Posts by Scorchio!!

" it became meaningless due to inconsistency of use and was dropped stateside in DSM-V last year"

That said, the DSM has been cock and bull stories for some decades now. Not that I'm particularly anti US, I have difficulty seeing why the hell we should follow them in this and many other instances. I tentatively feel the ICD is closer to reality.

It is worth noting that there is always a problem with the consistency of application in respect of many diagnostic categories; read Rosenhahn 'On being sane in insane places' (I don't take his extreme views mind) and the irrational application of the diagnosis 'schizophrenia'. Then there was the vile 'Munchausen by proxy' diagnosis so beloved of idiots over here, which led to many innocent parents being locked away and/or their kids being carted off by PC social workers and quacks who might benefit from the application of a cattle to the cranium, due to suffering a severe case of recto-cranial inversion.

Re: What would you expect?

""These folks" being? The Australian libertarians, the Wikileaks party, Bitcoin users, the AEC? Exactly whom are you attempting to defame here?

Or perhaps by "these folks" you mean people who go out of their way to remain anonymous whilst simultaneously attempting to sway others' opinions? If that's what you mean, I think I'm beginning to see your point..."

No, you do not. To begin with the right to anonymity in political pamphleting are a part of the US constitution, and the right to vote without disclosing whom you voted for are similarly sacrosanct, just like the holding of political and other beliefs remain the private property of the individual, though thought crime and the use of conditioning sessions (diversity education as a tool to implement and protect Labour's clandestine immigration programme, which was at odds with their manifesto commitment and thus contract with the nation).

Thus anonymity and politics have a perfectly respectable history, even if the US can arguably be described as having in some respects departed from the path and constitution/constitutional rights laid down by the founding fathers, including as they do the right to anonymity in political pamphleteering to which you evidently take exception.

It is, on the other hand, an important part of the regulation of political parties and their financing that donors above a certain size of donation have to be declared publicly. This gives the public the right to voice concerns, it gives them confidence in the political system. Similarly, donations are not permitted above a certain ceiling or cap, for the precise reason that political parties can be bought (see my point concerning the disclosure of rich donors) by rich individuals, or by dint of many individuals coming together and taking over a party, or branch of it. The recent scandal of the Tower Hamlets branch of the Labour party is an example; it is, you may be pleased to hear, in 'special measures', something which would happen if the Trotskyite SWP tried to again take over the Labour party, as happened before and during Neil Kinnock's time as leader.

Anonymous detractors? No, they are not a problem and are rightfully enshrined in the the US constitution; they might even in a mature German constitution have contributed to keeping Schickelgrüber out of power. Furthermore, a mature democracy with mature, confident political parties should more than welcome anonymous criticism, but also be able to withstand it by merely pointing to the truth because, at the end of the day, the truth is its own best defence. Your remarks are of the 'we must protect the children' variety.

People have a right to anonymously criticise and pamphleteer, both in the US and the UK as well as many other democratic countries, for precisely the reason that they are afforded the ability to without fear level just and valid criticisms at parties such as, e.g., the BNP and prevent them from gaining sufficient seats as would enable them to inflict themselves on the like of me; you? About you I do not care, precisely because of your evidently undemocratic, intemperate attitude to democracy that would expose those who do not feel safe in criticising extremists.

Besides any of which you are as far as I am concerned anonymous. I don't know you and I do not know if you are using your meatspace name. Thus, from the perspectives of the classic criticisms from the history of political thought that I have levelled at you, your remarks are weak and do not pay attention to the truths, the things in themselves and are, rather, a form of argumentum ad hominem, particularly the 'defame' remark. We've seen all about Assange's criminal record on 17 counts, and there is little doubt that the material in Wikileaks' possession was not handed over voluntarily by the bodies from whom it was taken, nice though your volte-face was.

Wikileaks was founded by a convicted criminal (Domscheidt excepted, and he left Assange do note), convicted on 17 counts. The man went through the Pentagon's air force computers, Australian corporate computers, university computers, and even went through the computers of the police unit investigating him. There is much else to be said about Assange that is unpleasant, including his recent attempt at gaining $1 million for an interview, the pay wall saga, his 80,000 salary (how 'charitable' of him), the sum he took from a publisher for having his story printed, subsequently withdrawing from the process but not returning the money whilst saying the company had no right to print. Oh yes, Wikileaks, founded on 100% pure ethics. No criminals here, uhuh. The lack of supervision, the high handed way he purportedly deals with his 'staff', the lack of protection when he exposed the GPS data on Afghan informants and his cavalier attitude to them, these are the sorts of things that I would expect when a convicted criminal sets up shop as a journalist with moral pretensions.

HTH.

Re: What exactly do they think they are going to change?

"A large chunk of her work was agreed with all of the parties in the parliament which is generally more consensual than the nightmare at Westminster."

The nightmare at Westminster arises from having a population way in excess of 61 millions (and soon to be 70 millions, owing the bizarre desire of ToniBliar to 'spite the right', whilst paying no attention to thee and I, aka the electorate). Such large populations generate opposition of the sort that makes consensus difficult to arrange and manage.

Iceland's population, according to the CIA's world factbook, is 315,281 (July 2013 est.) ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ic.html ). Consensus on such a small scale, in such a homogeneous population, is far easier to arrange; the electorate is smaller, each 'seat' is comprised of fewer people, the culture of Iceland is relatively as contiguous and unbroken as the ethnic/national-geographical boundaries, and so on. Given that we now have a heterogeneous and very dense population it is far more difficult in the UK. The difference could not be more complete, especially since the large government's aims seemed largely oriented at exaggerating these and setting one group against another.

As an ex soldier I maintain a healthy dislike of politicians and would happily shoot most of the last government, whose misdeeds have left a legacy that may not go before the middle of this century.

Re: can someone wanted for international crimes

"Sure, after all he's not been convicted for anything."

That is not in the strictest sense true, although I do understand the sentiment behind your remarks.

Julian Assange is indeed a convict; he was in the 1990s Assange convicted (by a judge in his home country) on about 17 counts for breaking and entering a variety of government computers at home and abroad, including a Pentagon Air Force computer and, most comically, the police computers in Australia used by the police team... ...at that very point investigating him.

He was given the most risible of 'sentences' - effectively let off - and told that another conviction would almost certainly involve gaol time. Hence, I assume, his hands off policy and use of third parties in the process of building his 'library' of information. However, this is the very area on which the US authorities are focusing their investigations; how involved was Assange in the collection of classified information belonging to the US state? Unless and until they can demonstrate a strong case it would seem that the US is unwilling to be involved with the Assange case. They seem to have a strong desire to bide their time, until they are able to convincingly and overwhelmingly deal with the man. Given the current climate of 'hacking' by other nation states and loose cannons, it is unsurprising that the US government wants to deal with such people.

US government caution this time around is no mystery; Colin Powell's presentation at the UN, in building the case for military intervention, was at best egregious and weak. That they refused to enter the chamber until UN authorities covered over Picasso's painting 'Guernica' worried me and, after Fallujah and the use of white phosophorous, this is most unsurprising.

As to Manning himself - given a feeble warchest by Assange, and effectively left to rot - he is a soldier, he signed a declaration of fealty and recognising that releasing state secrets will result in prosecution; Manning took advantage of poor security - the fools whose workstations he raped actually wrote their passwords on post it notes and stuck them to their monitors, leaving these even when unattended - and dumped everything that he could into the waiting arms of St Jules, or so it would seem.

The tin foil brigade have gone to great lengths to demonstrate US involvement in Assange's life, but it seems hardly necessary as the shrapnel has fallen out from a variety of compartments. To them, this link: http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

Re: Before anyone moans about her...

Let's not forget the Labour manifesto commitment that "Every country must have firm control over immigration and Britain is no exception.". Subsequently, and apparently in order to "spite the right", they clandestinely imported millions of people into the UK, resulting a rapid rise in agricultural water abstraction rates from rivers, when we only grow about 60% of our food, when we already had a housing shortage, when we faced a separate influx of people from new EU accessions, when we faced an energy shortage that is now beginning to bite, at a time when we have reached peak phosphate/fertilizer (see food and note that for the first time in a long time, due to population increase and weather, we didn't export grain this winter) [...]

There are many other things that could be mentioned, including the sale of 66% of treasury reserve gold, when the price was at a 20 year low, in bulk, announcing it in advance (thus betraying complete ignorance of the markets); investment of billions into white elephant projects that faltered and then failed; passing volumes of red tape legislation that has tied down the economic and cultural life in a manner not unlike Gulliver in Lilliput... ...all the while they lied about their intentions and what they where doing, and the lies of Eric Byers and his special adviser (good day to bury bad news) on the matter of Rover's impending crash, as conveyed to him by the head of BMW who said that it was 'quarter to midnight', were symptomatic of these creatures, for whom I once (and only once) mistakenly voted.

These people left us with the biggest peacetime national debt, something which I didn't think possible given that I thought they'd learned the lesson of the 1970s, when they had to call in the IMF and thus left Thatcher the task of clearing up their tawdry mess. Already the process of forgetting what the Labour party left behind last time has begun, so I am unsurprised that people have forgotten what they left behind them in 1979.

The last government was mendacious, incompetent and seemingly wedded to a philosophy of political correctness which, in their attempts to inflict it on the 'right', has hurt the electorate. These people defy even my ability to wield adjectives, even more so than during the last Conservative government.

As a very accomplished rock poet once said, "there is no longer any one to vote for, only people to vote against".

Re: if you are on the wrong side of them, i would expect it pays to be very cautious

"It's interesting that you seek to categorise people by racial or other 'group' attribute rather than by country. After all, all Arabs are the same, aren't they? Well, no actually. Some Arab countries are far better than others. Just the same as not all western countries are the same."

I forgot to address this point. I referred word by word to the original words of the OP, which were:

"[...] (Arabs, Chinese, et. al.) [...]"

I find it interesting that you chose to focus on my iteration of his words and that I addressed them directly, took them at face value, and I am allowing myself the luxury of a deliberation here, that is to say that this part of your response was sophistry, or that you failed to read the OPs words fully.

Furthermore, I don't think that some Arab countries are better than others, nor the implicit, underlying rationale. I think that Arab governments may vary as a function of reform, and I think that an intrinsic part of that reform is absent - that is to say, Islam has not undergone a reform comparable to that undergone by the Catholic church - and I do not typify a people by their government. This would be short sighted, since most Arab governments are the descendants of a causal chain going back to way before the days when Islam burst out of the desert, overturned, displaced and destroyed Christian countries (in the country where the original Aramaic prayers and hymns are still sung and can be recognised by western Christians [of which, being an atheist, I am not one] the majority religion is Islam), then reaching out to as far as Italy, Greece, Spain, with white slavers going as far as the Scandinavian countries), inspiring a reflexive action now known as the Crusades and misunderstood, wrongly portrayed as a form of colonialism and barbarism.

Arab countries? Please, do lay off the over simplifications. They are for people who employ specious logic, like Harriet Harman, who said that it hasn't been demonstrated that men are necessary in families, and that they ought not to be let into classrooms for fear that they might abuse children. Looking in only one direction for a source of growth, nurture and education on the one hand, and for a source of abuse on the other. False dichotomies and specious logic lead us to where we (particularly St. Jules) are now.