skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Karol J Gajewski has written extensively on the life and times of Pope Pius XII, in particularly how the Nazis treated the church. Needless to say, he is an expert in this particular field.
I was very happy that Karol took the time to comment on David Cameron's recent article on Guardian Unlimited. So happy, in fact, that I've decided to flag it up as a post in it's own right. He raises some very interesting points, but I'm sure you'll gather that if you read on...
Sian, at the risk of flying into the intellectual stratosphere, I'm going to critique the article - albeit briefly.
What David Cameron is talking about is not an idea that springs from Tony Benn in isolation, although he may well have emphasised its 'socialist' aspects.
The theme of subsidiarity in economic/political organisation as against unjust wealth distribution and, later attempts at State monopoly whether of the left or right-wing variety, was highlighted by two popes: Leo XIII and Pius XI.
In his encyclical 'Rerum Novarum' published in 1891, Leo emphasised the growing dangers of rampant, unregulated capitalism (how about that as a pointer to today's global dislocations?). In 1931, as the Great Depression took hold, Pius re-examined Leo's themes in 'Quadragesimo Anno'.
Times had changed in the forty years between these two encyclicals - the latter coming after the Great War and contemporary with the rise of Mussolini's Fascist Party and the excesses of Lenin and Stalin.
The Nazis still had to make their critical electoral breakthrough, but the portents of a coming storm were all too clear. Pius warned of the dangers of an over-weening government, stifling political dissent and imposing atheistic values by coercive means, i.e using the Gun and The Gulag.
G. K. Chesterton also examined how working class grievances, e.g., the struggle for a 'just wage' could be assuaged. His answer, echoing the aforementioned popes, in which he argued strongly for a retreat from the twin extremes of Communism and Fascism, came to be labelled 'Distributism'.
It was to fade in the turmoil of the Second World War, later dismissed by its critics as smacking of an outmoded feudalism, but the germ of the idea was not really forgotten (except perhaps by David Cameron).
For example, in the early 1970s, the economist E. Schumacher published 'Small Is Beautiful: Economics as though people mattered'. This appeared as oil prices began to soar, globalisation and its attendant ills became manifest and unemployment rose inexorably.
Sounds familiar doesn't it?
I've just read this superb article by the children's author Philip Pullman in the Times Online.
I'll comment on it more later today, but I just wanted to highlight it because a) it's a bloody good read, and b) it galvanizes my feelings towards New Labour's relentless quest to mollycoddle, control and exploit the populace.
And yes, they've lost my vote. They lost it when they fell in love with George Bush, invaded Iraq, introduced ID cards (BIG No-No), did a big policy U-turn on tuition fees then cranked up the debt burden, and cuddled up to Big Business in bed. I can just imagine Gordon Brown and Tony Blair spooning HBOS in some weird threesome before they started with the domestics.
Oh, and before I forget, here's a link to another blog I did for Allaboutyou.com, about what a petty, invasive and nasty country the UK has turned out to be (in terms of pervasive CCTV surveillance, getting yelled at through monitors, and generally being spied on ALL THE TIME).
Anyway, back to the article... It's great to see a little bit of creativity and poetic license when putting your point across. Albion sleeps whilst the malevolent government strips him of his dignity and whispers hateful lies into his ears - what a great notion!
Hmmmm, might have a look into the greatest creative political metaphors, speeches and narratives of all time. Any ideas?
I came across this fab article by Mrs R, author of the Woman of Experience blog, and just had to comment on it. Mrs R does not pull her punches. And quite rightly so.
The gist of this blog relates to Beth Ditto’s recent cover shoot on Conde Naste’s new fashion mag Love (which, for the record, I can’t wait to get my mits on), and it raises the issue about the terminology of the female figure in fashion.
In particular, since when did ‘curvy’ become a euphemism for obese? Morbidly so, in Beth Ditto’s case.
Beth Ditto is very overweight. She looks great, she’s very happy in herself, but she is way beyond ‘curvy’.
The fashion world does tend to polarize towards extremes – from skeletal chic Size Zero to “curvy” overweight indie popsters. So where is the middle ground? (Answer – there is none. Take Jessica Simpson’s recent outing as a FAT SIZE 12. That was just mean. She looks great.
Now, as the former managing editor of the cardiology website InCirculation.net I learned a thing or two about heart disease, the Body Mass Index (BMI), diabetes, and what constitutes “healthy” with regards to body mass.
Take hypertension (high blood pressure), which is one of the major precursors to cardiovascular disease, heart failure and stroke. Anyone can get it, but you’re more likely to have it if you’re fat. That’s fat, not “big”, there is a difference…
Of course people of all body shapes and sizes can have high blood pressure and elevated cholesterol levels (Ms Katona, take note. You may want to think twice about chowing down on your cheese-pie-burgers-and-ice-cream...).
I have met the skinniest of people who suffer from atherosclerosis (fatty plaques and deposits that build up on the inside of your poor, tired blood vessels), and I have also met some very healthy women who have a high BMI, but are physically fit.
You see, BMI doesn’t take into consideration muscle mass, which is denser than fatty tissue. And it doesn’t measure your LDL levels either.
But, make no bones about it, a morbidly obese person with a BMI of over 30, a la Beth Ditto, is a walking cholesterol-laden timebomb and they need to lose weight for the sake of their health. Not for the sake of approval, or for the sake of looking nice in clothes. But, quite literally, for the sake of their lives.
Don’t get me wrong, I love Beth Ditto and have a lot of respect for her. She’s progressive, she’s stylish and has successfully turned herself into a fashion icon by challenging the norms, charming the media and gathering a huge following based on style and wit. But just like the painfully thin Size Zero Brigade the girl ain't the picture of health. She's merely on the other end of the scale.
Yet I don’t think she would be half as famous at half her size, and clearly her success is a positive message to all women out there.
Beauty comes in all shapes and sizes and this should be celebrated. But ultra skinny and ultra fat gives the wrong message health-wise.
I just wish that being healthy and happy was something to aspire to, rather than being able to count your ribs/rolls (delete as appropriate) in the mirror.
I shall step down from my soap box now…
I thought I'd seen it all in the topsy turvy world of politics, but David Cameron's article in today's Guardian Unlimited has left me scratching my head in genuine bemusement.
The Tory leader is championing Tony Benn (1. my personal hero, and 2. WTF?), calling for major decentralisation, and... well, I'm just a bit taken aback that he's been quoting Tony Benn really. I mean, REALLY?
The recession is biting, and many people from this neck of the woods are starting to feel the pinch. Three-day weeks, reduced hours, and frozen pay cheques are now run of the mill. The worry and anguish is almost palpable.
And predictably, it seems as though people need little excuse for their inner right-wing extremist pixies to rear their ugly heads. Sure enough the prospect of economic turmoil turfs up the usual “Daily Hate” shrieks of xenophobic outrage, shock and annoyance.
Depressingly, those of us with more rational thought processes are in the minority. Reactionary reactions rule in Oswaldtwistle, and it’s becoming more depressing by the day.
Take this example. I was talking to a regular in my local pub, and the following conversation took place (honestly, I’m not making this up):
Regular: “My son is a genius, the stuff he comes out with. Honestly, he really challenges you…” (shakes head).
Me: “Really?”
Regular: “Oh aye. Listen to this. He was in here t’other night, and he said to everyone, right, that Hitler was a genius. Honestly, he had everyone floored.”
Me: “Hitler was a genius?”
Regular: “Aye. He was a bit of a bastard, but you have to give it to him. The man was a genius.”
Me: “Right. Why?”
Regular: “Why what?”
Me: “Was he a genius?”
Regular: “Hitler?”
Me: “Yep. What did Hitler give to humanity that put him up there with Einstein and Mozart?”
Regular: “Rocket science.”
Me: “Rocket science?”
Regular: “Aye. We wouldn’t have rocket science if it weren’t for Hitler.”
Me: “Hitler wasn’t a rocket scientist. ”
Regular: “Granted, no. But the Third Reich was.”
Me: “So the Third Reich was a genius?”
Regular: “Aye, it was.”
Me: “You don’t actually know what you’re talking about, do you?”
Okay, so this was an extreme example, but the insidious comments that are crawling out of the woodwork are becoming more pervasive.
It’s worrying because nowadays people are becoming more vocal about their opinions, which are at best ludicrous and, more often than not, really offensive. And at what point does this spill out into actions opposed to words? The BNP must be having a field day.
Why is the bulk of society so quick to scapegoat minority groups? Surely they should be shaking their fists towards the sky, in a Daily Mail Stylee, at the real issues. Or are they too lazy/ignorant to figure out where their real gripes lie?
The big news today is that the Icelandic-backed Baugur Group will fall into administration after the nationalized Icelandic bank - Landsbanki - filed a petition for one of the major stakeholders. Landsbanki now has control over a number of Baugur's shareholders.
This also means that Baugur's shares in these companies - for example, a 39.5% stake in Jane Norman, around 35% in House of Frasier, and 35% in All Saints - are now up for grabs.
However, Drapers Online reported that it's still business as usual at the Baugur fashion firms - including Oasis, Warehouse, French Connection and Debenhams. Indeed, spokespersons from most of the named brands are keen to downplay the effect that Baugur's bankruptcy will have on their businesses, but according to an article in Guardian Unlimited all this could change depending on who buys the ailing company's shares.
It's all gobbledigook to me, I have about as much financial acumen as a monkey with a calculator. But even an arithmophobe like me can see that this could, and probably will drastically change the landscape of our High Streets as we know it.
My recent blog for Shuddo.co.uk looked at how many high street companies will be turning to the Internet for the bulk of their retail. Already many high street fashion retailers are embracing technology and using various social networking tools to reach out to a wider consumer base.
According to eMarketter, although shops on the high street are suffering, consumers continue to flock to online shops.
Top Shop, River Island and Miss Selfridge all have troupes of fashion bloggers engaging with us, the shoppers. And a new wave of creative thinking will probably see more unusual (and engaging) e-marketting techniques from these companies and many others.
Established online brands such as the footwear retail site Shudoo, and the lingerie site Figleaves are paving the way for the next generation of Internet shops, and this may help mold the shape of the (virtual) High Street of the future.
