Random News Stories

[MMIX]

I'll take that as "I concede on all points as I am unable to even bother with a counter-argument", shall I?

Poor show, no points awarded, 3 deducted for substandard effort.

Fuck you I've spent the day in surgery and had better things to do with my time than shoot the shit with you - also I've been under anaesthetic most of the day so conversation not an option.
My points stand, (and I didn't say anything much different than Cain btw), if you had a point to make beyond the "He's dead so I will piss on him" schtick (kind of the reverse of the Princess Di effect) about the relationship of British politicians and alcohol then there is an interesting discussion to be had:-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/charles-kennedy-death-why-mps-are-still-in-denial-over-their-drinking-culture-10301445.html

[Junkenstein]

Dude. Everyone's got problems and that response was a good while ago. It looked rather like you had nothing further to say as you had, in fact, said nothing further for several days. I'll raise your day in surgery with more than you could possibly imagine and I'm still being relatively fucking civil.

I'll get the tabloids to run with black tops until you recover appropriately.

ETA - 2nd paragraph of my response discussed alcohol. Final para's the Di effect. You may want to recover fully before straining that reading comprehension beyond picking up on a mistake and acting like you're the smartest monkey around.

[Demolition Squid]

I still maintain that Kennedy was one of our better politicians - and I promise it isn't just because he is now dead.

I was actually saying on election night it was a pity he lost his seat. Most of the people who did deserved it, but Kennedy had consistently seemed like a reasonable, principled man - and there aren't many of them left.

[MMIX]

Dude. Everyone's got problems and that response was a good while ago. It looked rather like you had nothing further to say as you had, in fact, said nothing further for several days. I'll raise your day in surgery with more than you could possibly imagine and I'm still being relatively fucking civil.

I'll get the tabloids to run with black tops until you recover appropriately.

ETA - 2nd paragraph of my response discussed alcohol. Final para's the Di effect. You may want to recover fully before straining that reading comprehension beyond picking up on a mistake and acting like you're the smartest monkey around.

Nope none of your paras actually discuss anything. My original point was and continues to be that your first comment on Kennedy was a cheap slur on a guy who managed to be less than a total dick despite being a career politician and an alcoholic. (And I'm not the only one around here who seems rather sorry that our political class has lost one of its good guys.) If you are only interested in throwaway oneliners which raise interesting issues like the role of alcohol in the parliamentary process or the remarkable phenomenon which was the Princess Diana effect your only point being to slag off politicos and royals because it makes you feel good or something then fair dos have at it and get your jollies. But don't be surprised if someone argues back that your scatter gun is too blunt an implement [yeah badly mixed metaphor there, long day, no real excuse]. So back to your original point

Additionally, Charles Kennedy dead. Notable political achievements - Nil, as far as I can recall. I'm sure I'll be told at length over several days about all his wondrous works but I can't recall a single one beyond "Regularly pissed". I'm pretty sure he's the chap that originally gave us the euphemism of "tired and emotional" which invariably means "Screaming drunk and shitting themselves in the hallway".

Except to make the "tired and emotional" connection [which you now admit was wrong] what the hell was the point of the comment other than to say the guy was an alcoholic and he's dead in a rather snide way? It didn't read like a comment on the invidious position of the 3rd party in a basically 2 party system or the inadvisabilty of shoring up a minority Tory government. It certainly doesn't look like an invitation to a discussion on the evils of alcohol in the modern world. Despite that I'm gonna try
True story: back in the day we took a pack of uni students to do some anthropology fieldwork out in Africa. It was great fun; we taught a full semester's course in theoretical and practical preparation for an brief ethnographic study . Sadly it was only 2 weeks but with a big team and a lot of preparation you can still get a lot done.Everybody was really keen and looking forward to this unique experience. So we got out there and had a great time. There was only one problem. The people we went to meet were strict moslems and the area was a no alcohol zone. So here's the kicker - 2 days before the end of the expedition everyone except my partner and I [not teetotal but only very very occasional drinkers] pissed off to the capital city because they needed a drink. And I really mean that - they needed a drink. Even our department head who had wanted to visit this area the whole of her life left early because she needed a drink. Being only a very occasional drinker in a society where living life with a glass of booze in your hand is the norm gives you a very interesting perspective on the use and abuse of alcohol.

Mind experiment:
Imagine your life without alcohol


Also

I'll take that as "I concede on all points as I am unable to even bother with a counter-argument", shall I?

Poor show, no points awarded, 3 deducted for substandard effort.

Dude I ain't got a dick and I'm not into pissing contests - take that any way you like.

[Junkenstein]

I don't drink. Imagining life without alcohol is rather simple.

Another 2 points deducted for missing all points.

Here's it as simple as I can make it:

I work in an environment where turning up drunk gets you in serious shit, very, very quickly. The reason is simple enough that you may yet grasp it - Impaired judgements can have fatal consequences.


Regardless of your feelings, the man had some degree of political power and his judgements were impaired frequently while on the job. We paid for that. For years. If you think that it's OK because you had a drink in Africa or something once then bully for you. You've got the political system you deserve. I'd rather have every politician, royal and financial services worker piss tested twice a day than continue under the current system. If you get power you should be competent to be trusted with it. If you are unable or unwilling to be competent with the power you have, it must be removed from you. If you are responsible for others (As politicians are) then you must act in a responsible manner. (Varies radically with little mechanism to enforce. I wonder why.)


You know, kind of like most other working environments. It also becomes rather more important the more weight your decisions have.

Tell you what, go get some evidence for us. Turn up to work steaming drunk with a pipe in hand and explain that it's groovy because you're "less than a total dick", "one of the good guys", thought Iraq would end badly and any of the other bullshit justifications you whipped out for him. Let me know how employed you remain.

[MMIX]

I don't drink. Imagining life without alcohol is rather simple.

Another 2 points deducted for missing all points.

Here's it as simple as I can make it:

I work in an environment where turning up drunk gets you in serious shit, very, very quickly. The reason is simple enough that you may yet grasp it - Impaired judgements can have fatal consequences.


Regardless of your feelings, the man had some degree of political power and his judgements were impaired frequently while on the job. We paid for that. For years. If you think that it's OK because you had a drink in Africa or something once then bully for you. You've got the political system you deserve. I'd rather have every politician, royal and financial services worker piss tested twice a day than continue under the current system. If you get power you should be competent to be trusted with it. If you are unable or unwilling to be competent with the power you have, it must be removed from you. If you are responsible for others (As politicians are) then you must act in a responsible manner. (Varies radically with little mechanism to enforce. I wonder why.)


You know, kind of like most other working environments. It also becomes rather more important the more weight your decisions have.

Tell you what, go get some evidence for us. Turn up to work steaming drunk with a pipe in hand and explain that it's groovy because you're "less than a total dick", "one of the good guys", thought Iraq would end badly and any of the other bullshit justifications you whipped out for him. Let me know how employed you remain.

You do realise that we are both essentially on the same side, don't you? NB The mind excercise is not for you per se but for "You" generic.
Now you have explained it more full I totally get the vehemence of your anti-alcoholic reaction. Fact is Kennedy really was one of the good guys [yes I do realise that this is a totally subjective opinion]. And the Independent thing I linked indicates just how big a problem alcohol is within the body politic. I sincerely hope that Kennedy's early and unneccessary death actually opens up debate on the place of alcohol in Parliament in particular and society in general. That would be a hell of a legacy - if society's unhealthy dependence on alcohol got discussed because of ChampagneCharley's death.
also

If you think that it's OK because you had a drink in Africa or something once then bully for you.

wtf mate, did you even read what I said? Lol If I didn't know better I'd say you'd been drinking 

[Demolition Squid]

Not sure I agree we paid for it for years. I don't think his alcoholism had any real effect on his voting record. It definitely had a major effect on his career and lifespan, which is unfortunate, but there we go.

Addiction is a pretty awful thing to struggle with - especially when you have to operate in a context where your drug of choice is on offer constantly. No person is perfect, and writing off his achievements because he had a flaw just seems like sour grapes. There are many politicians who have - and are still - working to do things that will cost us for years, whether that's dismantling the NHS and education system, taking us into wars, or drafting laws that will come back to fuck us all in new and exciting ways.

Kennedy was not one of them. Knowing where and when to have contempt is important, lest your contempt lose all meaning.

[Junkenstein]

I have learned through bitter experience to hold any and all persons holding political power in equal contempt. Every second you start thinking "they're on our side" or any such things is a second you spend deluded.

Not sure I agree we paid for it for years. I don't think his alcoholism had any real effect on his voting record. It definitely had a major effect on his career and lifespan, which is unfortunate, but there we go.

Well, we paid his salary and expenses. There's also those subsidised bars so technically, yes, we literally all paid for it. He was often obviously drunk in parliament on more than a few occasions. Are we actually saying with a straight face that he will have made all the best arguments and decisions possible while impaired?


I'm moderately sorry for writing off his achievements, but I really am struggling to see that many. For example, the ones in the thread so far :
-Right about iraq (Who fucking wasn't. Even I called that as a bullshit clusterfuck.)
-said stupid things less often than others (Given the company he's competed with, not hard.)
-Abstained from a vote on coalition (that went well)
-Opposed blair raising tuition fees (Went well too)
-Pandered to demographic (Pretty much his job)
-grew lib-dem party (credit due here, but kind of irrelevant since clegg royally fucked it all up. Politically this is probably his most notable and it's one that I fucking raised.)
-had morals and principles (So let's get out the fucking medals.)

Others?

[MMIX]

I'm moderately sorry for writing off his achievements, but I really am struggling to see that many. For example, the ones in the thread so far :
-Right about iraq (Who fucking wasn't. Even I called that as a bullshit clusterfuck.)
That would be Government and the Opposition, you are pretty much outvoted and outgunned there
-said stupid things less often than others (Given the company he's competed with, not hard.)
Yanno mostly the other guys are saying things which are not "stupid" but are socially divisive, destructive in unpleasantly partisan ways, self serving and often downright evil so that puts Kennedy on the side of the angels
-Abstained from a vote on coalition (that went well)
"(that went well)" do you mean Kennedy's abstention or the formation of the coalition because they are not actually commensurable
-Opposed blair raising tuition fees (Went well too)
Same problem
-Pandered to demographic (Pretty much his job)
wtf does that even mean and have you got any evidence to support it?
-grew lib-dem party (credit due here, but kind of irrelevant since clegg royally fucked it all up. Politically this is probably his most notable and it's one that I fucking raised.)
no you fucking didn't, also you can't make a value judgement on Kennedy's achievement in growing the party based on what happened ex post facto under a different leader - my perception is that Kennedy was moving the LibDems out to the left well past Labour at the time almost offering a valid left wing alternative. Its a shame he drank himself to death because now we will never know
-had morals and principles (So let's get out the fucking medals.)
You really want it both ways don't you? You slag off ALL politicos as shysters and self servers and when you do tentatively acknowledge the possibilty that maybe some of them are principled you try to turn that into a negative too.

Others?

The thing about Charley Kennedy is that [with the possible exception of you ] he was well liked by the public and by a wide spectrum of other politicians. I really hope that his death will make people think about the devastating impact of alcohol on society

[Demolition Squid]

I have learned through bitter experience to hold any and all persons holding political power in equal contempt. Every second you start thinking "they're on our side" or any such things is a second you spend deluded.

Not sure I agree we paid for it for years. I don't think his alcoholism had any real effect on his voting record. It definitely had a major effect on his career and lifespan, which is unfortunate, but there we go.

Well, we paid his salary and expenses. There's also those subsidised bars so technically, yes, we literally all paid for it. He was often obviously drunk in parliament on more than a few occasions. Are we actually saying with a straight face that he will have made all the best arguments and decisions possible while impaired?


I'm moderately sorry for writing off his achievements, but I really am struggling to see that many. For example, the ones in the thread so far :
-Right about iraq (Who fucking wasn't. Even I called that as a bullshit clusterfuck.)
-said stupid things less often than others (Given the company he's competed with, not hard.)
-Abstained from a vote on coalition (that went well)
-Opposed blair raising tuition fees (Went well too)
-Pandered to demographic (Pretty much his job)
-grew lib-dem party (credit due here, but kind of irrelevant since clegg royally fucked it all up. Politically this is probably his most notable and it's one that I fucking raised.)
-had morals and principles (So let's get out the fucking medals.)

Others?

Looking at his track record? Yes, the bolded is exactly what I'm saying.

Other than his alcoholism, there weren't many things I disagreed with him on - and those I did, I can understand his reasons for. I might not agree, but I respected him - unlike the majority of politicians who seem to have no reasoning other than their own benefit. If he wanted to work purely for his own gain, it would have been laughably easy for him to do so. He didn't. That deserves respect.

And if you really hold all politicians in contempt, then you should just stop paying attention altogether. There's no point in trying to engage with the system if you'll immediately write anyone involved off on the basis that they are involved. Not all politicians are equally worthy of our scorn; Kennedy was one of the very few who was worth listening to on a regular basis IMO. You need to take a step back from your prejudices here.

[MMIX]

Also ^ this
Demolition Squid has the right of it

[Junkenstein]

Sigh.

Looking at his track record? Yes, the bolded is exactly what I'm saying.

Well we I guess we should all work pissed then. As long as you are less shitty than others in the same role then you're a saint.

We've set our standards rather low when this is what we laud. Let's line the trading floors with meth labs and get the crack shipments sent directly to #10 because success will surely follow.

-had morals and principles (So let's get out the fucking medals.)
You really want it both ways don't you? You slag off ALL politicos as shysters and self servers and when you do tentatively acknowledge the possibilty that maybe some of them are principled you try to turn that into a negative too.

I'll try and make it simple for you again : You do not get a shiny badge of greatness for just being a decent human. You do not get a free pass just because you have morals and principles and happened to stick to them. Just because you agreed with him on some points does not really change the fact the he did essentially fuck all with his political power. Seriously, while you two may think that he was worth listening to, his peers, you know, those folk who he actually needed to listen to him in order to enact political changes, did not. At all. Your principles are worth fuck all without the political will to enact them. 

I'll gladly drop my prejudices when the pair of you feel like dropping the rose tinted glasses.

[Demolition Squid]

You've yet to give a single example of an actual decision he made that you can point to as a bad thing. You've just spouted a bunch of assumptions about the fact that he was a politician therefore he had to be bad - oh and he was an addict and that makes him a bad human being.

If having addiction problems is enough to damn you as a person then you're setting the bar very high. I would say unreasonably high.

You also seem very eager to trivialize alcoholism into being a character flaw - just a low level of willpower, maybe? I don't know. Do you think people with depression should just cheer up, too?

[Rev Thwack]

There's a good reason to set the bar low when it comes to politics... Have you ever seen the people involved in politics? We're actually quite lucky that they're so horrible at getting things done, outside of lining their pockets. Considering the things politicians often back, imagine if they actually were good at pushing change.

[Junkenstein]

You also seem very eager to trivialize alcoholism into being a character flaw - just a low level of willpower, maybe? I don't know. Do you think people with depression should just cheer up, too?

What the fuck? Show me where I said anything like this. I consider it a serious health matter, like any other addiction. I have more than a passing knowledge of alcoholism. I'm taking the stance that those with serious health problems should maybe not be in charge of political office. Particularly if one of the obvious side effects of your health problem is impaired fucking judgement. Some, apparently just me, would say that it's not the best idea to have those with power making decisions while intoxicated.

Some, again apparently just me, would have to question all of their decisions and if they were in a competent state to make this. FFS, name 3 other occupations where being drunk to that level, that frequently, would not have severe repercussions. Even Musicians throw other members out of bands where the problem has escalated to the point where it affects their abilities.



Examples of bad things -

-Abstained from a vote on coalition

- Should have kicked, screamed and fought loud and hard against it, going as far as possible to the point of resignation. He had loads of morals and stuff so that's a no-brainer. His gift of prophecy that activated pre-iraq should have told him exactly how badly everything he had worked for to date was about to get fucked over. Oh well.

Next, I know I'm beating a horse that you all seem to find totally irrelevant, but he turned up regularly to his place of employment in an unfit state to work. This is a bad decision. In MANY, MANY other places, this would be classed as gross misconduct= fuck you= fuck off.

You say he did good work while in this state. I really have to question this as it is tantamount to claiming that he would have been just as good if he was sober. So all that pesky research by science on alcohol impairing judgement must be absolute tripe. After all, who hasn't made all their best decisions and arguments while pissed? Must be me being crazy again along with these silly ideas like "People in public office should be held to higher standards than the general population". I have a simple reason - You have a compensated job that you hold in order to serve the public who elected you to the best of your abilities. If you are unable or unwilling to preform that job at the required standard, you are simply not fit for the post.

The political classes in general have enough power and influence. I really don't think "Turn up sober and do your job" is asking a lot. While he may have been alright as a human (Questionable, and I really don't care for opinion unless you knew him personally) he was by any standards a terrible employee (If you take the view of politicians being employed by the people) and far from a great politician, as the lack of real achievements in the past couple of pages demonstrate.