Pluralism?

Free market forces are portrayed as neutral; scientific; self-evident - when, in reality - they are socially and culturally embedded ... relying on wooly concepts like "trust" and "value".  "There is no alternative".

That's hardly pluralism.   And I don't know why you're trying to link civil liberties to neo-liberalism - it's the difference between positive ("freedom to") and negative liberty ("freedom from"), in the classical political sense.

Right?  (Feel free to parry - I'm interested to know what you identify as the core precepts of your neoliberalism)

Something like this perhaps? http://stores.lulu.com/ebenizer

I for one am literally a neo-liberal, and I'm angry at my coherent and humane politics becoming a term of vague abuse for the self-righteous to toss around, now that they've worn out 'fascist' as word for everything and anything they don't like. But I'm somewhat inured to it.

I'm furious that civil liberty is becoming a bandwagon to which any number of leftist causes are being thoughtlessly hitched by those who assume - in a scary echo of the Blairites - that all good people agree with them about, say, economics, or the role of government, or the international order. You are losing me here. What happened to pluralism?

Seven wonderful points.

Wonderful.

I read them all the way through.

The dog in me can only say one word.

Arf? 

Bravo, chaps!

Given Broon's continual use of the 'Blitz' as the spirit that will deliver us from penury, I suspect that Mr Nairn, might be right on the button. Then again, didn't the electorate throw the leader of the last Government of Unity out on his ample backside in 1946?

Clegg is a fool, but probably not fool enough to enter into another pact with the devil.  Still, if PR is put on the table (again) then maybe they will take the bait.

Personally I'd like to see it.  A Lib/Lab pact will make worse the WLQ, and it might yet make English nationalists out of the Tories who still haven't convinced me that they are even remotely worth voting for. It will also alter the dynamic in Scottish and Welsh politics.

Dear Stuart, It's a continuing pleasure to gently disagree with you. We've actually met, if you recall––two Americans, playwrights, in a pub in Grantham in early 2007. We'd like very much to get back in touch. Any suggestions on how best to do this? Look me up on Google under Mark Rigney, I'm not hard to find. Cheers, and we hope this doesn't interrupt the flow of the blog responses overmuch.
Mark R.
Evansville, Indiana
www.markrigney.net

Tom,

Knock me down with a feather, but I think this is extremely unlikely. Flirtation? Possibly. True love? No way.

Clegg is not a fool.

This is an excellent, fascinating and informative article. I take issue only with the assertion that remarkable progress has been made in lifting the "Third World" out of poverty. China - a notably illiberal country - has certainly enjoyed some success in the improving the standard of living of some of its citizens. Take China out of the equation, however, and the perspective is less rosy. Most developing countries have, in fact, made remarkably little progress in addressing poverty - and some have slid backwards. Inequality, meanwhile, has grown both both within and between nations, with the United States leading the world in both respects. If you do not have the data to hand, perhaps you would like to take a look at the summary presented here: < http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats>.

"In his youth, his interest in ideas was secondary to his aestheticism. He was a sort of overgrown choirboy, who had made some stunningly pure poetic noises."

In many ways, your article is interesting. It is inaccurate, however, in a number of ways. You express the viewpoint that Milton studies (as a field of enquiry) is--strangely--dominated by literary critics. This is of course true and expected. Milton was first and foremost a poet, as sensible critics, like John Carey, have argued. The problem with Milton criticism is that its agenda is exactly the opposite to what you describe. Literary criticism is dominated by theological approaches, by people who would rather split hairs about Milton's theology, which is somewhat ambiguous in "Paradise Lost" (though not so in "Paradise Regained") rather than read his poetry and address the medium in which Milton presents his ideas. If you had given more time to Milton, the poet, and not adopted a prejudicial point of view that places your own religious bent above historical fact, you would have been aware that Milton never placed his response to poetry above ideas. His early work is deeply political, in no way the work of a "choirboy". "Lycidas" is deeply concerned with the evils of the established Church and "Il Penseroso" is a coded analysis of the poet and hermetical monarchy. Milton allied himself with transformational Protestantism long before his visit abroad. On this point you are simply incorrect. As ever, like many theologians, you read without reading, as if literary analysis has no place in theology and politics. This approach would have been anathema to Milton. It insn't accidental that his defence of liberty is based upon reading, in "Areopagitica", nor is it accidental that he makes reading and theology inseparable from liberty in "Paradise Lost". The word and the Word, for Milton, are linked inextricably.

Anthony - Happy New Year!

Its been a while - as they say - but can I have an email address for you?

Julian Rose

Since this is Hogmanay the good Scots' Proverb, "If ye wad sup wi’ the deil, ye’ll need a lang spoon", is probably an appropriate one for Vince Cable to keep in mind. Gettin too close to Labour is not good for the Lib-Dems though I would find it amusing if they assumed it was a route to future power and success as they did in Holyrood.

In addition to the websites mentioned in Paul Watterson's comment, the following contain comprehensive discussions of the Coolacrease incident:
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74400
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76350
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84547
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/85285
Most of these discussions took place BEFORE the television programme mentioned in Arthur Aughey’s article above, and there were at least three significant prior print publications, as well as other discussion. So the “reluctance to speak” notion is not sustainable.

The incident was a somewhat minor one – a couple of relatively unimportant combatants died in the course of a war, in which they had engaged for the purpose of suppressing the elected government. Though there was much local interest (– the episode was described in detail in a book published locally), it would not be surprising if the Pearson executions did not attract universal attention. Nothing to do with “reluctance to speak”.

In defending the television documentary against formal broadcasting complaints mentioned by Paul Watterson, the broadcaster made the false claim that it had documentary evidence of a sectarian atrocity.

But it has been proved that the broadcaster lied to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. The documentary evidence proves there was no atrocity.

And from the point when this evidence was published, the broadcaster has been silent on the issue. No defence, no explanation, no debate.

In other words, no controversy.

I am co-author (with Paddy Heaney, Philip O’Connor and others) of the book which has made the propagandists of sectarian atrocity allegations “reluctant to speak”:
“Coolacrease: the True Story of the Pearson Executions, an Incident in the Irish War of Independence”, available from www.atholbooks.org

Steven King (David Trimble’s former Political Advisor) expressed astonishment that such a comprehensive book should have been written on this subject, implying that the issue is not sufficiently important or significant to warrant this. Perhaps he has succumbed to the “keep your mouth shut” syndrome.

Anthony, you write: " There was a bite and irony in Pinter's observations except when it came to politics."

Theo Hobson's piece on Milton reminds us of the deadening 'post-Romantic' effect of separating literature or art from political ideas. Pinter's visionary politics is surely best found in his devastating evocation of bullying linked to his understanding of German fascism, the Cold War and the Britain he lived in.

I wish I had thought to mention in my blog on Sachsgate, that it would have been unimaginable without the televised The Birthday Party, and the terrorising of Stanley Webber by Goldberg and McCann.

When Shelley made his radical appeal to the Irish people in 1812 he got nowhere (according to T W Rolleston he desired the emancipation of Catholics but desired more their emancipation from Catholicism)

Eamonn McCann suggests that Wolfe Tone saw the United Irish rising in a similar way, and its worth noting that there was a rapprochement between the British Government and the Catholic Church in the 1790s that resulted in the founding of Maynooth.

Owen McGee's excellent book on the Irish Republican Brotherhood suggests a similar forces were at work in the late 19th century:

"...the goverment as well as the Catholic and Protestant establishments in the country naturally desired to keep this aristocratic social order intact. Hence once it was threatened by a democratic-republican political agitation during the 1880s, people felt themselves to be in a 'revolutionary' political situation and all the root political divisions of twentieth-century Ireland essentially came into being. Both the British government and the Irish Catholic establishment desired to increase the capacity of various lay Catholic elites to create political uniformity within the Irish Catholic community as a whole, according to an aristocratic social ideal. This is precisely why after 1886, the government (both Liberal and Tory) began committing itself to fulfilling the Catholic Establishment's interests by providing Catholics with greater access to denominational education, assisted the the development and rise in the number of prestigious Catholic colleges in Ireland and ultimately provided state recognition for the Catholic University/UCD in 1908; institutions that would play a pivotal role in shaping twentieth-century Irish life."

The secularising of the Irish Republic could be seen as a triumph of the spirit of the United Irishmen and the IRB over the home rule imperialism which the Catholic Church and the British Government both championed.

Mr Muldowney should really have declared his own interest in the matter here, before unilaterally declaring that the controversy regarding the incident was now closed:

( http://www.indymedia.ie/article/79753)

(http://www.indymedia.ie/article/89557)

It should also be pointed out that the subsequent formal complaints against the programme were rejected by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.

But that’s by the by…the “reluctance to speak” written about in the article, I presume, was ofthe collective and convenient amnesia that existed in the Republic's society concerning such events for over 80 years. The fact that it took a television programme to reopen the subject has surely proves Professor Aughey’s point rather eloquently?

A couple of points about the Coolacrease reference above:

The incident happened in 1921, not 1919.

The incident involved the execution (not murder) of two people; members of the same family, but not a family, who had taken up arms against the elected government in wartime.

The issue ceased to be controversial some time ago, when it was demonstrated that the television documentary had invented “evidence” for an alleged sectarian atrocity, that it had concealed the actual evidence, and that the actual evidence proved the opposite. There was no sectarian atrocity.

Details can be found in "Coolacrease: the true story of the Pearson executions, an incident in the Irish War of Independence", available from www.atholbooks.org

As to “reluctance to speak”, the quantity of comment generated in the period when the issue was still controversial indicates the opposite – a strong propensity to speak.

@Siobhan

Though I won't be so rude as to call you a 'whiny professional victim' (shame on Rob T. for doing so) your facts are wrong.

Milton wasn't a 'minister' - he was, in effect, a civil servant, Latin Secretary to Cromwell's Council of State. His job involved working on foreign communications and occasionally writing polemics in support of the government.

He was certainly an apologist for the New Model Army's massacres at Drogheda and Wexford (his 'Observations' of 1649 is the relevant text) - a fact that unquestionably remains a severe blot on his memory. But he wasn't a minister and did not 'oversee' or manage the maltreatment of Irish Catholics, as your comment suggests.

Somebody managed to make this very assertion on the letters page of the Guardian a couple of weeks ago, which says something about the quality of that paper's fact-checking. If you have evidence to back it up, I know lots of professional Miltonists who would love to see it.

In lots of ways, Milton wasn't a very nice man. That doesn't diminish the greatness of his poetry or his thought. If we dished on every poet who cleaved to an unpleasant ideology (Yeats and his fascism, for example) or who simply wasn't a particularly pleasant person, we'd be very short of poets.

thank you good

film izle filim filimler filmler müzik dinle muzik dinle online müzik dinle