Anything About Everything

14 July 2018

Divided We Fall

The use of the term “colonised” in the following video (at 2:42 to 2:55) struck me as very odd:


14 September 2014

British, Great Britain

Filed under: History,People,Politics,Society — rajiv @ 3:19 am

In answer to the question “Is it ever correct to call someone “Great British”?”

From Wikipedia:

“Brittany (French: Bretagne [bʁə.taɲ] ( listen); Breton: Breizh, pronounced [brɛjs] or [brɛχ];[1] Gallo: Bertaèyn, pronounced [bəʁ.taɛɲ]) is a cultural region in the north-west of France. Covering the western part of Armorica, as it was known during the period of Roman occupation, Brittany subsequently became an independent kingdom and then a duchy before being united to the Kingdom of France in 1532 as a province. Brittany has also been referred to as Less, Lesser or Little Britain (as opposed to Great Britain). It is bordered by the English Channel to the north, the Celtic Sea and the Atlantic Ocean to the west, and the Bay of Biscay to the south. Its land area is 34,023 km² (13,136 sq mi).”


16 December 2010


Filed under: Law & Jurisprudence,Politics — rajiv @ 2:21 pm

On MSNBC: (more…)

16 October 2009

Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize

Filed under: Politics,Society — rajiv @ 4:08 pm

Obama Should Have Turned It Down.

“He should turn it down”.  That was my first reaction when my wife, watching the news break, shouted out to me that Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize.

The Nobel Committee must take the blame for this farce.

Several people pointed to an article by Robert Krebs in Foreign Policy magazine last July, in which he argued that the Nobel peace committee’s intentions are always partisan:

And for good reason: The Nobel Peace Prize’s aims are expressly political. The Nobel committee seeks to change the world through the prize’s very conferral, and, unlike its fellow prizes, the peace prize goes well beyond recognizing past accomplishments. As Francis Sejersted, the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee in the 1990s, once proudly admitted, “The prize … is not only for past achievement. … The committee also takes the possible positive effects of its choices into account [because] … Nobel wanted the prize to have political effects. Awarding a peace prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act.”

How true.

1 June 2009

The Financial Crisis – Who Is To Blame?

Filed under: Behaviour,Economics,Politics,Society — rajiv @ 9:19 am

Who is to blame for the current financial crisis?  The technical language of economists and academics doesn’t really answer the question.


14 November 2008

Bretton Woods II?

Filed under: Conflict,Economics,People,Politics,World — rajiv @ 3:00 pm

“A deep-seated global crisis is often a chance to redraw the map, reflecting shifts in the balance of power in different ways.”

Unfortunately, self-interest will prevail, until people and nations are forced to reach a realistic compromise by the horrors of war.

That was how it was the first time around.

2 September 2008

The British Nations

Filed under: History,Politics,Sociology,Sport — rajiv @ 7:59 am

In Reply To

Actually, in a legal sense, England, Wales and Scotland are nations… but they are not States, which is the proper term for an Sovereign entity. ….

The distinction drawn between a nation and a state is correct in accordance with a technical modern usage, although the technical distinction hasn’t always existed, and a nation can be a state, while a state can be nation.

Chick Young certainly considers Scotland a nation.

I suppose another way to draw the distinctions is as follows:

  • A society is a significant group of people living within a certain geographical area with a significant degree of common values, culture or traditions.
  • A nation is a society or groups of neighbouring societies that identity themselves as separate from other societies or nations.
  • state is one or more nations within a geographical region bound together by a political or legal system.

(As first posted on Tony Kempster’s Non-League Forum)