Intelligent article : Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:05 pm  

Just read this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rents.html He hits the nail on the head - the new order will only be sustainable by becoming a low-wage, low-cost economy that erodes savings and the countries wealth. In effect, the world's most successful nation on history is being destroyed. I fear for the future. He get's one thing wrong, in lingustic terms Manchester is apparently (per another DM article today) now the second most diverse city in the world (after NYC) with 153 languages spoken and an incredible 2/3 of children bilingual. I suppose the long-term hope might be that by becoming a low-cost economy we can start manufacturing again, but that'll be after alot of pain.

Just read this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rents.html He hits the nail on the head - the new order will only be sustainable by becoming a low-wage, low-cost economy that erodes savings and the countries wealth. In effect, the world's most successful nation on history is being destroyed. I fear for the future. He get's one thing wrong, in lingustic terms Manchester is apparently (per another DM article today) now the second most diverse city in the world (after NYC) with 153 languages spoken and an incredible 2/3 of children bilingual. I suppose the long-term hope might be that by becoming a low-cost economy we can start manufacturing again, but that'll be after alot of pain.

Re: Intelligent article : Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:56 pm  

That Peter Hitchins don't like change does he

Re: Intelligent article : Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:05 pm  

There is so much of that article that is just so much bollax that its difficult to know where to start, suffice to say that since the industrial revolution there has never been a period in this country's history when society has not changed between each generation let alone between 1st and 3rd generation as he suggests.

Re: Intelligent article : Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:09 pm  

Peter Hitchens is still bitter over not being his (crap) brother. He's like the annoying kid at the back of the class jumping up and down shouting "look at ME!"

Mind you, he does deserve credit for bursting Russell Brand's balloon on Newsnight.

Re: Intelligent article : Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:22 pm  

JerryChicken wrote: There is so much of that article that is just so much bollax that its difficult to know where to start, suffice to say that since the industrial revolution there has never been a period in this country's history when society has not changed between each generation let alone between 1st and 3rd generation as he suggests. I'm all for wallowing in nostalgia, but when so wallowing it is important to understand one's frame of reference - there is a real danger that the default position, no matter what the era in which you live, is that you constantly mourn that past and hate whatever present you find yourself in. (This is an argument which can equally be applied to many fan's views of Rugby League FWIW). Had he actually been of thinking age in the 1950s, we can be fairly sure Hitchens would have actually found lots and lots and lots to hate and would have been more than a little cut up about the passing of the Victorian or inter-war eras. In a post-election funk, Bill O'Reilly made similar observations about the end of "traditional America". Not sure you'll be able to watch the video in this link unless you've been very naughty with your internet settings, but Jon Stewart's observations on how people in that past would have viewed O'Reilly and his Catholicism and his shocking Irishness are pure genius, completely skewering his misplaced adoration for it: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart- ... l-america/

JerryChicken wrote: There is so much of that article that is just so much bollax that its difficult to know where to start, suffice to say that since the industrial revolution there has never been a period in this country's history when society has not changed between each generation let alone between 1st and 3rd generation as he suggests. I'm all for wallowing in nostalgia, but when so wallowing it is important to understand one's frame of reference - there is a real danger that the default position, no matter what the era in which you live, is that you constantly mourn that past and hate whatever present you find yourself in. (This is an argument which can equally be applied to many fan's views of Rugby League FWIW). Had he actually been of thinking age in the 1950s, we can be fairly sure Hitchens would have actually found lots and lots and lots to hate and would have been more than a little cut up about the passing of the Victorian or inter-war eras. In a post-election funk, Bill O'Reilly made similar observations about the end of "traditional America". Not sure you'll be able to watch the video in this link unless you've been very naughty with your internet settings, but Jon Stewart's observations on how people in that past would have viewed O'Reilly and his Catholicism and his shocking Irishness are pure genius, completely skewering his misplaced adoration for it: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart- ... l-america/

Re: Intelligent article : Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:49 pm  

MjM wrote:

I'm all for wallowing in nostalgia, but when so wallowing it is important to understand one's frame of reference - there is a real danger that the default position, no matter what the era in which you live, is that you constantly mourn that past and hate whatever present you find yourself in. (This is an argument which can equally be applied to many fan's views of Rugby League FWIW).

Leaving the worthless article aside, the danger with relativistic thinking is you ignore issues which by quantitative or any well-reasoned qualitative measurement truly are worse. It's a fine line to tread and it's quite possible to lock yourself into the opposite mentality and make equally serious blunders.

Re: Intelligent article : Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:56 am  

I should have known that a post by Dally entitled "Intelligent Article" would be entirely and predictably nonsense.

To then see a link to the Daily Mail ... and follow it through to read an article by Peter Hitchens ... well. I've only myself to blame.

Re: Intelligent article : Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:07 am  

Dally wrote:

He get's one thing wrong,

...the words. All of them.

Re: Intelligent article : Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:35 am  

MjM wrote:

That Peter Hitchins don't like change does he

Unfortunately he does, as his sliding political and religious scales have proven.

Rule of thumb - Never trust someone who doesn't trust themselve(s).

Re: Intelligent article : Mon Dec 17, 2012 12:25 pm  

Love how he blames the Blair government. A telling part of his diatribe is that he says it started 30 years ago. Wonder who was in power then?