Thursday, April 02, 2009

I am Right-wing or Left-wing depending on my mood

I am Left-wing when:

* I listen to Punk rock music.
* I hear about the plight of asylum seekers and refugees in this country.
* Politicians talk about welfare reform.
* People make mean comments about single mothers.
* I read blogs by American conservatives who have the mad idea that free healthcare is a bad thing.
* I see cool people with pink hair and facial piercings.
* I meet Daily Mail readers.

I am Right-wing when:

* I listen to military marches from the Kaiserreich (Wagner's Kaisermarch is one of my favorites).
* I see anything to do with Tsarist Russia.
* I hear people worshipping Nelson Mandela.
* I hear talk about abolishing the Act of Settlement.
* I read articles in the Guardian arguing that too many people are sent to prison.
* I listen to black metal music.
* I see photographs of Sarah Palin.
* I see environmentalist protestors on the t.v.
* I hear trade union representatives speaking on the radio.
* I hear Liberal Democrats talking about rich people paying more taxes.
* I look at paintings by William Adolphe Bouguereau.


Colin Maxwell said...

Hi Matthew:

What side would you be on if a young RC female (Description: cool with pink hair and facial piercings) was going steady with (say) Prince William and the Palace declared that an important press conference was imminent?


P/s Surely Richard Littlejohn in the Daily Mail doesn't frighten you? I loved his line on Bootle's Best:

In her grubby little book, the Wicked Witch tells us..."


Celestial Fundie said...

If they are calling a press conference, it sounds like His Royal Highness would be about to surrender his right to the throne.

Then Harry can become king and marry a blue-haired nose-ringed princess from the glorious house of Hohenzollern.

Richard Littlejohn? He made a few good points on the today programme the other week, but he also said some irritating right-wing things.

Every Blessing in Christ


Trevor said...

A very enjoyable post, and helpful when wanting to pigeon-hole someone! Though, given your fleeting movement from left-wing to right-wing, you're not exactly easy to categorise. Which says more for the uselessness of left/right characterisations.

In defence of the Daily Mail, they have an excellent puzzle page which normal (easily pigeon-holed) people like myself can complete. And Martin Samuel is a fine sports writer.

And if we're free to add the Mail on Sunday to the equation, then stick in Peter Hitchens.

That said, painting themselves as the last line of defence for British morality, whilst at the same time doing a third page article on the increased belly-size/changed hair-colour of some celebrity/cute story of 'chihuahua saves owner's life with 999 call', doesn't do them any favours.


Anonymous said...

What exactly is "free health care"? Do you mean that the doctors and nurses in England volunteer their time, working for free in offices and hospitals that were built with volunteer labor and materials and giving out free medicine that was donated by people who care? Wow. That really does sound good. Sign me up!


Celestial Fundie said...

Anon, I think you know the answer to your own question.

Celestial Fundie said...

Trevor, you are not appalled at all by the anti-immigrant slant of the Daily Mail?

Anonymous said...

Matthew, you were a really good sport on my health care question. As you know, the reason Liberal Democrats talk so much about about rich people paying more taxes is to keep health care (and a plethora of other things) "free" for the rest of us. When you rob Peter to pay for the candy that you give to Paul without charge, Paul may see the candy as being "free," but I suspect that Peter may see it differently.

Trevor said...

Must be honest Matthew: though I mostly ignore immigration-related articles in the Daily Mail (I know they have a tendency to encourage unwillingness to explore possible benefits in new controversial issues) I'm probably not too appalled at what I know of their approach.

Perhaps the reason is not so much that I agree with treating immigrants suspiciously, but that most broadsheets I know of treat dissenting voices as unworthy of recognition at all. For all the plights that immigrants are disgracefully made to suffer, there are plenty of troubles created for the law-abiding as a result of immigrants too.

Only last week in Belfast there was violence in our city centre as a result of football supporters of a visiting country. Actually, those supporters are legal immigrants, mostly living in Belfast. Given the mess they made it's not hard to sympathise with local ill-feeling towards recent immigration laws that allowed these people to live here (or the immigrants who live behind me and partied all night through to yesterday morning, keeping everyone awake). Yes, many local people behave the same, but I was always taught to be a polite visitor!

To digress a little, we often have international visits from 'famous' preachers to Northern Ireland, who openly mock our 'dead' worship and promise to liven us up. There may be some truth in the accusations, but the greater sin lies with the unnecessary, rude and arrogant claims of the visitor. My point is, when a 'host' is subjected to any form of abuse by a 'visitor', he has a right to close his door.

But does that mean we throw out the baby with the bath-water, or simply fix the weaknesses of immigration law? In my view, the latter is the best option, unless/until it doesn't work.

The Daily Mail may not take this view, but I think the paper at least provides a platform for highlighting the disadvantages of the issue. Its 'shock-horror' approach leaves a lot to be desired, but, in my view, its convictions are not entirely unjustified.

But I can tell this is an issue that means a lot to you, and I'm guessing you've seen the real negative influence of attitudes like the Daily Mail's. For every failure in the system there may be one (or more) success.

Nevertheless I do feel that, from a Christian perspective, there are several moral issues (Christian teaching in schools, discrimination law abuses, sex education in schools, etc) that the Daily Mail takes a good stance on, though ridiculed by other papers. I respect them for that.

I liken them to the over-zealous legalist we may know in our churches: more notable for being outspoken on 'old-fashioned' values, a little embarrassing, but deep within containing some very sound values.

God bless

Celestial Fundie said...

Trevor, thanks for giving your views on a tough subject.

Celestial Fundie said...

Anonymous, I accept that public services and a strong welfare state have a high cost to the taxpayer.

Despite my support for 'big government' my right-wing instincts tend to come out when I hear those who might otherwise share my social concerns suggesting that there is something inherently fair about the rich paying more tax.

I have a strong gut reaction to the notion of wealth redistribution.

I feel that the cost of welfare and public services should be shared by all.

Ideally, I would like to see a flat rate of tax accompanied by a individual basic income for all.

Rose~ said...

"an individual basic income for all"

Oh my dear! You are a memeber of the "conservative" party?

wow!! :~)

Well, I love ya anyway! :~)

Celestial Fundie said...

I haven't renewed my party subscription yet, but I intend to. Too much to do.

There are some Conservatives who favour an individual basic income.

Interestingly, it is quite similar to the Negative Tax idea advocated by free market economist Milton Friedman.

On the surface, an individual basic income seems like a left-wing idea, but it is highly compatible with a flat rate of tax, which is a right-wing idea. It also would increase efficency and cut bureaucracy.

Every Blessing in Christ


Richard said...

Again, as a Christian you listen to black metal, which so often has as the theme of songs opposition to Christianity?

Though I'd agree being neither entirely left-wing not right-wing, but having elements of both is a good thing. Moderation all the way.

As with your opinion on asylum seekers.