Recently, there have been a couple of good news stories as far as dealing with terrorism is concerned. They’ve passed almost unnoticed: but they should be cheered. Three British Muslims were convicted of plotting to commit acts of terror. And in the United States, some Afghani men were taken into custody, suspected of planning terrorist attacks. The good news is that, in both cases (assuming of course, in the case of the Afghani suspects, the evidence against them is solid) the convictions and arrests were the result of several months of investigation. Furthermore, these convictions and arrests have been effected before the men were able to carry out any of the planned crimes.
One assumes, and hopes, that these results are due to good, honest, and painstaking detective and surveillance work, with no torture involved. Here the hard graft of careful criminal investigation has made us all that much safer from the ill intentions of terrorists. This should be cheered because this is the way to victory over terrorism: focused attention to the activities of terrorists. We should know more of this, so that we can insist that this is where resources of money and manpower are deployed. There are probably all too few such resources being put in this direction, given the requirements of the wider and ill-conceived “war on terror”. In terms of stopping specific acts of terror, steady and sustained sleuthing will probably return greater rewards.
More good news was to be found in The Guardian Weekly (18/09/09). Here, in a couple of articles, it was reported that Al-Qaida is losing ground and finding it difficult to find new recruits, much less effectively mount attacks. Some of the reasons for this are an increasing disenchantment with the indiscriminate loss of life, and the tactics of terror, amongst the wider population in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, northern Pakistan, Algeria and Indonesia. Fellow Muslims, it seems, are sick of the violence and wanton mayhem. And in Saudi Arabia, a report stated, “60%-70% of information about Al-Qaida suspects now come from relatives, friends and neighbours, not from security agencies or surveillance” (GW, 18/09/09, 2).
The problems for recruitment stem from the fact that Al-Qaida has been unable to carry out any large-scale attacks in the West since the London bombings in 2005. This is coupled with the fact that some young men, from the West, who go for training, are disillusioned by the lack of excitement and action, as well as the requirement to spend hours in study of the Quran. Some of the success in limiting Al-Qaida’s operations, it is true, is due to military action, and in particular the search and destroy missions of military drones against key operatives. A number of leading terrorists have been killed or captured in recent months. Furthermore, the ability of terrorists to communicate with each other has been disrupted, or successfully monitored.
Ironically, it may be the West’s military operations in such theatres as Afghanistan that have stirred Al-Qaida to redouble its efforts, along with a resurgent Taliban movement, that has led to its demise. As stated above, the ordinary citizens are becoming sick of their activities: and, according to The Guardian Weekly, the usefulness of Al-Qaida to the Taliban is waning and ties are fraying. The question is, of course, whether the West’s military action in Afghanistan is, in fact, ensuring that a dangerous group is being replaced by another danger in the renewed strength of the Taliban.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
Permissible Torture?
Recently an Australian academic, Mirko Bagaric, mounted a defence of torture as “justifiable in some cases” [NZ Herald, 8/9/09]. One of his arguments was that, as killing is accepted as permissible “to kill in self-defence or defence of another, it must surely be acceptable to ‘inflict lesser forms of harm, including torture, to achieve the same result’. What he called “life-saving torture” was permissible to save innocent lives.
He began the piece by welcoming the investigation into the torture tactics used by the CIA to take place in the USA, and to which former Vice-President Dick Cheney has been objecting, as something that ‘may assist in demarcating the permissible limits of torture’. But if torture is to be used to save innocent lives, how can one define permissible limits against the utilitarian motive of saving lives? At what point can the limit be drawn, for it the “permissible limit” does not achieve the desired effect, does one abandon the use of torture or move beyond the permissible limit?
Bagaric’s article was answered by an Auckland academic, John Ip, who put up a counter-argument in an attempt to demonstrate that the proposal had “no logical stopping point” [NZ Herald 17/9/09, A13]. If by reason of nerve damage and intense training, the terrorist from whom the information was required was impervious to physical pain, but the authorities had his beloved three-year old son, whom they could torture in front of the terrorist, should they indeed do so? On Bagaric’s ‘utilitarian logic the answer is “yes”, assuming that the benefits (lives saved) outweigh the cost (pain inflicted on child plus mental pain inflicted on terrorist)’.
What both worthy academics missed in their utilitarian-based, legally-acute arguments, was an equally important and fundamental question, and that was the question of the effect of torture on the torturer. And the effect of a culture of torture on the society that accepts torture, even a carefully modulated and well-defined limited use of torture (if such a thing is possible). For the use of torture surely degrades the humanity of the torturer every bit as much as that of the tortured. If there are personalities who derive satisfaction from inflicting pain on others, ought a society to be encouraging such proclivities, be they ever so finely regulated? And can ordinary, “decent” human beings be expected to learn to engage in permissible and limited torture?
No doubt it is possible for a society to rationalise the use of torture in certain circumstances. Recent events, the attitudes of some members of the previous US Administration, and perhaps some functionaries and officials even now, not to mention Bagaric’s article (and for that matter Ip’s inadequate riposte) worryingly suggest it is all too possible: and in an era of moral panic, very likely. But the society that takes that road is surely regressing: its civilization, its civility, its compassion is surely being degraded. Societies’ and institutions in the past that have resorted to torture have not been free, and open, and democratic: they have been fearful, and repressive, and totalitarian in nature. A society that resorts to torture does not generally do so to save lives: it does it to maintain the status quo and, generally, to preserve the place of an elite that does not care for “innocent lives” if it means losing power.
He began the piece by welcoming the investigation into the torture tactics used by the CIA to take place in the USA, and to which former Vice-President Dick Cheney has been objecting, as something that ‘may assist in demarcating the permissible limits of torture’. But if torture is to be used to save innocent lives, how can one define permissible limits against the utilitarian motive of saving lives? At what point can the limit be drawn, for it the “permissible limit” does not achieve the desired effect, does one abandon the use of torture or move beyond the permissible limit?
Bagaric’s article was answered by an Auckland academic, John Ip, who put up a counter-argument in an attempt to demonstrate that the proposal had “no logical stopping point” [NZ Herald 17/9/09, A13]. If by reason of nerve damage and intense training, the terrorist from whom the information was required was impervious to physical pain, but the authorities had his beloved three-year old son, whom they could torture in front of the terrorist, should they indeed do so? On Bagaric’s ‘utilitarian logic the answer is “yes”, assuming that the benefits (lives saved) outweigh the cost (pain inflicted on child plus mental pain inflicted on terrorist)’.
What both worthy academics missed in their utilitarian-based, legally-acute arguments, was an equally important and fundamental question, and that was the question of the effect of torture on the torturer. And the effect of a culture of torture on the society that accepts torture, even a carefully modulated and well-defined limited use of torture (if such a thing is possible). For the use of torture surely degrades the humanity of the torturer every bit as much as that of the tortured. If there are personalities who derive satisfaction from inflicting pain on others, ought a society to be encouraging such proclivities, be they ever so finely regulated? And can ordinary, “decent” human beings be expected to learn to engage in permissible and limited torture?
No doubt it is possible for a society to rationalise the use of torture in certain circumstances. Recent events, the attitudes of some members of the previous US Administration, and perhaps some functionaries and officials even now, not to mention Bagaric’s article (and for that matter Ip’s inadequate riposte) worryingly suggest it is all too possible: and in an era of moral panic, very likely. But the society that takes that road is surely regressing: its civilization, its civility, its compassion is surely being degraded. Societies’ and institutions in the past that have resorted to torture have not been free, and open, and democratic: they have been fearful, and repressive, and totalitarian in nature. A society that resorts to torture does not generally do so to save lives: it does it to maintain the status quo and, generally, to preserve the place of an elite that does not care for “innocent lives” if it means losing power.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
The New Testament and Economic Life
I am not an economist. My working life revolves around teaching and researching in the area of the New Testament. So what can the New Testament say about the current economic situation, and should what it says be brought into current thinking?
I would say, “Yes” for this reason. The fundamentals of economics, as with any human endeavour, at heart do not have to do with how money works, or how economic systems develop or operate. The fundamentals lie in how people think, and the attitudes and values they bring to bear on how they organise their lives politically, socially and economically. The fundamentals, then, are essentially spiritual: that is, they have to do with how we understand ourselves as humans, what makes us happy and what brings “the good life”.
In this respect, the New Testament has a great deal to say: and some of it is very specific to economic life. Luke’s Gospel tells us of an incident when a man asks Jesus to arbitrate in a dispute over a family inheritance (Luke 12:13-15). Jesus’ reply is rather unpromising. He refuses to get involved, and goes on to say, “Take care! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed”. Greed: there’s a word that has found its way into our economic discourse in the past few years. But, I suggest, the New Testament answer to economic turmoil is not simply: “Don’t be greedy”.
Here are what have been some of the drivers of our economic life in recent years, so it seems to me. These are the values and attitudes that have driven economic activity.
Firstly, money and managerial skills are the most important factors in economic well-being. In other words, the most important outcomes of economic activity are to ensure a good return to shareholders, and high remuneration for managers, especially CEOs. The latter outcome is motivated by the fact that “top dollar” is needed to attract top talent, to ensure a well-run, productive enterprise that will return the highest profits possible to shareholders. What is not asked is why this should be? In other words, why is it that the skills and talents of employees should not also be equally kept in the frame, so that rewarding good productivity and the loyal and hard effort of the workers is as important as ensuring high return to shareholders and largesse to the top management?
A second value is maintaining relativity of incomes and pay rates. This has essentially become a game of “catching up” and “keeping ahead”. In other words, income earners are either trying to catch up with other income earners whom they consider to be doing work of equal worth or value to theirs. Or else they are attempting to keep ahead of the pack, relatively speaking, in order to demonstrate the greater worth and value of their contribution to society’s economic well-being. When relativity begins to operate in a global market, things can go seriously out of whack. Hence, “top dollar” must match or reflect what is earned in other overseas economies regardless of other factors such as the relative cost of living.
Another set of values revolves around rewarding the few at the expense of the many. In the arena of remuneration what this loses sight of is the interdependence of all in generating wealth in the first place. Hence, CEO’s, employers’ and shareholders’ interests or abilities are considered more important and more worthy of reward than those of employees. But, stop a minute: what successful enterprise or business really reaches its success solely on the efforts of a CEO (even a “top dollar” executive), or the investment of shareholders? Any enterprise will depend on the efforts of many in the organisation, from top to bottom. And a truly successful business will be blessed with employees who are dedicated to their jobs, hardworking and responsible. As far as customer satisfaction is concerned, it will be the efforts, competence and goodwill of the employees at the “coal face” of the enterprise that will truly determine its success.
Rewarding the few at the expense of the many has been a marketing ploy in use for several decades now. Hence, one may buy a block of chocolate and win a block of land, or purchase a new shampoo and win a Subaru. The cost of the land or the Subaru, of course, are not divorced from the price of the chocolate or the shampoo. In this case, the many consumers contribute to the reward of the few. In some ways, it is amazing that we consumers continued to be suckered by this kind of extortion: why do we not simply demand lower prices, and fewer “marketing costs” built into what we pay?
These all represent “forms of greed”, but a positive way forward may be found by applying two principles drawn from the New Testament. The first is, “look after one another’s interests, and not just your own” (Philippians 2:4). There is not much more that need be said here. Looking after each other’s interests would mean that those at the top of the economic pile would be concerned for those at the bottom. In this case, the principle of relativity might translate into concern that the differential between top earners and those at lower down the scale not become too great: “top dollar” remuneration would keep sight of “bottom dollar” circumstances. It would mean that rewards would be shared around in a justly proportionate manner.
Another principle is: “There is great gain in godliness combined with contentment” (1 Timothy 6:6). The “godliness” aspect may not be much understood these days, though focusing on godliness is a way of living with a concern and love for others that reflects God’s character. Contentment would mean that we know when enough is enough: that we recognise where true happiness lies. To return to the saying of Jesus about greed with which we began: Jesus went on to say that a person’s life is not made up of the abundance of their possessions. This strikes a blow at the root of consumerism, for it recognises that our discontents are not helped by indulging in ever more “retail therapy”. Real happiness is always a by-product: and mostly arises out of our attention to the needs and interests of others. Allowing our economic values to be shaped by attention to humans and human needs, rather than human greed and the mighty dollar is, no doubt, what Jesus means about being “rich towards God” (Luke 12:21b, NRSV).
I would say, “Yes” for this reason. The fundamentals of economics, as with any human endeavour, at heart do not have to do with how money works, or how economic systems develop or operate. The fundamentals lie in how people think, and the attitudes and values they bring to bear on how they organise their lives politically, socially and economically. The fundamentals, then, are essentially spiritual: that is, they have to do with how we understand ourselves as humans, what makes us happy and what brings “the good life”.
In this respect, the New Testament has a great deal to say: and some of it is very specific to economic life. Luke’s Gospel tells us of an incident when a man asks Jesus to arbitrate in a dispute over a family inheritance (Luke 12:13-15). Jesus’ reply is rather unpromising. He refuses to get involved, and goes on to say, “Take care! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed”. Greed: there’s a word that has found its way into our economic discourse in the past few years. But, I suggest, the New Testament answer to economic turmoil is not simply: “Don’t be greedy”.
Here are what have been some of the drivers of our economic life in recent years, so it seems to me. These are the values and attitudes that have driven economic activity.
Firstly, money and managerial skills are the most important factors in economic well-being. In other words, the most important outcomes of economic activity are to ensure a good return to shareholders, and high remuneration for managers, especially CEOs. The latter outcome is motivated by the fact that “top dollar” is needed to attract top talent, to ensure a well-run, productive enterprise that will return the highest profits possible to shareholders. What is not asked is why this should be? In other words, why is it that the skills and talents of employees should not also be equally kept in the frame, so that rewarding good productivity and the loyal and hard effort of the workers is as important as ensuring high return to shareholders and largesse to the top management?
A second value is maintaining relativity of incomes and pay rates. This has essentially become a game of “catching up” and “keeping ahead”. In other words, income earners are either trying to catch up with other income earners whom they consider to be doing work of equal worth or value to theirs. Or else they are attempting to keep ahead of the pack, relatively speaking, in order to demonstrate the greater worth and value of their contribution to society’s economic well-being. When relativity begins to operate in a global market, things can go seriously out of whack. Hence, “top dollar” must match or reflect what is earned in other overseas economies regardless of other factors such as the relative cost of living.
Another set of values revolves around rewarding the few at the expense of the many. In the arena of remuneration what this loses sight of is the interdependence of all in generating wealth in the first place. Hence, CEO’s, employers’ and shareholders’ interests or abilities are considered more important and more worthy of reward than those of employees. But, stop a minute: what successful enterprise or business really reaches its success solely on the efforts of a CEO (even a “top dollar” executive), or the investment of shareholders? Any enterprise will depend on the efforts of many in the organisation, from top to bottom. And a truly successful business will be blessed with employees who are dedicated to their jobs, hardworking and responsible. As far as customer satisfaction is concerned, it will be the efforts, competence and goodwill of the employees at the “coal face” of the enterprise that will truly determine its success.
Rewarding the few at the expense of the many has been a marketing ploy in use for several decades now. Hence, one may buy a block of chocolate and win a block of land, or purchase a new shampoo and win a Subaru. The cost of the land or the Subaru, of course, are not divorced from the price of the chocolate or the shampoo. In this case, the many consumers contribute to the reward of the few. In some ways, it is amazing that we consumers continued to be suckered by this kind of extortion: why do we not simply demand lower prices, and fewer “marketing costs” built into what we pay?
These all represent “forms of greed”, but a positive way forward may be found by applying two principles drawn from the New Testament. The first is, “look after one another’s interests, and not just your own” (Philippians 2:4). There is not much more that need be said here. Looking after each other’s interests would mean that those at the top of the economic pile would be concerned for those at the bottom. In this case, the principle of relativity might translate into concern that the differential between top earners and those at lower down the scale not become too great: “top dollar” remuneration would keep sight of “bottom dollar” circumstances. It would mean that rewards would be shared around in a justly proportionate manner.
Another principle is: “There is great gain in godliness combined with contentment” (1 Timothy 6:6). The “godliness” aspect may not be much understood these days, though focusing on godliness is a way of living with a concern and love for others that reflects God’s character. Contentment would mean that we know when enough is enough: that we recognise where true happiness lies. To return to the saying of Jesus about greed with which we began: Jesus went on to say that a person’s life is not made up of the abundance of their possessions. This strikes a blow at the root of consumerism, for it recognises that our discontents are not helped by indulging in ever more “retail therapy”. Real happiness is always a by-product: and mostly arises out of our attention to the needs and interests of others. Allowing our economic values to be shaped by attention to humans and human needs, rather than human greed and the mighty dollar is, no doubt, what Jesus means about being “rich towards God” (Luke 12:21b, NRSV).
Lost in Bloglimbo
There’s a place where distressed bloggers go for help. It’s called the Blogger Help Forum. It’s a kind of limbo for bloggers with blog problems (“blogprobs”). The idea is that you post a question – or a cry for help – and wait for fellow bloggers to post an answer. I discovered this as I was trying to get an old blog site working again, and was looking for answers to my login problems (“loginblogginproblim”).
I discovered a woman in hysterics over losing her blog: an ordinary house mom with kids, who just wanted to blog out, happily posting pictures of her little dears...Hers was a heartrending story. You can read about it on the Blogger Help Limbo, sorry, Forum. Go to “Login Issues” and sort by “most responses”, or something like that, and it’ll probably come up easily; it was a long thread.
What intrigues me about this system is that a question is as likely to garner fellow sufferers sharing their story of their sorry state as any real answers. This was certainly the case with this thread. But there also seem to be a couple of “pros” prowling the threads proffering help. One is called “Gadsby” (or was it “Gatsby”?). I’m tempted to call him (or her, who’s to know?) “the great Gatsby”. Gadsby, if the by-line is any indication, seems to be part of the Blogger support team. He joined the thread to assure everyone (by this time, the thread had gathered quite a collection of bloggers who had lost their blogs) that Blogger support was trying to sort the problem.
What further interested me was that soon after this the original questioner “disappeared”. I have no idea whether her blogprob was solved. Gadsby’s intervention was followed by another wail from her that she’d received an incomprehensible (to her, and to me to be honest) official reply (via her husband’s email account) to the effect that Blogger support needed to be sure she was who she said she was: “Of course, I’m me!” she howled.
Perhaps Gadsby sorted out her problem on the quiet: I don’t know. What happened next was that others began to post the names and URLs of their blogs that they’d lost and wanted restored. One or two had lists as long as their arms, and some seemed somehow to depend on their blogs for their source of income. Anyway, Gadsby must have sorted some of them: there were grateful bloggers thanking him, or her. Once it was realised that Gadsby had some clout, bloggers clung to his/her coattails begging for help.
There is a kind of hierarchy of bloggers inhabiting Bloglimbo. You are assigned to a level. But then there are “top contributors” (I saw an official advisory that, when help was needed, one should look for a top contributor). One such is “nitecruzr”. He (or she, who’s to know?) pops up quite frequently on threads. “Nitecruzr” is knowledgeable, that’s for sure: and slightly supercilious. He has a picture above his moniker: I thought it was the head of Darth Vader at first (why I can’t think). On closer inspection, I notice that it’s the head of a camel: maybe this is because “nitecruzr” knows the 99th name of the blogger god. Actually, he’s quite reasonable and helpful; he offered to ask Gadsby if he (Gadsby) could help out with one blogger’s issue. This suggests he himself is not part of Blogger support and, in fact, he (or she, or they – it gets a bit confusing at this point) has his own website that offers help to distressed bloggers. Anyway, nitecruzr joined the thread to offer some advice on why people might lose access to their blogs (especially if they were foolish enough to forget both their user name and their password). You see, Blogger Support needs to know whether you are “the righteous owner” of the blog. But there are ways to get the blog back – maybe. It has something to do with front doors and back doors. This elicited a rude reply from another blogger. Nitecruzr kept his cool, but gave no ground – he also admonished us to be polite to the Blogger Support team as we might need them. If we can find them: don’t try contacting them, they have a fiendishly clever questionnaire system that will neatly land you back where you started.
Anyway, I posted a question: and then a couple of weeks later, realising that it might be a good idea to arrange for a notification to my email address should someone reply, I went back and posted a “reply” (really another question) so that I could tick the “box” (or whatever I did) to make sure I was informed when someone joined the thread. Of course, I was informed that I had had one reply – my own: I was talking to myself. But, lo and behold, I did get another reply a few days later. And it was most helpful and to the point: thank you “the new Katney” (don’t you love all these pseudonyms?).
By the way, my posts in Blimbo are labelled “level one”. The new Katney is “level four”. Ironically, when I started my exploration of Blimbo (there are loads of other interesting threads), I was reading up about “elites” and “non-elites” for my Biblical Texts in Context class. And I couldn’t help reflecting on the fact that Blimbo is a region for the elites (as they say, knowledge is power) and the rest of us: the hoi polloi who blongder along offering our meagre crumbs of advice (where we have them), or simply saying “I share your suffering”.
I hope that Gadsby and nitecruzr (should they stumble across my blog) will know that I do really respect them – I am not taking the mickey (not a moniker). I would hate to be cut off without a blog, consigned to bloglivion...
P.S. Of course, besides the Blogger Support Forum, you can go to the official Blogger Help page. There you will get all the advice you need and want, except that if you are like me, you will probably need an interpreter, someone like Gadsby or nitecruzr perhaps?
I discovered a woman in hysterics over losing her blog: an ordinary house mom with kids, who just wanted to blog out, happily posting pictures of her little dears...Hers was a heartrending story. You can read about it on the Blogger Help Limbo, sorry, Forum. Go to “Login Issues” and sort by “most responses”, or something like that, and it’ll probably come up easily; it was a long thread.
What intrigues me about this system is that a question is as likely to garner fellow sufferers sharing their story of their sorry state as any real answers. This was certainly the case with this thread. But there also seem to be a couple of “pros” prowling the threads proffering help. One is called “Gadsby” (or was it “Gatsby”?). I’m tempted to call him (or her, who’s to know?) “the great Gatsby”. Gadsby, if the by-line is any indication, seems to be part of the Blogger support team. He joined the thread to assure everyone (by this time, the thread had gathered quite a collection of bloggers who had lost their blogs) that Blogger support was trying to sort the problem.
What further interested me was that soon after this the original questioner “disappeared”. I have no idea whether her blogprob was solved. Gadsby’s intervention was followed by another wail from her that she’d received an incomprehensible (to her, and to me to be honest) official reply (via her husband’s email account) to the effect that Blogger support needed to be sure she was who she said she was: “Of course, I’m me!” she howled.
Perhaps Gadsby sorted out her problem on the quiet: I don’t know. What happened next was that others began to post the names and URLs of their blogs that they’d lost and wanted restored. One or two had lists as long as their arms, and some seemed somehow to depend on their blogs for their source of income. Anyway, Gadsby must have sorted some of them: there were grateful bloggers thanking him, or her. Once it was realised that Gadsby had some clout, bloggers clung to his/her coattails begging for help.
There is a kind of hierarchy of bloggers inhabiting Bloglimbo. You are assigned to a level. But then there are “top contributors” (I saw an official advisory that, when help was needed, one should look for a top contributor). One such is “nitecruzr”. He (or she, who’s to know?) pops up quite frequently on threads. “Nitecruzr” is knowledgeable, that’s for sure: and slightly supercilious. He has a picture above his moniker: I thought it was the head of Darth Vader at first (why I can’t think). On closer inspection, I notice that it’s the head of a camel: maybe this is because “nitecruzr” knows the 99th name of the blogger god. Actually, he’s quite reasonable and helpful; he offered to ask Gadsby if he (Gadsby) could help out with one blogger’s issue. This suggests he himself is not part of Blogger support and, in fact, he (or she, or they – it gets a bit confusing at this point) has his own website that offers help to distressed bloggers. Anyway, nitecruzr joined the thread to offer some advice on why people might lose access to their blogs (especially if they were foolish enough to forget both their user name and their password). You see, Blogger Support needs to know whether you are “the righteous owner” of the blog. But there are ways to get the blog back – maybe. It has something to do with front doors and back doors. This elicited a rude reply from another blogger. Nitecruzr kept his cool, but gave no ground – he also admonished us to be polite to the Blogger Support team as we might need them. If we can find them: don’t try contacting them, they have a fiendishly clever questionnaire system that will neatly land you back where you started.
Anyway, I posted a question: and then a couple of weeks later, realising that it might be a good idea to arrange for a notification to my email address should someone reply, I went back and posted a “reply” (really another question) so that I could tick the “box” (or whatever I did) to make sure I was informed when someone joined the thread. Of course, I was informed that I had had one reply – my own: I was talking to myself. But, lo and behold, I did get another reply a few days later. And it was most helpful and to the point: thank you “the new Katney” (don’t you love all these pseudonyms?).
By the way, my posts in Blimbo are labelled “level one”. The new Katney is “level four”. Ironically, when I started my exploration of Blimbo (there are loads of other interesting threads), I was reading up about “elites” and “non-elites” for my Biblical Texts in Context class. And I couldn’t help reflecting on the fact that Blimbo is a region for the elites (as they say, knowledge is power) and the rest of us: the hoi polloi who blongder along offering our meagre crumbs of advice (where we have them), or simply saying “I share your suffering”.
I hope that Gadsby and nitecruzr (should they stumble across my blog) will know that I do really respect them – I am not taking the mickey (not a moniker). I would hate to be cut off without a blog, consigned to bloglivion...
P.S. Of course, besides the Blogger Support Forum, you can go to the official Blogger Help page. There you will get all the advice you need and want, except that if you are like me, you will probably need an interpreter, someone like Gadsby or nitecruzr perhaps?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)