alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This is a big change from when we had our BBC with Andrew Neil in April 2015 when we had just 742 Twitter followers so all kudos to those comrades who have spread the word.
What we face – Ryanair's boss on climate change“This kind of nonsense that we all need to cut back on beef production or that we all need to eat vegetables or go vegan and all start cycling bicycles is not the way forward. I think it’s complete and utter rubbish," he said. "You had these people standing round the market square 2,000 years ago saying the end of the world is nigh. In the 19th century in London, they thought they were all going to die from smog. There is always some lunatic out there who points to a load of rubbish science; science changes.” O'Leary expressed his desire to see nuclear fuel being considered as a viable future energy source. "If you're concerned about these issues, the obvious one is more nuclear fuel, but you ask the likes of Mary Robinson, the climate change justice mob, and they recoil in horror because it's not trendy or liberal." O'Leary, who owns 1,000 acres of farmland in Gigginstown, Co Westmeath, said he doesn't believe that beef consumption and carbon emissions are the primary driving forces of climate change. The Ryanair boss said he believes "human ingenuity will find ways of improving the way we breed beef and the way we consume fuel".When asked if accepted that climate change is happening, O'Leary said that the cooling and warming had been "going on for years" and he didn't accept it was linked to carbon usage."I don't accept that climate change is real. I don't accept the link between carbon consumption and climate change. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/michael-oleary-slams-climate-change-as-complete-and-utter-rubbish-35606512.html
I noticed no-one commented on my supposition that there will begin the process of planning and administration of socialism before actual political power has accomplished the establishment of socialism. I see the socialist revolution as a process and once we have taken control of the State and the economy, socialist society then commences the task of dotting the i and crossing the t.But it is a question of uneven development (not in the sense of Trots uneven consciousness, but simply time and place differences) we have to address where we have assumed political power in some cities and regions and not everywhere.Surely we won't sit on our assess awaiting the rest to catch up. Wouldn't we begin the re-organisation of the workplaces and communities the best we can under the limited but compared to today much wider circumstances. Councils will extend the OAP free buses to everybody, for instance. The city architect will be cooperating with the housing department and local transport drawing up new houses and roads, submitting proposals to open meetings and assemblies. The global NGOs will be drafting their priority list of necessary aid. The tea pickers will be occupying the plantations, desisting from work, until the arrival of those tea-plucking machines and concentrating on devoting their labour-time in the meantime to food, shelter and health. I'm not going through the whole scheme of things but people know what i mean. It is not reformism, but putting improvements into place where we can and should. Local food producers will be supplying local people of the things they consume rather than send off to the export markets. and free food distributed on a needs basis. How extensive and how preliminary this "pre-socialism" revolution is, who knows but it is related to Guildford's alternative non-capitalist self-help scenario but much closer to the time when we have the strength if numbers and institutions on our side and the difference between an avalanche and snow-ball concepts of socialist revolution.Can we say that before fully automated luxury communism, we will have half-socialism for a period?I know we get to the debating point where the cooperative, syndicalist theory of building a new society inside the shell of the old one is raised but that is not what i am suggesting.I am not saying these are strategies to bring about support for socialism but that the actual enactment of socialism …what needs to be done and how…We do tend to gloss over by bestowing the responsibility to future generations and conditions that we can only speculate about now.However, some things such as climate change and how it can be tackled, has many answers today and we can indeed, albeit with broad brush strikes and generalisations, supported by expert scientific and professional evidence, submit desirable changes to various sections of society for their appraisal and approval. Workers Democracy. The hospital workers councils and committees or in simpler language adapted nurses and doctors unions and associations in health-care will discuss and debate and issue directives for what needs to be done and how it should be done …. So locally where socialist numbers prevail, some actions take place and when we do have a more fuller developed socialist economy, it can be expanded to incorporate those areas that belatedly become socialised and collectivised (sad that those words got a bad rep. because of labourism and bolshevism)This forum is to discuss, but in my opinion, to imagine, too.
I think we would be deceitful if we said that the only thing that will change in socialism is that the price labels on the supermarket shelves and the bar-codes at the cashiers check-out will simply read zero pounds and pence. Our case for production for use and free access, has always been a nuanced one that requires explanation and not slogans.And for sure we can fully expect the recalcitrant ruling class to distort our socialist message and intentions with disinformation and misinformation. That will be par for the course, VinAnd we will of course answer…"What do you want – pork pies or the truth?"But people here know i'm a bit of a catastrophe apocalyptic eschatology glass of lager half empty person
I have conceded this is a complicated issue and by no means are all the facts in but we do have some research to build upon to have an educated guess at what is required in the future.Regards the hill farm neeps, i simply was answering the belief given on this thread that our hills and mountainsides are only fit for sheep. It wasn't in the past and need not be in the future.If you re-read my contributions i did mention that equipment was being introduced but the downside is that it is not selective of the leaf and therefore the quality is not as good but if they have been overcome and arduous labour ended, then you can have your cuppa, (unless the locals decide that those plantations might have better uses but i am not sure what the soil can support)A quick google of mechanisation shows that the reason that their use o machinery is not widespread is the usual one of cost of machines V. mass labour displacement.So you have now convinced me that you can have your tea. ….but will it be with milk and sugar? No, nobody is saying that the problem is that we cannot produce sufficient food, just as we do not claim that industry and technology is not capable of producing surplus – (and when it does some say it contributes to the cause of crises.) but that doesn't stop us demanding the more important D at work – dignified labour. And if that is not possible, we shall seek alternative methods and substitutes. But we still need to address the much bigger issue – the impact of farming on climate change and pollution and of course the influence of industrial production and it appears that a mix is the correct approach but the resources are only going to one sector who are influencing the science and research. As i said in an earlier blog, i think before a socialist system is accomplished but when we have many more members across the spectrum of society, we will start to formulate strategies that we will implement when we have acquired and can exercise political power on economic and social conditions.
Counterpunch is on my daily reading list for the blog. I am not sure that this ex-career army officer, Hamish de Britton, can be unbiased but on the other hand, i've not come across anything that questions his independence.
Robbo, the WSM should be resting on its laurels, gloating over the fact that once again we have been proven right and should be rubbing it in with we told you so staementsNot much self-satisfied smugness since being right cost many innocent lives…
See my reply #15 on binary weaponryIf chemicals were used, i think it is more than likely to be chlorine otherwise it calls into question the removal of chemical weapons under international supervision a few years ago. I don;t think that would so amateurish that it could be subverted by a main airfield retaining stocks.But i think we are being diverted and bogged down on a question that is irrelevant.We don't care whether chemical weapons were used or not. Old-fashioned high-explosives is just as horrendous and heinous and does horrible damage to the human body. Let's not play the media game of the best way to die. Our real concern is the possible escalation of this civil war into a direct conflict between two super-powers. My worry is not that the Americans knew of some sort of chemical supply dump at the airport or not but whether they knew or didn't know if any Russian personnel were there.
Do we still adhere to the EC's conclusion on race?
Quote:The use of the expression "race" is still scientifically accurate as modern anthropologists recognise that there are racial differences of various kinds between sections of mankind; e.g. mongoloid, negroid, caucasoid.Should sex be widened to encompass sexuality and gender identity?
just a quick technical question , Alan. Why if Sarin was involved would the Russian account be invalidated?My understanding is that weaponised sarin is a binary weapon…the constituents are kept separate and then the delivery system combines them as sarin.From wiki "Binary chemical weapons or munitions are chemical weapons wherein the toxic agent in its active state is not contained within the weapon. Rather, the toxin is in the form of two chemical precursors, physically separated within the weapon. The precursors are designed to be significantly less toxic than the agent they make when mixed, and this allows the weapon to be transported and stored more safely than otherwise. The safety provided by binary chemical weapons is especially important for people who live near ammunition dumps. The chemical reaction takes place when the weapon is deployed."If it was sarin factory, they would not be kept as sarin per se, and the explosion would destroy the separate constituents and not produce sarin to escape into the air…I stand to be corrected…or have another scenario offered
Apologies Marcos..didn't see the latest news http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-3952365459 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired
Another report that is related.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/06/farms-could-slash-pesticide-use-without-losses-research-reveals
Quote:Study shows almost all farms could significantly cut chemical use while producing as much food, in a major challenge to the billion-dollar pesticide industry… the scientists found that 94% of farms would lose no production if they cut pesticides and two-fifths of these would actually produce more…“But the research does not mean pesticides are useless or inefficient,”. The farmers using low levels of chemicals employ other methods to control pests, such as rotating crops, mechanical weeding, using resistant varieties and carefully managing sowing dates and fertiliser use. “It’s a big change, but not a revolution,” he said.“If you want real reduction in pesticide use, give the farmers the information about how to replace them,” said Munier-Jolain. “This is absolutely not the case at the moment. A large proportion of advice is provided by organisations that are both selling the pesticides and collecting the crops. I am not sure the main concern of these organisations is to reduce the amount of pesticide used.”This gives strong credence to Robbo's statements that Big Ag manipulates scientific opinion to favour their own profit interests.
Quote:Prof Dave Goulson, at the University of Sussex, UK, said: “While we have a system where farmers are advised by agronomists, most of whom work on commission for agrochemical companies, then inevitably pesticides will be massively overused.”The new research showed that the type of farms most sensitive to cuts in pesticide use are potato and sugar beet farms, because they use high levels of pesticides and are highly profitable. But it showed that most arable farms could cut pesticides by over 40% without losses.
Marcos, i am well aware of the US bombing and also know that they have ground-troops actually fighting in Syria.We could construct a list of those fighting in the Syrian civil-war, Turkey, Iran, Lebanese, IsraeliBut we must not simply espouse anti-Americanism.The Russians, as well you know, have reason to side with Assad. Other players are neighbouring countries with a vested interest also in who ultimately controls Syria.If it proves to be sarin (which i doubt) the Russian account that it was a side-effect of a chemical weapon factory being blown up simply does not stand up to scrutiny But the identity of the chemical agent is still to be clarified. Both government and rebels have used chlorine.But really what i am saying is it matters little who is the culprit and we cannot support an escalation of any type in the war….enough people have died and the US increasing its attacks is something we should all fear because tit for tat responses can be expected from others.
The propaganda war is always an active war. We witnessed that with the condemnation of Russian bombing of Aleppo and the white-washing of the similar civilian casualties in Mosul. And, naturally, the UK is complicity silent on the Saudi Arabian war in Yemen.I'm on the fence about who did it.I doubt it was sarin and if it is proved to be then the Russian explanation is strengthenedBut if it isn't and some other chemical agent is likely, it is possible it is Assad.Just have to wait and judge our "trust" in the supposed neutral scientific analysis of the samples. Many say why if they are winning is Assad risking US intervention. Like all politicians and military…winning a war quickly as possible is always an inviting strategy and Trump's election promises of reducing US involvement in the Syrian civil war may have been taken seriously. This is a test of Trump and the red line that Obama proclaimed. UN authorisation will, of course, be vetoed by Putin. But our position is quite clear and has been already stated…All war is abhorrent and atrocities are inherent in its conduct, regardless of the types of weapon employed. A plague on both sides. Damn them all to hell…(if we were religious and if that place existed.) Our task is to explain this and counter the propaganda "hysteria" that is bound to arise if US do intervene. Otherwise, it is simply "business as usual" for the protagonists in Syria.
