Hi Bruce, At 17:30 23/12/01 -0600, you wrote: >Keith said: >"To those of you who think I'm an >old reactionary -- hard cheese! You'll be one yourself when you're my age." (BL) >What age is that Keith? I'm also retired. Only twice.
It depends on which part of my body you ask. Most of it is 66; heart and lungs, after a lifetime of foolish smoking, is about 76, or very possibly 86. (BL) >I'm still in the >stage of my development where I'm still learning. I'm glad you're still learning. Most of us like to think we are. (BL) Most of what I'm learning >these days is that the kids leading the fight for freedom and against the >"corporatization" of our culture, education system and economic life are >right. In principle, I'm sure you're right. The young only see the outlines of things we bequeath to them (scientific theories, modern myths, social structures, etc) and they can see the fault lines that we, older ones, can't see, because our minds have become conditioned to them over a lifetime. Young people's minds still have "space" to develop into, and remedy, the deficiencies. I'm quite sure that a great deal of what I believe will be thought reactionary in due course (if not before, in the eyes of many already). But then, the young people will also acquire ideas in their lifetime which will also become reactionary in turn. (BL) >May I never turn into a reactionary. I'm also an ex-economist; I >learn from my mistakes - unlike some who just recommit them. Well, that sounds like a dig, but never mind. According to the Hudson Reaction Theory above you're as reactionary as me. But you don't know where your reactionary weak spots are -- any more than I know where mine are. Only your great-grandchildren and my great-grandchildren can tell us for sure. I'm considered reactionary by some, I suppose, because I think that the anti-globalisers and anti-corporationists are wrong and are acting against the interests of the developing world. Actually, I'm not agin them tout court. It's just that I haven't yet come across any coherent philosophy behind their campaign yet (except sympathy for the poor -- which I agree with). At present their campaign it's an untidy bag of all sorts of things. It's significant that there's been a sudden quietness from the anti-globalisers since 11 September. They've realised that there's been a maniac who's shared some of their concerns. And then there's been the explosive-shoe-man yesterday. Along with many others, I don't think the anti-globalisers are going to travel the world so much in the coming months in order to demonstrate. I agree absolutely with one core element of their criticism. This is the corruption that goes on between large corporations (not all of them) and government ministers (not all of them). The enemy of both is publicity and exposure. By and large, corruption is declining. Compare today with the Robber Baron period of a century ago. But publicity by itself takes time to build up momentum and often needs cast-iron evidence to succeed -- not always easy to find. I happen to think that corruption in corporations is less insidious and dangerous than corruption in governments. Even if heavily corrupt, a corporation has other enemies as well as exposure -- competitors -- and before long is usually sidelined by another corporation with a new technology. A corrupt culture in government (which, in a heavily corrupt government, also extends to its senior civil service) is less easily overcome by publicity alone. That's why I tend to criticise modern government rather than corporations. But I'm mindful that there's a lot of nastiness and corruption in the latter, too -- particularly in the defence industries. Consumers make sure that corporations change of their own accord. Governments -- or, rather, governmental systems -- don't change readily because electorates don't have the same clear choices. As is happening today, the public simply lose interest in governments (until inevitably, of course, there's an explosive change). But we need governments and there ought to be more flexible change IMHO. Anyway, that's enough for Christmas Day! My better-half is singing at a carol concert, so I have to get on with preparing dinner. As I'm normally not able to cook anything more sophisticated than beans on toast or medium boiled eggs (on which I'm an expert), Christmas dinner could well be a disaster unless I concentrate wholeheartedly on the matter. I have a page of instructions so I must fly. Nice to hear from you. Have a good Christmas Day. Keith __________________________________________________________ �Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in order to discover if they have something to say.� John D. Barrow _________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________
