Day 16 since the Tsunami and the UN has distributed ZERO on the ground

Marx described the League of Nations as "a band of hostile brothers". Brothers in that they shared some foreign policy objectives, and a mutual interest in avoiding war, hostile in that they were locked in a competitive relationship which made it impossible for them to cooperate on some fundamentals. This, of course, precisely describes the UN.

That's global capitalism, folks. But I'd take the UN over an unchecked US foreign policy any day.

The job of anyone in the West who opposed the war is, firstly, to point out the failings of their own governments. Every sane person realises that immediate troop withdrawal is not an option, but that shouldn't stop the main focus of debate in the west being to point out the hypocrisy and criminality of US and UK policy in the region. Blair and Bush have created a monster. They deserve to rot for it.

-- Ian

 

Don't we have a general election in the UK within the next few months?

 

I didn't realise you were a spiritualist, Ian
Do you perhaps mean dear old Lev Davidovich Bronshtein?

 

I believe it was Marx who used the term a band of hostile brothers but I don't think he used it to describe the League of Nations.

Marx lived from 1818 to 1883, while the League of Nations wasn't formed until after the 1st World War (1914-1918). This makes it unlikely that he would have had much to say about it.

 

Doh! No, it was Marx, but obviously not in reference to the League of Nations, that would be impossible...!

-- Ian

 

League of Nations was created as a result of the treaty of Versailles in 1919.

 

True. I am a dimwit

The point stands though, such as it was.

-- Ian

 

errr excuse me steve but as a single parent myself i believe that i've given my child a far better chance in life by splitting up from her mother and then fighting for residence rather than making her live in a war zone where the 2 people she loves most in the world are screaming at each other night and day in a bad marriage. single parents per se aren;t a bad thing the real problem are parents who don;t give a shit single or otherwise. now there ARE far too many of them about.
cheers


julian

 

Julian,

I'm sure that you've acted in the best possible interests of your child. These things happen, relationships are tricky and marriages break down.

I was referring to the increase in lone parenting where the mother is neither married nor in a stable relationship. This frequently results in difficulties for the children who are brought up in this way.

In 1972, 7% of children in the UK lived with a lone parent but by 2002 this figure had increased to 21%. This far outstrips the increase in the divorce rate over the same period.

I apologise for not making my post clearer.

 

steve,
what i'm saying is that it's all to common for 'lone parent' to really mean 'bad parent' whatever their sex or situation. i could rant on for hours about what i consider to be the modern epidemic of bad parenting (both in traditional and non traditional relationships) but i'll spare you that however i'll ask a question - which is the better parent.
1) the single, unemployed, mother who walks her child to the school gate, waves them up the school drive and stays there until the child has gone in to registration.
2) the married, employed, mercedes driving career woman who pulls up outside the school drops her child off without getting out of the car and drives off as the car door is shut in order to make it to work on time.

- these are both things that i've seen durign the school run - regularly.
cheers


julian

 

I think that people who have children without having the means to support them are a moral blight on society.

Paul

 

Chris,

I seem to have made two statements in the quotation that you posted.

1. There has been an increase in lone parenting where the mother is neither married nor in a stable relationship.

2. This frequently results in difficulties for the children.

Which of these caused offence?
Where was the implication that single parents are a moral blight on society?

Having already pissed off Julian (I assumed) for making a statement that I chose to later clarify, I was already being cautious about what I said on the subject. However, I can't find anything that can cause disagreement in the two statements quoted above.

However, perhaps it's the case that some people here are still annoyed with me for stating my dislike and distrust of the UN and then objecting to the pulling of the thread.

I really have no desire to cause further ill feeling and really think that it may be a good idea for me to make myself scarce for a while (at least in the 'Chat' section) so feelings can calm.

I'll be back.

 

steve,
nothing to do with the un or your opinions of them. just thought i'd express my feelings on the matter of the difference between single parents and bad parents and your inference that they were the same thing. you cite the increase in single parent families as being somehow to blame for the decline of society i could counter that the number of working mothers, latch key kids and kids raised by grandparents or complete strangers is equal if not more to blame.

paul,
i agree with you in part but i would say that in the long run a 'bad' parent who cares little about their child other than as a source of money or social validation will do more to harm society than one who needs help financially but raises their child 'properly'. i would rather pay more tax and have a parent or parents raise a child properly than have a few quid more in my pocket and have some middle class oik peddaling drugs to his peers. imho kids are possibly a countrys most valuable resource and the amount of money spent on making sure that they are raised and educated properly is frankly too little.
cheers


julian

 

Julian,

This is nonsense. I didn't infer that single parents and bad parents were the same thing.

Nor did I cite the increase in single parent families as being 'somehow to blame for the decline of society'. What I did, was to cite the increase in single parents as symptomatic of a decline in society. That is very different.

It's perfectly valid to criticize or disagree with what I have written. However, it is invalid is to twist or misconstrue what I have actually said.

 

Perhaps some of you have had a chance over the last week or so to review your beliefs about the UN's role in the Tsunami relief effort. I hope so as I'm a strong believer that the truth should 'out'.

Those who still can't see the wood for the trees of UN propaganda might care to look at this article by John Bercow, the Conservative MP for Buckingham:

Kick them out!

 

Steve, the article is only available to subscribers. I shudder to think that anyone would regard anything said either by a Tory MP or printed in the Spectator as the truth

Michael.

 

Yes, I appreciate that you're a fan of Tony's New Labour but thought I'd give you something a little more to the left for a change.

You may have to register for The Spectator, I don't remember. I'm sure it's free though, I wouldn't have paid anything. The article is partially republished here in The Neocon Leftist (I kid you not!)

Seriously though, Michael, the boundaries between Left and Right are becoming ever more blurred. If anyone's interested, here are two interesting essays about the new Left from two UK Marx-inspired bloggers that are amongst the most readable out there (IMO):

Left divided? from the excellent normblog

and:

Socialism in an Age of Waiting - Part One from the ever reliable Harry's Place (this is in three parts but I've only seen the first two so far).

 

John Bercow is an interesting chap. He used to be my MP and has the next door (by 1/4 mile) constituency. IIRC he is a short chap with a tall wife who is something to do with Labour. I think he's rather less overtly right than he was, and is no longer in the shadow cabinet for some reason of principle. Anyway worth paying attention to, unlike most of the jobsworths on both sides of the house and especially on the government payroll.

Paul

 

Not on your life mate - he's only marginally better than the Tories

Michael.