the minority. He doesn't want it to change, he wants to paint it another colour and tell us it's something else."
Nail on head. He's good at this sort of subterfuge though - anyone remember his 'Vote Blue, Go Green' tagline?
But D-Cam's non-desire for substantial change doesn't alter the fact that the world definitely requires it, after the GFC. This doesn't mean we'll all have to become communists of course (this is a failed system that relies on an overtly coercive state, and which does not accomodate man's naturally ambitious and acquisitive nature).
But what it does mean is that we need leaders who are genuinely 'of the people' with the brains and balls to stand up to areas of the status quo who are using the world of high finance as a rort, and rewarding incompetence on a massive scale, and perpetually agitating for a continued redistribution of wealth upwards, under the guise of 'freedom'... So I guess what we really need is 'capitalism without the stupid bits'.
Cameron is a toff: it was never going to be him. Obama got many people's hopes up that he might be the man for this job: but, very quickly, all of his appointments signalled that this hope was forlorn. The GOP candidates are all Wall Street-friendly, even though Romney is the only one who's even halfway honest about this fact. Sarkozy & Merkel are both bought & paid-for establishment figures.
This generation seem pretty f$cked then, but I guess there's always the next!
A big step in the right direction would be to fund the political parties from the public purse. Controversial and expensive but it would remove any funders expecting to have their back scratched (the only reason they donate) when their favoured party takes power.
Yes, that's a good a start. And with the public purse not exactly being flush right now, this should mean less political ads on telly. We've already got tighter rules about private contributions to parties than the US, but I'd support a further tightening - Less chance for the 'Lord Cashpoints' of this world to buy favours.
Post a Comment