h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

As there seems to be the odd comment about Radio 4's Thought For The Day on hootoo and the fact that there is no other 'right to reply' to anything said in them I have started this thread.

Hopefully, it will allow people, if they so wish, to posts the text of a 'thought' and then reply to anything incorrect in it...or simply highlight anything one finds vaguely amusing in it.

So, to start

Thought for the Day, 24 September 2007
Rhidian Brook

Whilst re-mortgaging last month I discovered that I fall into a newly defined category of human being. Formerly my mortgage, designed for people who are self employed, was called a self-certification mortgage; now - thanks to a financial crisis - it's sub-prime.

We may not be able to predict the outcome of the current crises, but it's certainly adding to our vocabulary- words that were known only to financial institutions in Milwaukee now slip effortlessly into our conversation. None more so than the slightly sinister adjective: 'sub-prime.'

According to the US Department of Treasury sub-prime borrowers 'typically display reduced payment capacity.' Or, to put it another way, they don't have much money; It's hard not to hear in this the echoes of other demeaning stereotypes - America's poor white trash, or our own council house and violent - Chav's . It's perhaps why certain financial practices and product names hide behind euphemism: in warfare we have 'collateral damage' to describe innocent people killed in a military operation; in the financial world banks sell loans to people who can't afford them; then package the debt and define it as an asset. It's a fudging that allows us to avoid saying what a thing really is. As the economist Galbraith put it: 'the study of money is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth.'

The trouble is our whole system seems to operate on debt. So much so that it's seen as naïve or unfashionable to question it. Being in the Red is the new black. Even though many of us with a mortgage (a term that originally meant death pledge ) know full well that when we fill out a form asking us if we are a home owner we are so merely for the purposes of filling out the form. Home Borrower doesn't sound quite, well, 'prime' enough.

Could it be that the creeping euphemism is a sign of sickness in our system? One that allows us to accept the twisted logic that defines debt as valuable and where those who can least afford loans pay higher interest. Is the best explanation of this debt that global growth and prosperity are dependent on it and that occasional adjustments and wobbles are necessary? All the time we use evasive terms we are really avoiding the human cost. Many people currently experiencing 'a correction' in this crisis are not reckless gamblers who shift debt or even lenders encouraging the taking of loans, but people simply trying to get by.

Maybe the system needs a different kind of correction: and a different kind of wisdom from the sub prime variety we've been believing these last few years: advise that doesn't use euphemism or hedge its bets but that says what's at stake. Sounds naïve? It's been suggested before: Take this from Exodus: 'if you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy…charge him no interest.' And if you take your neighbours cloak as pledge give it back by sunset because his cloak is the only covering he has.' In this financial system lending isn't based on risk but on trust; it's for securing not exploiting. And people quite clearly come first before products.


copyright 2007 BBC





Well, yes that's exactly correct...you can then go on and say demeaning stereoptypes echoing in this...however...it doesn't matter how you describe it it's still linked with those people in that social strata...or writers!



You mean like the the sign of sickness with our system that allows the large majority of people to accept that leaders of religious cults with their twisted logic of believing in faerie tales and myths, are given high stature in this country to the point of them being in the House Of Lords...and being gauranteed seats in the elected House of Lords



Like when discussing gay relationships: 'we don't hate the sinner just the sin.'



However (a) people need to make a living these days and (b) I presume after tis comment the Church will now say that monthly tithes to the Church aren't neccessary as quite clearly the Church is a 'product'...

Why don't you just call the thread "Daily Believer-Spite." God knows there's so little to work with around here.

Just so that it's clear from the outset, I am a Christian, and am limiting myself to remarks about today's TFTD rather than any wider points.

Today's Thought for the Day struck me as rather odd. It definately contained far more bile and spite than usual. A fair amount of ignorance, too.

I work in the mortgage industry, and the phrase 'sub-prime' has been around for a while. It isn't new. I accept that the problems over the last month or so may have revealed this industry term to the public at large, but it hasn't just appeared from nowhere.

And the term 'sub-prime' is no reflection on the person borrowing, it merely means that there's one of two features of the mortgage that may present complications. That may be with proving the borrower's income, or having a limited deposit to put down, or the property being of an unusual construction, or it not being worth the money the borrower agreed to pay for it.

If there are no such anticipated problems, then it would be a 'prime' mortgage. Generally this means that there's hardly any work to do on the mortgage processing, as it's likely to just sail through.

So, in essence, the terms reflect the amount of work the mortgage company will have to put in to make it work. If it's 'prime' it's easy to do. If it's 'sub-prime' then it'll take a bit more time and effort to get it sorted.

The trouble is that knowing that there was a clear bit of ignorance in the first few words of today's TFTD, I wasn't really listening to the rest of it. Though I did pick up the undercurrent of bitterness in his voice, which I found somewhat troubling.


Geggs

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

This is partly why I have started this thread to correct such things.

Also, the 'Daily Believer=spite' stuff...well, as there is no right to reply and that there is alot of this twisted logic in something that is broadcast on a public funded radio channel I believe we can point out these ironic and sometimes incorrect comments.

That's freedom of speech...'they' have total freedom...this is to give us the freedom to challenge what is said.

I agree entirely.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/thought/comments.shtml

I was censored. So here's what I wrote, bowdlerised.

I wouldn't be troubled by it. Brook is an [ill informed person] and I can't understand why he's one of the roster of the superstitious that the BBC trots out every day around ten to eight.

Most of the rest of the faith-heads who are allowed to witter on at least have some artificial "stature" within whichever organised fairy-story-believers' convention they subscribe to. Priests, rabbis, and the like. And in general, they're an almost comically inoffensive bunch, if a little sad.

It can't be a coincidence that the only other one (apart from Brook) who regularly makes me either roll my eyes or shout at the radio is also in the slot for no discernible reason beyond her sanctimoniousness - Ann Atkins.

Most of the time there's simply no point responding to TFTD because it's the usual anodyne blather excreted from the mouths of talkers to weather, very much coming across as a "will this do?" exercise. The few times there are things worth commenting on there's usually little that can be said on a family site.

SoRB

I also, in the subsequent post, forthrightly criticised Brook for, in his last TFTD, describing evolution as a "belief", a statement which I think tells you all you need to know about him and his level of education.

SoRB

If post 7 was an attempt at sarcasm (i.e. there IS SO a comments page), it's an inept one, as the comments there are a tiny, tiny cross section, clearly chosen by an editor. They're not a "live" response to the programme. This thread is.

SoRB

"As there seems to be the odd comment about Radio 4's Thought For The Day on hootoo and the fact that there is no other 'right to reply' to anything said in them I have started this thread."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/thought/comments.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/feedback.shtml

They took me less than 5 seconds to find. Since then I've checked out the BBC Charter Review site, Ofcom, places like that. Quite a few options to REPLY, if that's what you really want to do.

"Hopefully, it will allow people, if they so wish, to posts the text of a 'thought' and then reply to anything incorrect in it...or simply highlight anything one finds vaguely amusing in it."

Don't mind if I do!

It seems pretty obvious to me that your motivation for this thread wasn't borne of frustration at having no other alternative means to challenge the irresponsibility and hypocrisy of TFTD speakers. It was to show off to your mates. You are the man in the mirror, etc etc.

I don't doubt how infuriating these commentators obviously are to you, knock yourself out - but please don't tell me you're saying so out of powerlessness to do anything about it.

This is exactly why I did it.



I will pass on this comment...



Very.



Why, how kind of you.



There is nothing else we can do about it. Every year the set-up of TFTD is challenged, every year the 'Religious Department' or what ever they call it these days sticks two fingers up and carries on as they were.

As SoRB said the message board you posted has chosen posts.

This thread is for any comment to by placed...within reason of course, but picking out stupid comments is one of them. hey are after all speaking to the nation so we, as the nation, can speak right back at 'em with a little more logic and rationality. And if you think some of the points made are very picky...then fine...as I say if people do decide to speak to the nation as an 'authority' then they should be called on it. And if they aren't authorities why are thye being given time on a Radio 4 flagship current affairs programme?

Besides isn't half the point we choose to discuss stuff *here* is that we enjoy the company?

There are loads more people posting to the "Have your say" boards the main news sites link to, but I owuld much rather discuss burning issues at "The Forum". TFTD included....

I really fail to understand the source of the anger Chris is displaying.

Why is it insulting/stereotyping to characterize someone's ability to repay a mortgage?

People usually make x amount of money, with y amount of variation. Given a mortgage payment z, you should be able to come up with categories.

If you're pissed off about being in debt, sell your house and move into an apartment. I rent a room in a townhouse that I share with 4 other people precisely because I don't want to be in debt, despite the fact that I could easily obtain a mortgage on my salary.

All right, sorry, I'll get to the point.

Of course you're entitled - and more power to your elbow - to rally against the abuses of theocracy on modern life.

I appreciate that it's fun and I enjoy reading a lot of it too. But it often seems to me here, as with many other threads around h2, you're picking fairly meaningless battles against paltry opposition. A 5 minute slot on a channel, 75% of whose audience are probably informed enough to know better anyway. Various and sundry (evidently trenchant) God-botherers on here. Enough to get you good and angry in the morning... so what are you doing about it??

While their lot are burning down abortion clinics and killing in the name of, you're mocking them in absentia. Seems a waste of generous resources, that's all.

This post has been removed.

But it often seems to me here, as with many other threads around h2, you're picking fairly meaningless battles against paltry opposition. A 5 minute slot on a channel, 75% of whose audience are probably informed enough to know better anyway. >

So, you would be happy to have flat-eatrers have a 5minute slot everyday on Radio 4.

I said why I have started this thread. I'm not restating (dumb bomb territory). There are people who do like talking about it so this is the thread for it.

Thank you for your time.

It's a frustrating undertaking, correcting the inept. Religious people frequently rail against lending at interest ("usury") which is bad religion, namely appealing to the gut instinct. Steven Pinker does a good job on this question in The Blank Slate.

Every now and then through history people vent their anger on money-lenders. They used to go out and righteously kill them, or their racial stereotype: Jews in Europe, Chinese in the Pacific area. A bad response to a predictable problem, debt.

I'm annoyed by Brook's etymology. OED does not support his back-formation of chav (council house and violent). They go with the Romani chavo (unmarried male) with a nod at the possibility of its being a diminutive of Chatham, though they suspect that of being a back-formation.

It mildy surprises me the number of anti-Christian rants on this board.

Agnostics and athiests - I can understand their point

It's those who rant and rail about Jehovahs Witnesses and Christians trying to convert them via Terry Wogan's slot and R4 TFTD

The lady thinks they do protest too much.

To re-iterate:
"I really fail to understand the source of the anger Chris is displaying."

Who's protesting too much?