<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 5/22/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">Carl Remick</b> <<a href="mailto:carlremick@hotmail.com">carlremick@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
>From: "James Heartfield" <<a href="mailto:Heartfield@blueyonder.co.uk">Heartfield@blueyonder.co.uk</a>><br>><br>>... Galloway's old Labour politics have been tried and found wanting years<br>>ago. They are no alternative in the here and now, just nostalgia for an
<br>>English Jerusalem that never was.<br><br>Aha, if I'm not mistaken, James, your sympathy is for the prophet of an<br>English Jerusalem that never will be: Mick Hume. I just ran across the<br>following blog entry, which is identified as Hume's view of Galloway's
<br>Respect Party:<br><br>"Respect acts as a reminder of why I describe myself as 'on the left, but<br>not of it'. It has been accused of flirting with the Islamic lobby in its<br>campaign against the Iraq war, and it is noticeable that its manifesto
<br>commitment to defending civil liberties against the Government makes no<br>mention of defending free speech against new Labour's incitement to<br>religious hatred laws. But even worse than that is Respect's embrace of
<br>today's fashionably backward Western prejudices, opposing everything from GM<br>foods and nuclear power to more animal research and road building. As the<br>Left turns into the enemy of progress and the embodiment of self-loathing,
<br>Respect sometimes sounds like the most conservative voice in this election —<br>a pretty remarkable achievement, given who it is up against."<br><<a href="http://strange_stuff.blogspot.com/2005/04/mick-hume-on-respect.html">
http://strange_stuff.blogspot.com/2005/04/mick-hume-on-respect.html</a>><br><br>As a public service, I note that anyone interested in joining Respect may do<br>so online at <a href="http://www.respectcoalition.org">www.respectcoalition.org
</a> or by calling 020 8980 3507.<br><br>Carl<br><br><br>___________________________________<br><a href="http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk">http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>The
details of the Britains religious hatred laws I don't know. Tend to be
close to a freedom of speech absolutist, so I might well be
against them. <br>
<br>
But nuclear power - horribly overpriced way to produce electricity.
Wind is cheaper per kilowatt hour. And the UK coast has plenty of wind,
not mention some of your highland areas.<br>
<br>
GM food - not against genetic engineering in principle. But
current technology requires markers for antibiotic resistance be placed
in every genetically engineered product. (Short version - you
can't just take a laser and modify the genes in an organism. You have
to modify microrganism, and let them make the change for you. But
the only a tiny fraction of the microbes you alter change. How to sort
them? Make them anti-biotic resistant. Soak the batch in antibiotics.
The surviving microbes contain your altered genes, and can alter
your plants or pig or whatever.) And the ability for that antibiotic
resistance to jump species has been well documented. Also so far GM has
been used more for profit of big corporations than to feed the poor.
(Anyway the world already produces around 2,800 calories per
person - including 75 grams of protein. Don't see world hunger as
technological problem given t hose figures.)<br>
<br>
Road building? Money a lot better spent on more trains. So - sounds pretty forward thinking to me.<br>
<br><br>-- <br>Please
note: Personal messages should be sent
to [garlpublic] followed by the [at] sign with isp
of [comcast], then [dot] and then an extension of
net