from the self-produced album, 'Beyond Betwixt'.
edsBackalleyBand on Youtube
composed, produced, by, ed

edsbackalleyband: R20:7







Genre: Rock-Jazz
First piece from the album,
Beyond Betwixt.
music by, Edwin S Anthony

e-cigs: Singapore vs UK




E-cigarettes are 95% less harmful than tobacco and could be prescribed on the NHS in future to help smokers quit, a review of their use has concluded.

Experts who have compiled a report for Public Health England say "vaping" could be a "game changer" for persuading people to quit cigarettes.

They also say there is no evidence they give children a "gateway" into smoking.
Some health campaigners have welcomed the findings, but the British Medical Association has expressed caution.

The Welsh government has previously announced that it plans to ban the use of e-cigarettes in enclosed spaces.

E-cigarettes are increasingly popular and are now used by 2.6 million adults in Britain.
But public health experts have been divided over whether they should be seen as a much safer alternative to smoking, or a pathway to a deadly addiction.

Public Health England asked a team of experts to examine the emerging evidence.
Their findings are unequivocal. On the question of safety, they conclude - as a broad estimate - that e-cigarettes are "around 95% less harmful" than smoking. - BBC




Pity about singapore.

The people have been so dumbed down by their government that they can't see what a wicked government they have.  The late LKY’s greatest achievement was to narrow the people’s personality, so as to narrow their focus, onto the basically practical, and define development from a purely economic point of view.   Development beyond the practical, in terms of the multicultural, creative, spiritual, empathetic, was left out.

Saying that people who start with ecigs will move on to cigs is like saying people who start drinking Coke would move on to alcohol.

Just one factor alone, the banning of e-cigarettes in favour of cigarettes is bad enough. The greed for

profits from cigarette sales, and the ensuing medical expenses and profits that will be accrued via people suffering from smoke-related illnesses must have been quite a lip-smacking alternative to bothering about the health of the population. But, as i've learnt through trials and tribulation, there is no reasoning with the chinese.  They are a rule and tradition-abiding people.  Normative thinking, in line with traditional chinese thought going back more than 2000 years, is not supposed to be a function of the human mind - which might explain why a doctor exclaimed a couple of years ago, upon seeing my brain scan, ‘oh! Your brain is very developed!’....perhaps he was just comparing it to the other singaporeans who came in for brain scans.   Anyway......

Oh yes, singapore is certainly much more advanced than the UK in many respects, but when it comes to simple humanity at a collective level, they leave too much to be desired.

it is far more harmful to walk by the road and breathe in all those fumes than it is to puff of an ecig

As for the 'danger' of e-cigs, it is far more harmful to walk by the road and breathe in all those fumes than it is to puff of an ecig. No wonder why the National Health Service in the UK is considering recommending it as a smoking-cessation device to smokers.  I suppose since the NHS is a non-profit organisation that has to foot the cost of medical expenses for the people, they would certainly be open to different ways to bring down medical costs incurred through treating smoke-related illnesses. 

Not so the case in singapore where medical treatment is a huge-profit industry, and where many a doctor would jump at the chance of prescribing pills instead of suggesting lifestyle changes prior to flogging off pills.  

I've already had two die recently in my extended Chinese family from smoke-related illnesses, and it pains me to know that that might not have been the case if ecigs weren't banned. 

And it is ridiculous to think that people who start off on ecigs would move on to cigarettes.  Saying that people who start with ecigs will move on to cigs is like saying people who start drinking Coke would move on to alcohol.  Ecigs and cigarettes are very different experiences.  The former is pleasant with its range of sweet and menthol flavours and doesn't leave you with a congested chest, bad stamina, phlegm, or any other symptom that comes with smoking ecigs.  If lots of people can give up smoking by picking up ecigs, why would people give up ecigs and move to cigarettes?  In fact, people who move from cigarettes to ecigs, after a while, will find smoking repulsive.  So the argument that it is a gateway for teens to move from ecigs to cigs is ridiculous.

Singapore is pretty polluted.  If it's not the periodic 'haze' from forest fires in Indonesia, during the Chinese ‘Ghost Month’, the country becomes a smoke-filled zone.  It is not uncommon to see a metal barrel with lots of offerings being burnt to chinese ancestors whilst people at a nearby open-air coffeeshop that is fogged up by the smoke but where smoking is banned, having to go out of the immediate vicinity to have a smoke.  And one can see many chinese singaporeans jogging by the roadside, or cycling in the full glory of their overpriced outfits and bicycles. Health conscious? Well, you're basically breathing in all those fumes at a faster rate. 



You'd be better off, healthwise, staying home with the windows closed and smoke e-cigs.  But that’s not going to happen till commonsense reigns in that sad little state of affairs.



Ah well, time for an Indo-coffee and an ecig.





ed





Rachel Dolezal, Black by Association



US race activist Rachel Dolezal has said "I identify as black", despite claims that she is actually white.
On Monday, Ms Dolezal resigned from the anti-racism organisation NAACP, after her parents said she was pretending to be black.
Speaking to NBC, she said that from the age of five she "was drawing self-portraits with the brown crayon instead of the peach crayon".
She added that she "takes exception" to suggestions she had deceived people. - bbc

If you think about it, racial identity is related to ASSOCIATED identity. In other words, it is perceived association with a particular race that leads one to possibly become more open to the legacy, culture, etc, of the race.

Association can either be direct (as in ancestry) or adopted (as in 'being black' even if one is not). In either case, the degree of association (identification, adoption, openness, valuing related culture, etc) determines one's race.  (Imagine a white boy adopted by a black family or a Chinese child brought up in India by an Indian family.)




Of course, there may be some genetic legacies that are passed on via direct association via ancestry. However, so long as this is not the only means for racial/cultural transmission, racial identity is pretty much open to cross-racial adoption.
At the very least, one can take on a race culturally, if not via biological ancestry - races can today be classified as 'cultural race', 'ethnic race', and 'national race', with some overlaps.  There can also be 'cross-time races' where a person might identify with people from a previous time.

At the very least, one can take on a race culturally, if not via biological ancestry - races can today be classified as 'cultural race', 'ethnic race', and 'national race', with some overlaps.  There can also be 'cross-time races' where a person might identify with people from a previous time. 

I really don't see what the fuss is over Rachel's 'pretense' of 'being black' when we are assailed by people sporting Marvel heroes t-shirts and 'cosplaying' as spiderman to Pokemon, or some 'Guitar Hero' or lame western Pop-Star these days.  And i don't see any fuss over the millions of non-white people pretending to be white by mindlessly following every pathetic pop and fashion trend that comes from the west.  They may not claim to 'be white', but they are certainly doing so in every other way.

 


Another interesting situation is where people may identify themselves as, say, English, but when their own ancestors of, say, the 1940s or 1950s were to take a time machine trip to the present, they might not be able to identify with them at all, or vice versa.  So these claims of being of this race of that is pretty much superfluous. 

I really don't see what the fuss is over Rachel's 'pretense' of 'being black' when we are assailed by people sporting Marvel heroes t-shirts and 'cosplaying' as Spiderman to Pokemon, or some 'Guitar Hero' or lame western Pop-Star these days.

I suppose i can identify with Rachel because, back in the 80s, when i was in my teens, i went to my parents one evening and pronounced, 'I'm not an Indian anymore'.  I continued, 'in a world full of different cultures, why should i just be one race?  It's so boring!  I want to take on various parts of various cultures and races.  That way, i can experience things from more angles and appreciate more of life."  My father looked at my mother and asked in Tamil, 'Why is he saying this", and my mother responded in Tamil, "Why not?  He can be anything he wants to be."  And my father just smiled.  Being of different races or cultures is like taking one different sensory faculties.  Imagine one race having the sense of smell, another of taste, etc, etc.  Become one with them all, and you get to sense more than each one of them.

Being of different races or cultures is like taking one different sensory faculties.  Imagine one race having the sense of smell, another of taste, etc, etc.  Become one with them all, and you get to sense more than each one of them.

That said, if race, or cultural race, can be so malleable, the rhetoric of nationalism can be tossed in the bin, and people can finally cease wondering why some of their national compatriots might empathise with their brethren in other cultural or regional climes and even empathise with them to militant proportions.


After all, if we can become militant in our own national defense, we cannot deny those who empathise with other nationals the selfsame right, since their perception of oneness is not bound by the illusory borders of the nation-state.




That done, now, the only thing left to figure out is how to pronounce her surname.


ed

On ‘terror apologists‘ and ‘being British’



"Apologists" for those who commit acts of terrorism are partly responsible for the violence, Philip Hammond has said. - bbc




Flipmode (211 likes): This just goes to prove these apologists will never agree to our way of life, so why are they here?

It always the same religious group blaming everyone else for the barbaric acts that THEIR people carry out.

Yet , they only ever speak out when they feel like it, you don’t hear a word about the beheadings,child abuse etc etc,

They seem to except that as the norm.

Alan (171 likes) : Who is to blame that Emwazi did not think the he belonged in the UK ONLY Emwazi. ALL those from ethnic minorities, especially those from Middlee East, Pakistan and Bangladesh, must embrace british culture.

Keep their religion but discard all the closed community culture.


Aphoristic (1 like): Again all the most accurate views today are the "lowest rated"...
It's a bit of a right wing Daily Hate sleaze fest on HYS today....
Was there an IS before we invaded other countries? NO! The West created the conditions which gave birth to IS, Al Qaeda.
So we're supposed to forget and/or deny this now are we? "Ministry of Truth" in action.
Saddam, Gaddafi etc evil but were were preventing this!!


Donkzilla (1 like): UK security services made Jihadi John the nutter he is today. Same story with ISIS. Blair and the BBC supported US lies about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction because Saddam was selling oil in euros instead of dollars. Those lies and the invasion of Iraq helped make ISIS. Now we're being spoon fed lies about Russia because Russia is selling oil and gas in euros.

Watch the truth get censored!

Ed (1 like): So a person who talks about how the HIV virus spreads is a 'HIV apologist' or 'HIV sympathiser' i suppose.

So long as we acknowledge that every effect has a cause, than we cannot but wonder after western contribution to the rise of 'terror'. Plugging the holes require identifying them. That doesn't mean i caused them. Get objective.  People are more focused on the horrendous means by which ‘Jihadi John’ (Emwazi) plys his trade ( I personally think it grossly psychotic and baulk at even picturing what he did.  Insane how one human can do this to another.), and not on the more quantitative killings perpetrated by the west albeit via less horrendous means (but is relatively ‘alright’ and ‘worth the price’ because no necks are being sliced.  This, however, it appears, can give rise to the kind of psychosis as exhibited by Emwazi, )

What we are seeing is the colonial racist mentality in new forms.  They used to term as ‘savages’ those whom resisted the colonial musket with a spear.


*

It’s clear that we have reached the Inquisition stage of the current version of modernity in ideology dominance and reinforcement.


At the end of the day, those people who go to join Islamic militants do so because they have yet to buy into the double standards of the British in how the British treat those within the UK, the US, and the EU, as opposed to those without.  

In other words, a few thousand americans killed during 11/9 = bad and deserves retalition.  But half a million children killed via embargoes in Iraq by Britain and the US via the UN Sanctions committee = worth the price (words by Madeline Albright, the US ambassador to the UN). 

So what is ‘being British’?  Having one standard for those within and another for those without?  Thinking that we have the right to retaliate when they kill a thousand of us, but those who retaliate when we kill a 100,000 of theirs are ‘terrorists’?  Not bothering about what our popularly installed governments do to others so long as they don’t do the same to us?  If that is ‘British’, then my problem is I’m more objective, egalitarian, and empathetic than ‘British’.

It’s clear that we have reached the Inquisition stage of the current version of modernity in ideology dominance and reinforcement. 

In brief - and despite what western intellectuals have to say about the ‘modern’ phenomenon - modernity is where we have reached a high point of a particular type of civilisation where a particular ideology or/and region dominates.  At this point, consequences emerge as resistance to it, i.e., in present times, ‘terrorism’, crime, etc. 

That is when the Inquisition stage comes into being where efforts are made to not only put it down, but to deny anyone the right to objectively and scientifically scrutinise, understand, and explain it lest the dominant powers are made to look bad.  History, facts, figures,  a scientific and objective analysis of it, etc, are all denied as the dominant powers strive to position themselves as without contributory sin or culpability so that their agenda, dominance, and supremacy can continue with impunity.



Let those who didn’t contribute to the emergence of the evil within another cast the first stone.


ed


The west and Indian culture



"Look girl, either you can focus on guys in college or on studies" - just one of the unusual conversations heard in a women-only carriage” - bbc

following extracted from BBC Facebook

Diane Knight: Can’t you have both!!!!???

Leon Gabriel Kharkongor: Different parts of India have different mentalities. Delhi does not represent the whole of India.

Gerard Takiwa: Well done BBC ... For telling India...to step out of the dark and embrace the light !

Sharmaine Mohan: Indians embrace light almost 10000 yrs ago buddy...Educate yourself before making stupid comments....

Ed: You can't blame Gerard too much Sharmaine. Gerard, after all, is product of his western media, unlike us, who pay attention to everything that goes on everywhere.

Hence, we are endowed with more perspectives, whereas they don't know anything other than Hollywood and their own culture of drinking, eating, walking dogs, worshipping celebs and footballers.

Prashanti R: Well said edwin

Lakha Singh: More than 200 country in the world why BBC run behind the india


*



ed: That just means they don't want any distractions. If the BBC and the whites have their way, all  students in universities all around the world will mirror American Pie.

They call it freedom. But there is another sort of freedom. That is, to be better. That requires one to curtail one's own freedom to be worse than one can be. Whites don't have the cultural input in their own clime to understand this.   For them, freedom is the right to be as bad as one can legally be.  For Indians, and others, freedom is partaking in that which makes on more than one’s primitive selves.

They see the above aspect of Indian culture as something to ridicule or 'backward'. But that just betrays their belief that they are the centre of human civilisation and perpetuates the colonial white-is-right myth. The colonial spirit lingers on in new forms doesn't it.

Let's educate them to alternatives to Porky and American Pie.  You can start with the comment made on the women-only carriage.  It is not something odd or ‘unusual’ as the BBC presents.  It is something quite enlightening.  That is, if you can think beyond the whites of your eyes.

*




If the BBC are so interested to know about Indian culture, why just pick those instances that might be of interest to the whites instead of that which is of interest to the Indians?

Basically, the Indians amongst other non-whites, are only of interest where it caters to their interests. Much is to be learnt, and can be educational to the whites, if they focus, also, on that which currently is not of interest to them, or which they have never considered in their relatively narrow cultural milieu.

The Whites need to get out more. There is more to the potential of the human being than their culture highlights.



ed




Quip: Monkey Goes on First Date



From that look, it looks like after a year of marriage, not  during a first date.




Toward a non-European Socialist Vision




We need to distinguish between EuroSocialism and Socialism. In Eurosocialism, there is an avowed belief that culture is formed by economic development. Whilst that is in part true, we have to realise that culture is not thoroughly formed in the west as it might in other parts of the world like India and China.

European socialism is more 'technical'.  It deals with the body, not the mind or spirit.

However, when these 'techniques' are infused with the eastern spirit of profound and spiritual passion and vigour, or humility in the face of Gods that remind us that no matter how perfect we think we are, our thinking is far from perfect,
it can add that modicum of spirit to the entire scheme of things that can make it go even further than can be imagined by the technically-inclined and Marx-abiding European Socialist.


In these parts, culture, rather than 'being formed' by economic development, can instead be used to interpret economic development or even challenge it, like Buddhism did more than 2000 years ago in the face of the growth of the capitalist tendency in parts of India.

One could even state plausibly that Buddhism was the world's first Socialist movement. Even Japan had to get rid of Buddhism in its efforts to westernise and 'capitalise' itself in the face of western colonial imperialism. That is why many Buddhist temples were burnt down and monks incarcerated, and the relatively value-free Shintoism brought in as the state religion. European socialist intellectuals have ignored all these facts in their development of socialism, and which explains, in part, why socialism has largely failed in the south-east.

Secondly, Eurosocialism is, in part, a legacy of western colonial imperialism, in that European socialists tend to position themselves at the helm of global socialist perspectival development. They do not take on board contradictory views from non-Europeans and expect the global socialist body to take their cue from European socialist intellectuals.

The problem with European socialist intellectuals, including Marx, is that they do not consider how culture can be used to, complement, reinforce, and flower the development of the socialist tendency in other parts of the world. To discard culture as just an elitist legacy betrays their ignorance of the fact that in many parts of the world, culture can be a product of a people despite elitism. It is, in other words, a culture formed from the ground up - India is a prime example.

A turn of a clockwork key might be sufficient to propel a mechanical mouse, but it is not enough to motivate the human spirit.

Hence, to just abide by the dictates of the Europeans in socialist development is to ignore the fact that culture forms an integral part of non-European societies, and that to shrug it off leads to losing the incorporation of many to the socialist cause.  A turn of a clockwork key might be sufficient to propel a mechanical mouse, but it is not enough to motivate the human spirit.


Marx made sense in lots of things, but there is much that he couldn't understand. He, in fact, used the European model of historical development as the model for understanding the development of world history. Whilst he might have gotten his observable facts correct - i.e. feudal societies, monarchism, etc - the MEANING of these facts is variable according to various cultures and climes.

What we need is the production of socialists who include their own cultural knowledge and histories in the development of socialist traditions that can actually deliver results in their particular cultural climes whilst exorcising it off those elite-supporting elements that compromise its socialist spirit. To discard their cultures is to discard the people. And where would socialism be in those countries without the people?

Asian socialism, when it successfully breaks away from the perspectival hegemony of European socialists, can be a far more vibrant and profound movement when they incorporate their own religious and social philosophies, whether it be from the rich philosophies of the Chinese during the period known as 'A Hundred Schools of Thought' before the ascension of Qin Shih Huang Ti in 221 b.c. or the philosophies of the many Indian sages and religious and Vedic traditions that go back thousands of years.

European socialism is more 'technical'.  It deals with the body, not the mind or spirit. However, when these 'techniques' are infused with the eastern spirit of profound and spiritual passion and vigour, or humility in the face of Gods that remind us that no matter how perfect we think we are, our thinking is far from perfect, it can add that modicum of spirit to the entire scheme of things that can make it go even further than can be imagined by the technically-inclined and Marx-abiding European Socialist.

We need the rise of Hindu Socialism, Buddhist Socialism, Jain Socialism, Taoist Socialism, Aboriginal, African, amongst others, and the fusion of these to form a Socialism that includes not only the political and economic infrastructure - as European socialists talk about - but the Human Atman (soul) (Hindu, that refers to transcending material reality and historical circumstance to identify our true selves via self-knowledge) and Ren (Confucian, referring to the good feelings engendered when being altruistic).


OM



Chelsea fans racist rant in Paris, Colonialism, and Football




Yero: and whats wrong? he is black he should be in AFRICA not in fckin EUROPE!!!!!! EUROPE FOR EUROPEANS

Ed:  And why did you go and colonise and rob other lands for hundreds of years eh?  You should have stayed in your own country and fed off your Queen's table right.  Now that they've fed your economy for a long time through your pillaging colonialism, they are, in effect, investors and shareholders in 'your' country.

You think the Europeans gave as much to you English pirates?  No.  It was the Black man, the Indians, etc, etc.  Europe for Europeans my beautiful brown ass.  That's why the formation of the EU was racist.  You gained off the non-Europeans, and then you close it off to them and say, 'Europe for Europeans'.  How many so called 'non-racist English or Europeans even realise that?  And the rest of the world want to take their cultural and perspectival cue from them.  The world should wake up.

Go get some commonsense you dumb prick.

*



Clasifi 1: You can't eradicate racism because it's part of human nature.

Ed: Being fearful of difference and the unfamiliar might be a part of human nature.  But overcoming one's fears is also part of human nature, and can be seen as human nature REALISED.

Would you say that being ignorant is part of human nature, whilst getting rid of said ignorance isn't?  You could say that thinking like yourself would be sub-human, or a human nature that is yet to be realised. 

Go think some more.

Being fearful of difference and the unfamiliar might be a part of human nature.  But overcoming one's fears is also part of human nature, and can be seen as human nature REALISED.


*

When people say 'there is no place for racism in football', i can't stop smiling, condescendingly.
Football is an ultra-right wing pastime that promotes nationalism, patriotism, and territorialism. So, whether it be in the face of foreigners elsewhere, or within the homeground, or immigrants, or supporters of another team, we have an aggressive US vs THEM mentality.  So it is no wonder that the EDL (English Defence League) was formed from football supporters.

This can be said about all sports. However, the difference is, in football, we have a whole team, an 'army', being aggressive with another, and trying to gain at the expense of another. And hence, there would be close identification between a 'group' of supporters and the team 'group' as well. In tennis, golf, running, etc, it is a singular activity, and therefore, the group of supporters will not be able to as closely identify with the runners/etc as they might with a whole team.

That's one of the reason why i don't fancy soccer, or football. Too right-wing for my taste. But one of the reason why football is so popular in England is because the English don't have much of a culture via which they can express passion, intelligence, etc, and hence, football becomes a means via which they can do so. They might say it is their 'culture', but the ed meister says, "that is what you do to compensate for not having one."


ed


Blogger Template by Clairvo