Banning Trump from The UK?

Many people I have spoken to recently have gleefully said how they have signed that petition to ban Donald Trump from our country... They seem utterly surprised that I find this petition abhorrent.

This kind of arbitrary illiberal meddling demand is why the right don't feel they need to step up and defend themselves. All they have to do is go along with the puppet show for as long as people are stupid enough to focus on this rubbish instead of the horrendous politicking that they are up to.

Call Trump dangerous if you like, I can certainly see him emboldening many in the right... But that's exactly what we need! He wont be appealing to the centre; they are the demographic that decides elections and if Trump makes them feel silly for voting right wing then they will be less likely to hand the Tories yet more license to abuse their power. 

The reaction I would expect from politicians here is to distance themselves from the dumb things Trump says, and that means affirmatively declaring things that are contrary to their actions. Which makes it so much easier to show middle-ground voters that they are being lied to, and who it is doing the lying.

When you consider this it seems madness to me that we should actually want to instead make the illiberal demand to this illiberal government that people can be banned from the country because of their political opinions... Things they say, not do! Words, spoken out loud no less! Oh the horror!

WE REALLY DON'T WANT THAT TO BECOME ACCEPTABLE! 

Daesh has to be destroyed... BUT...

Daesh has to be destroyed.

My concern is that it is a faction of cooperation, not enforcement.

Yes, they've moved onto enforcement of their ideology and that's why they are a problem for the world at large, but that isn't where they come from. It isn't like the usual despot whose power comes from the perception of power they already have, it comes from there being a school of thought within Islam that what they are doing is the right thing to do.

It's easy to de-claw the beast, we can easily say "think of those that would die if we didn't" to justify ourselves but once we take out the enforcement based action that is Daesh itself, how do we stop this hydra from forming another head?

History shows time and time again that strategies based upon enforcement will lose against strategies based upon cooperation. It was said during the Iraq occupation that the real war was for hearts and minds, and that goes for this a thousand fold.

We have to take actions that address the underlying problems; the reason Daesh hate the refugees fleeing the region is that, in their minds, all "true" Muslims should be flocking to them, the Quran is quite clear on that apparently. The fact of the refugees running in exactly the opposite direction, whilst militias including women fight against them and win at least some of the time, that's what damages Daesh, not bombs.

GamerGate: A More To-The-Point Summary

I actually started out against GamerGate, I can't speak to the intentions of those few people that were active within the hashtag from the actual outset of the tag itself.

And that's really the first point I want to start with. Twitter hashtags are just a searching facility, activity using that search facility doesn't have any endorsement from anybody else. It is irrational to condemn 'GamerGate' because it is not an organisation. 'Members' have no innate internal recourse to police other 'members' and so it would be madness to argue that they should have done so. As for external recourse; the link provided (below), among the blocks and blocks of text it explains that the majority of the community grouped together to identify and bring to justice some of the worst harassers.

---

The second point I'll go into is that the vast majority of people who have come to the GamerGate community have done so well after the whole thing with Zoe Quin was just history. 'We', if I can dare to represent, are not involved with that event. More to the point, the actual momentum that turned GamerGate from merely a Twitter search tool feature into a movement and an identity was actually the reaction to criticism by the press: Censorship of genuinely unoffensive comments that happened to bring to light other matters of corruption, brought forward by people who thought these were also relevant. 

The most striking early scandal that I recall was I think called 'GameJournoPros' or something like that, a mailing list full of journalists who were colluding to an incredible extent. There was also, related (I think) the phenomenon (I forget when exactly) several news outlets released articles headlined something to the effect of "Gamers are dead!". These articles advocated that games publishers didn't need to listen to their customers, because the benevolent philosophers of the internet could approve their games for them (I'm being a dick for comic effect). 

The conclusion to this second point is that the 'rallying-cry' event had nothing to do with Zoe Quin, and the vast vast VAST majority of GamerGate do not give a flying pigeon about her work...


---

As for the backlash, based on the public perception of GamerGate, here is an excerpt from this link:
http://deepfreeze.it/article.php?a=monster

x

GamerGate Summary

By request – A summary of GamerGate aimed at facilitating the remainder of the thread to be an informed discussion.

Please actually read and watch everything here if you are going to be nasty or holier-than-thou.

I can't possibly cover everything, please look here for much reading:

http://deepfreeze.it/article.php?a=monster

- The Beginning - 

I advise you to read this (very early) analysis of GamerGate by Liana Kerzner:

http://metaleater.com/video-games/feature/gamers-live-an-in-depth-analysis-of-gamergate

               

Liana Kerzner – is a journalist, gamer, cosplayer, and feminist. Of those voices I am aware of, hers is perhaps the most balanced. She tries to be neutral, however the anti-GG faction are so vitriolic and puritanical that it is apparently very difficult. She writes for The Escapist Magazine, an online gaming news outlet that is a key player in what happened with the GamerGate controversy.

I asked Liana if I could direct people to her for further questions about GamerGate, she welcomes polite discussion and said that I should link to her original article from the outset (above).

As shown here: https://twitter.com/Aerthryn/status/669552380250296321

- The Middle i.e. one year in -

Next I will ask you to look at these videos by YouTuber ‘LeoPirate’:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62euQFWuQGc SPJ Airplay event, abridged (including bomb threat)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZvaYbnB2Bc achievements by GamerGate

PNG: http://s13.postimg.org/6k3gbqeiv/1437280972897.png

- Today...ish -

Video by prominent GamerGate figure Carl Benjamin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uWzZeNLmf4

This man can be reached on Twitter as @Sargon_of_Akkad who I also approached, though he hasn't given me the same carte blanc to direct you to him I know that he already makes a point of talking to anybody, but keep in mind he has a huge amount to scroll through and may not respond at all.

The Holocaust Card

Here is a video that is rather compelling.

Before you watch it, please understand that my own position on Israel is of sympathy to a country hated by those around them, trying to make their borders secure. However, their scorched earth tactics are ineffective and unforgivable. Please understand I do not condemn the country as it is not a moral actor, it is a collection of individuals and not every individual there is complicit.

Specifically regarding this video: The use of the holocaust to justify another one with better PR is ridiculous to my mind. Please observe the young woman who asks the question, she is clearly too young for her apparent emotional crisis to be valid. As if this man was committing a war crime in front of her, when he is in fact denouncing a current atrocity that needs to be stopped.

Crocodile Tears of Zionist lobby

Jewish, Zionist girl tries to criticise Dr Norman Gary Finkelstein at University of Waterloo

Posted by Jihadi John's Day Off on Tuesday, 10 November 2015

Teach Yourself: Democracy

I got home from college to find this lurking on my facebook feed. A man being ejected from a town council meeting for asking a question. I was rather disgusted and outraged to say the least, so I cracked open a can of cider and got down to some serious philosophising on the matter:

This video shows a man being forcibly ejected from a Penzance Town Council meeting. It's claimed he'd entered late and did not hear the Mayor explain that members of the public would not be permitted to ask questions unless they'd been submitted in advance. Security guards were asked to remove him from the room after he asked, if he could ask a question. We'll be hearing from people who were at the meeting on Lunchtime with Laurence from midday.
Posted by BBC Radio Cornwall on Tuesday, 3 November 2015

Should I be angry? I want to say yes and leave it at that, but that's not good enough. Maybe the man shown had been genuinely out of order?

It doesn't seem so, apparently the problem was that questions from the public were to be submitted in writing, but he missed the start of the meeting where this was stated.

Really I say "so what?" to this. It's not a question of whether any protocol was breached or the meeting disrupted. It aught simply to be a matter of explaining the protocol.

Oh but what if that is indeed what happened? Well that's something I'll have to concede here: I don't know what happened prior to that video being recorded. Maybe the gentleman was told of the written submissions and still requested to ask a question?

For the sake of argument let's pretend that not only did this happen, but that he insisted on asking (which seems unlikely, given that he doesn't mention the question he wanted to ask in that video, so I presume he had yet to ask it):

Is it really too much to ask? Even to merely ask to ask?

In the video it can be heard someone saying that if every person there asked a question they'd be there a long time. A ridiculous rationale to my mind, it is quite clear that the other people in the room were not sitting on their hands in desperate self-discipline.

Allowing everybody to ask questions doesn't mean that every single person there will ask one. Sure, I might be taking this a bit too literally but clearly whoever said that rubbish believes in absolutes too:

Are we to assume it is beyond the wit of civil discussion to decide on a one-to-one basis whether there is time to ask a question and have it answered? Is there no chair to this meeting?

I suppose, again, I will have to stow my moral outrage a moment to concede that I don't actually know whether this happened. Perhaps there wasn't time and this was clearly and reasonably explained.

Even if we give all possible benefit-of-doubt to the Penzance Town Council, does that justify the disgraceful use of force?

Oh it would be inconvenient to answer this question, let's just have him removed instead! Guards!

Are Liberals immune to euro-skepticism?

We are hearing a lot recently about how both Labour and the Tories are divided over the EU. Meanwhile Tim Farron recently said that he wants the Liberal Democrats to be leading on the 'in' campaign. At a glance it might seem like the party is unanimous in this, but does that mean Liberals as a whole are?

Speaking for myself alone, I can say I believe that people have a democratic right to have this explained to them properly, instead of just being told how some very clever people think we should stay in the EU and that it would be wise to listen to them.

For instance, while I'm fine with the concept that our economy, as a unit, will be better off in the EU, I'm not convinced that this translates to a healthier internal economy. The single currency, for example, appears to allow capital to move around extremely quickly resulting in unpredictable local markets. I'm not arguing that this is true, just that it's something that appears to be true.

Now looking around to other people, there's a @LibDemsForLeave twitter page. This doesn't say much about disagreement within the party, but it does clearly show that some disagreement is indeed present.

So, no, there is plenty of healthy euro-skepticism to go around, and Liberals are not immune.

Next I'm going say something that many may find ridiculous: I feel that UKIP supporters (if not members) are generally liberals. What sets them apart from the Lib Dems to these people? Well, for a start UKIP gained it's momentum on anti-Westminster feelings, more than anti-EU feelings. It's certainly not based on xenophobia, but rather a fear of being ruled over by far off people with no connection to the everyday lives of citizens.

I'm not saying this is what the actual UKIP membership feels, maybe they do, maybe they don't, I don't know. It's just clearly a powerful aspect to the proven appeal of the party among the disenfranchised. They are seen to say the things that nobody else says, to ask questions that nobody else is even willing to talk about, seemingly.

The reality is, in my view, that UKIP is not really answering many questions, or providing any real solutions. Much of the populist support for them is thought to be draining away in favour of Corbyn, who is now the peoples' man-on-the-inside, there to show Westminster who's boss.

As much as this might be true for Corbyn himself, he faces threats from both sides. Obviously the Tories hate him, by and large the base hates who they are told to hate, almost. Many in labour strongly disagree, and apparently without seeing the irony publicly rebuke their own party leader for fictional slights like a conspiracy to oust MPs who disagree with him.

The other side is also a threat to Corbyn's chances because, most topically, they are the ones who may oust perfectly electable MPs for disagreeing with them. To some extent there's a democratic argument that this is right and proper, which I'll admit plays on my own sympathies. Corbyn's grassroots support is part anti-Westminster democrats, and part 'radical social progressives'.

The reason I can say that with any certainty is that I am one of those democrats. What pushed me away was the irrational nonsense from the ideologues who seem to shout so loud nobody outside of these grassroots can hear anybody else. I and people like me are liberals. We don't like the head-in-the-clouds matter-of-fact attitude of the Westminster elites and we want a decent, representative democracy. This means healthy skepticism of the EU and just who among us it is actually good for, and democratic transparency on things like TTIP.

Just like what seems to be happening a bit with the SNP and UKIP, the liberals among the Corbynites will begin to wonder whether they are in the right place. With the recent bursting of the Westminster Bubble at the heart of the Lib Dems I suspect that I wont be the only one coming back to the fold.

Liberal Democrats North West Conference

Until Saturday I wasn't certain that I really belonged in the Lib Dems (or any party for that matter). My views are often met with condescension or even hostility for not being of a particular school of thought. So, this being the case, I went along to the north-west conference intent on ruffling some feathers to see how people responded.

I can't say I was feeling brazen when I got there, but early on I spotted a face I'd seen before: Clive People. I told Clive my desire to test the waters and we spoke about the wide net of the Liberal Democrats. I chose to quietly reserve judgement and filed this as a mark in favour.

The conference kicked off with man-of-the-hour Tim Farron delivering a speech of predictable content but surprising vigour. I think the best insight I got for my own purpose was when Tony Greaves spoke about 'Corbynism' and described it as old labour plus a new faction of 'radical social progressives', some of which may have voted Green in frustration at the establishment and now saw Corbyn as the potential champion of democracy. Eventually, he said, these people would see labour for the irreconcilably anti-democratic body that it is and perhaps look elsewhere. Little did he know there was such a person in the audience already looking.

The final push off the fence came when John Pugh talked about the party's massive parliamentary losses this year. He was open and frank about what happened and why, there was no blame-the-other game played by labour. For the Lib Dems at least, the Westminster Bubble has well and truly burst.

So, after my first party conference, I can say with certainty that I am a Liberal Democrat. I've started at the end of the story though, so I'll now outline what brought me here.

My earliest memory of any political opinion is a deep respect for Charles Kennedy, I was disappointed to see him step down. Nevertheless in 2010 i cast my first general election vote for the Lib Dems but when Nick Clegg squandered the opportunity for real electoral reform by denouncing Gordon Brown and letting the Tories get their ideological claws back into Downing Street again, I felt betrayed.

I turned away from politics, I had bigger concerns: I failed out of school and multiple jobs before being diagnosed with ADHD /Autism after more than two years trying to see an expert and get medication. Part of my problems are my memory, but I think this was around 2010; I do recall thinking how typical it was that when I finally might be able to work, the job market shriveled.

It wasn't that simple of course, I basically had to learn how to think all over again. During this time I tried my luck with ESA and spent over a year on appeal. I had help from 'Mind' and the BDDA pretty much handled the appeal for me. When it finally came through and I was placed in the support group I received the arrears payments -- more money in one go than I had survived on in the whole year previous -- of which I gave about half away immediately to more needy people. This experience saw me very frustrated at the establishment and pretty far to the left.

Being in the ESA support group left me more than four times better off but no less jaded. This coincided with my first year back at sixth form college, trying to get my A-levels and move on with my life. Over the internet I was really beginning to become one of these 'radical social progressives' Baron Greaves mentioned at conference.

What split me from the pack, I think, was the #GamerGate controversy. Most people in the neo-progressive sphere were ready and willing to assume that 'Gamers' were a bunch of misogynistic hate-mongers but I knew better. At first I rationalized this discrepancy such that surely it was a minority of gamers and that GamerGaters were a different breed, but the more involved I got the more it seemed that it was actually the anti-GG groups that spewed the most hate and perpetrated illiberal acts of censorship and social control. There's even a young man in Canada at the moment awaiting trial for internet "harassment" (disagreeing with some so-called feminists who wanted to deliberately bully someone they didn't like to suicide).

I got my head back into liberalism somewhat by watching videos from people I initially disagreed with strongly but I felt that was exactly what I aught to be looking for. Most prominently YouTubers "Liana K", "Sargon of Akkad", and more recently Professor Gad Saad of Concordia University. Generally the circles that led me to these people call the 'radical social progressives' "Social Justice Warriors" or "SJW's". In particular Sargon of Akkad has put some effort into explaining to people prone to equating all the left as 'Liberal' that true Liberalism is very different from the ideology espoused by the people Professor Saad likes to call 'regressives'.

So I was back on board with Liberalism, and again proud to identify as one. Even so, by the 2015 general election my conversion was not really complete and I hadn't forgotten my feelings of betrayal from how the coalition was formed, so I voted Green. I think the vast majority of the public were very disappointed with the result but the one part that did not even slightly surprise me was the near annihilation of The Liberal Democrats. When Paddy Ashdown said he'd eat his hat I thought "well you're going to have to eat it, then!"

To my shame I was not willing to even consider voting Lib Dem again, but then Nick Clegg stepped down and I first saw Tim Farron speak. I thought about it for maybe a day before joining the party to vote for him. Though then my loyalty was split between Farron and Corbyn, both seemed to be a friend to people like me. I registered as a labour supporter and voted for Corbyn, though in that case it was more out of disgust at the prospect of the opposition being led by people who thought their best bet was to agree with the Tories about everything and be pushed around by the press. As the campaign wore on I grew to like Corbyn more, but I also began to like New Labour even less than I had done before if you can imagine.

So finally we arrive where I began telling the story. The conclusion? Well, I am still rather sympathetic to Corbyn, if it ends up a choice of red or blue i'll take red every time no matter what some will say from the comfort of their warm homes and their certainty of their next meal. At the end of it all though I'm a Liberal Democrat through and through. I might like Corbyn for now, but the Lib Dems will always be the home I come back to from now on.

A Lesson In Gerrymandering

"The Tories are removing twice as many people from the electoral register in Britain's poorest areas as the richest" is the headline of an article on The Independent's website.

It's a very reasonable first assumption to think that this is perhaps more alarming than the truth behind the headline, but actually this is only the tip of the ice-berg.

In terms of just being registered to vote, that is something that can be sorted out in time, and indeed there's plenty before the next general election. The reason this story is rather alarming is that it is being used in conjunction with incoming new constituency boundaries to gerrymander The Conservatives into a disgustingly undemocratic advantage.

Essentially, they want to base the new boundaries on registered voters, not actual population, as of 1st December 2015. Coupled with the fact that the 'reforms' to voter registration will disproportionately kick more people off the register in poorer areas -- as high as 22.9% compared to only 2.96% in wealthier areas.

So, yes, these poorer people (with less secure housing) will be able to sort out their right to vote in time for the next general election, but will be very hard pressed to get everything sorted out in time to be counted for the new constituencies, which were already expected to favour The Conservatives.

Poorer areas are going to be merged into fewer seats, meaning that the votes of the poor will carry less weight than the votes of the rich. It is tempting, I know, to think this is mere provocation or some sort of conspiracy theory, but I'm very sorry to tell you: This is actually happening!

What can be done is to work to get as many people back on the electoral register as humanly possible to limit the affect of this hostile take-over. If you thought your vote was meaningless with two similar parties vying for power, just wait until you've sampled living in a one-party state.

On David Cameron's "historic opportunity to reform the NHS"

This morning I came to be reading this article on The Telegraph's website.

It starts off in the form of listing problems in the NHS, failing to explain the causes, generally the opening achieves it's evident goal of saying to the reader "The NHS is broken"

Eventually the article gets to it's second premise, which is that David Cameron has the public support to "fix" the NHS..

It concludes by urging the Prime Minister to "Grasp the nettle, Mr Cameron. Reform the NHS and secure your place in history. "

There's a lot wrong with this reasoning, despite the well formed syllogism.

For a start it misses the fact that the NHS, despite not being cut, remains underfunded in real terms due to a reluctance to increase spending appropriately as the cost of health has increased nominally.

Translating this from economic jargon to English, The NHS has seen it's funding drained from it slowly, the apparent protection from cuts is a half-measure meant to fool those not versed in the details.

Another problem is that much of the inefficiency that does exist within the NHS is due to top-down revisions from government. The only advantage a privately owned/run health service has over a public one is that The Tories don't have an ideological incentive to sabotage the private sector.

We need only look to The US to see what a fully private health service looks like, one in which spending on health per person has been TWICE that of our own and even then the poor go un-treated.

That is all I will say of the former premise for now I wish to discuss the latter:

"Mr Cameron, like many Tories, is instinctively wary of doing anything that could be caricatured as privatising or dismantling the NHS. He should have more confidence. This year, he roundly defeated a Labour Party whose campaign was based on such a caricature. Voters are more open to NHS reform than politicians believe. "

Roundly defeated? Oh no he didn't!

Oh indeed, The Conservatives gained the majority of seats and labour lost a 'surprise' coup in Scotland. Really though when you look at the sheer quality and competence of that political campaign, the voters' fear of an SNP coalition and the appeal of populism vs. the Westminster bubble..

All of this combined to achieve a Tory vote of ~25%  of the electorate. Many of those votes were cast in uncertainty and fear, with the hope that they would be better off, and the assurance of the Prime Minister that tax credits would be safe...

Despite the supposed un-electability of the opposition, David Cameron may well have sealed his party's fate for 2020 already, never mind what could happen if he 'reformed' the NHS!

"If only he could figure out that socialism is a bad idea, perhaps I could really like the guy properly."

So again, I, a staunch capitalist and a detractor of actual hard left twits am cornered into defending Jeremy Corbyn:

There's more to what prompted me than just this, but the final sentence and indeed the tone of the article I do not wish to name-and-shame was:

"If only he could figure out that socialism is a bad idea, perhaps I could really like the guy properly."

To which I say:

It’s good that he’s not the chancellor then, isn’t it? While Corbyn might prefer socialism he respects democracy and McDonnell’s economic ideas are perfectly viable.

For instance: Tax Credits – I get what they are trying to say when they talk about taxing people and then giving the money back – but that’s not really what is going on – the system could be refined sure, but The Tories keep going on about it as if it’s the SAME people being taxed and then supported…

As for the economic “realism” of cutting tax credits, it should be painfully obvious to anybody who knows what ‘The Marginal Propensity To Consume’ is that this will slow down the economy.

In fact the belated recovery we have struggled to could have been achieved by giving a bumper pay rise to public servants and a probationary boost to tax credits followed by a spending review around now (assuming this had been done at the outset). In fact we may even have been running a surplus by now!

I’m so sick of seeing people go on about how unrealistic opposing austerity is when there’s more anti-vaxx doctors floating around than there are economists who think austerity is a good idea..

Excerpts from Marcus Aurelius

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus (26 April 121 – 17 March 180 AD), or more commonly just "Marcus Aurelius" was Roman Emperor from 161 to 180.

Marcus Aurelius' Stoic tome Meditations, written in Greek while on campaign between 170 and 180, is still revered as a literary monument to a philosophy of service and duty, describing how to find and preserve equanimity in the midst of conflict by following nature as a source of guidance and inspiration.

It is worth noting, that he is thought to have written this down within the last decade of his life, from age 49 to 59 (nearly 60).

"Meditations" tends to be one single book, small by today's standards, with what we might think of as chapters written down as "Book"-*number*. Since it is often the focus of students, many copies include paragraph numbers.

The first excerpt I present to you is from Book Eight. Note that while paragraphs 13, 14, and 15 appear to be part of one thought, the paragraphs are mostly separate thoughts.

"11. Ask yourself, What is this thing in itself, by its own special constitution? What is it in substance, and in form, and in matter? What is its function in the world? For how long does it subsist?

12. When it is hard to shake off sleep, remind yourself that to be going about the duties you owe society is to be obeying the laws of man's nature and your own constitution, whereas sleep is something we share with the unreasoning brute creation; and furthermore, that obedience to one's own nature is the more proper, the more suitable, and indeed the more agreeable course.

13. If possible, make it a habit to discover the essential character of every impression, its effect on the self, and its response to a logical analysis.

14. No matter whom you meet, always begin by asking yourself, What are his views on the goodness or badness of things? For then, if his beliefs about pleasure and pain and their causes, or about repute and disrepute, or life and death are of a certain type, I shall not be surprised or scandalized to find his actions in keeping with them; I shall tell myself that he has no choice.

15. Nobody is surprised when a fig-tree brings forth figs. Similarly, we ought to be ashamed of our surprise when the world produces its normal crop of happenings. A physician or a shipmaster would blush to be surprised if a patient proves feverish, or a wind contrary.

16. To change your mind and defer to correction is not to sacrifice your independence; for such an act is your own, in pursuance of your own impulse, your own judgement, and your own thinking.

17. If the choice is yours, why do the thing? If another's, where are you to lay the blame for it? On gods? On atoms? Either would be insanity. All thoughts of blame are out of place. If you can, correct the offender; if not, correct the offence; if that too is impossible, what is the point of recriminations? Nothing is worth doing pointlessly.

18. That which dies does not drop out of the world. Here it remains; and here too, therefore, it changes and is resolved into its several particles; that is, into the elements which go to form the universe and yourself. They themselves likewise undergo change, and yet from them comes no complaint."

Further on in Book Nine, thoughts are turned towards the nature of the universe and how best to approach the uncertainty of gods or chaos - in modern terms: the question of whether or not there is a god. Note that here "upwards and downwards" refers to changing successively from fire to air, air to water, water to earth, and then back again in the reverse order. (I don't know, it's just a note in the copy I am reading...)

"28. Upwards and downwards, from age to age, the cycles of the universe follow their unchanging round. It may be that the World-Mind wills each separate happening in succession; and if so, then accept the consequences. Or it may be, there was but one primal act of will, of which all else is the sequel; every event being thus the germ of another. To put it another way, things are either isolated units, or they form one inseparable whole. If that whole be God, then all is well; but if aimless chance, at least you need not be aimless also.

   Soon earth will cover us all. Then in time earth, too, will change; later, what issues from this change will itself in turn incessantly change, and so again will all that then takes its place, even unto the world's end. To let the mind dwell on these swiftly rolling billows of change and transformation is to know a contempt for all things mortal.

29. The primal Cause is like a river in flood; it bears everything along. How ignoble are the little men who play at politics and persuade themselves that they are acting in the true spirit of philosophy. Babes, incapable even of wiping their noses! What then, you who are a man? Why, do what nature is asking of you at this moment. Set about it as the opportunity offers, and no glancing around to see if you are observed. But do not expect Plato's ideal commonwealth; be satisfied if even a trifling endeavour comes off well, and count the result no mean success. For who can hope to alter men's convictions; and without change of conviction what can there be but grudging subjection and feigned assent? Oh yes; now go on and talk to me of Alexander, and Philip, and Demetrius of Phaleron. If those men did in truth understand the will of Nature and school themselves to follow it, that is their own affair. But if it was nothing more than a stage-role they were playing, no court has condemned me to imitate their example. Philosophy is a modest profession, all simplicity and plain dealing. Never try to seduce me into solemn pretentiousness.

30. Look down from above on the numberless herds of mankind, with their mysterious ceremonies, their divers voyagings in storm and calm, and all the chequered pattern of their comings and gatherings and goings. Go on to consider the life of bygone generations; and then the life of all those who are yet to come; and even at the present day, the life of the hordes of far-off savages. In your very name; how many more will have speedily forgotten it; how many, perhaps praising you now, who will soon enough be abusing you; and that therefore remembrance, glory, and all else together are things of no worth.

31. When beset from without by circumstance, be unperturbed; when prompted from within to action, be just and fair: in fine, let both will and deed issue in behaviour that is social and fulfils the law of your being.

32. Many of the anxieties that harass you are superfluous: being but creatures of your own fancy, you can rid yourself of them and expand into an ampler region, letting your thought sweep over the entire universe, contemplating the illimitable tracts of eternity, marking the swiftness of change in each created thing, and contrasting the brief span between birth and dissolution with the endless aeons that precede the one and the infinity that follows the other.

33. A little while, and all that is before your eyes now will have perished. Those who witness its passing will go the same road themselves before long; and then what will there be to choose between the oldest grandfather and the baby that died in its cradle?

34. Observe the instincts that guide these men; the ends they struggle for, the grounds on which they like and value things. In short, picture their souls laid bare. Yet they imagine their praises or censures have weight to help or hurt. What presumption!

35. Loss is nothing else but change, and change is Nature's delight. Ever since the world began, things have been ordered by her decree in the selfsame fashion as they are at this day, and as other similar things will be ordered to the end of time. How, then, can you say that it is all amiss, and ever will be so; that no power among all the gods in heaven can avail to mend it; and that the world lies condemned to a thraldom of ills without end?

36. The substance of us all is doomed to decay; the moisture and the clay, the bones, and the fetor. Our precious marble is but a callosity of the earth, our gold and silver her sediment; our raiment shreds of hair, our purple a fish's gore; and this with all things else. So too is the very breath of our lives - ever passing as it does from this one to that.

37. Enough of this miserable war of life, these everlasting grumbles, these monkey antics. Why must you agitate yourself so? Nothing unprecedented is happening; so what is it that disturbs you? The form of it? Take a good look at it. The matter of it? Look well at that, too. Beyond form and matter, these is nothing more. Even at this late hour, set yourself to become a simpler and better man in the sight of the gods. For the mastering of that lesson, three years are as good as a hundred.

38. If he sinned, the harm is his own. Yet perhaps, after all, he did not.

39. Either things must have their origin in one single intelligent source, and all fall into place to compose, as it were, one single body - in which case no part ought to complain of what happens for the good of the whole - or else the world is nothing but atoms and their confused minglings and dispersions. So why be so harassed? Say to the Reason at your helm, 'Come, are you dead and in decay? Is this some part you are playing? Have you sunk to the level of a beast of the field, grazing and herding with the rest?'

40. The gods either have power or they have not. If they have not, why pray to them? If they have, then instead of praying to be granted or spared such-and-such a thing, why not rather pray to be delivered from dreading it, or lusting for it, or grieving over it? Clearly, if they can help a man at all, they can help him in this way. You will say, perhaps, 'But all that is something they have put in my own power.' Then surely it were better to use your power and be a free man, than to hanker like a slave and a beggar for something that is not in your power. Besides, who told you the gods never lend their aid even towards things that do lie in our own power? Begin praying in this way, and you will see. Where another man prays 'Grant that I may possess this woman.' let your own prayer be, 'Grant that I may not lust to possess her.' Where he prays, 'Grant me to be rid of such-and-such a one.' you pray, 'Take from me my desire to be rid of him.' Where he begs, 'Spare me the loss of my precious child.' beg rather to be delivered from the terror of losing him. In short, give your petitions a turn in this direction, and see what comes."

This is a mere sampling of 'Meditations', if you have found it interesting or confusing, or both, I would recommend that you acquire a copy of this work. Though keep in mind that Marcus Aurelius made no action to make copies or show his writings to anyone; he is essentially addressing himself.

STEM study as productivity?

So I've been mulling it over a bit and I think STEM (Science, Tech, Engineering, Maths) studies should be counted as productivity.

In the most basic sense - the more people in our economy that have training in STEM fields, the more secure we are. More specifically to productivity (the production of new goods) STEM field qualifications could be seen as goods in that they are useful and desired by industry the same way that cars are useful and desired by commuters.

Indeed an individual who has a significant STEM qualification holds a valuable asset that employers will pay a premium to access. The skills are very valuable.

On the other hand... 

The extra pay can be said to go into increasing the price of the goods produced - increasing their value, and so increasing the value of new goods produced. So does that mean we are already counting the use of STEM skills as part of GDP?

GDP also tends to refer to final goods, not components to be used in further production - skill creation could easily fall into that latter category.

So, maybe it shouldn't go into technical analysis under GDP, but does that mean we shouldn't consider it to be productivity at all?

Given that our (UK) government seems to be fine with the idea of supporting companies with direct subsidies, even ones which do not directly contribute to GDP figures, I am going to prefer the idea that STEM education should be included in GDP calculations when considering economic policy, just not when actually measuring GDP.

My reasoning is that when a student studies STEM, they are acquiring an asset that will contribute to GDP in the future. Is this (relevantly) different, from the government's viewpoint, of a bank approving a business loan?

The (UK) government seems very concerned with making sure the banks are willing to lend.
My position is that they should be equally concerned with making sure people are willing to study.