My EFX life

2009-Feb-4
My time here at Efx has come to a beautiful end. I'm now elsewhere, and my blogs mainly consist of my political opinions. They can be bias, misinformed, and a bit abrupt at times, but then that is how Politics in general is. The word 'fact' is hugely subjective in Politics.

That said, my new blog resides over at: http://futiledemocracy.wordpress.com

Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
  • 1 Comments
  • Post A Comment!
  • Permanent Link


    • The right side of history...

    2009-Jan-27
    " If by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then I'm proud to say I'm a Liberal." - John F Kennedy

    This isn't an attack on Conservatives as people, this is purely a defence of the Liberal, and a partial attack from my own point of view, on the ideals of Conservatism.

    There isn't a day goes by without a Conservative/Republican blog on Wordpress dedicated to discussing how out of touch and 'pansy' Liberals are. It's amazing, given that the current economic mess is the sole responsibility of a Conservative ideology dedicated to deregulated markets, allowing the greedy few to get away with murder. To be Liberal, is a proud feeling in these ever growing days of intolerance, hatred, war, and despicable propaganda.

    Conservatives and Republicans alike, appear to be of the belief that it is some sort of crime to be Liberal. As a Liberal, i'm proud to hear the Conservative sentiment... "you weak Liberal". It was a Liberal who ended slavery. It was a Liberal who gave women the right to vote. It was a Liberal that created the NHS and Welfare state. In fact, Liberals created America.
    I'm yet to see a socially progressive act by a Conservative dedicated to 'freedom' (Reaganomics like Thatcherism, cannot be suggested, for the very reason that their concept of 'free' does not apply to the less fortunate in society).

    In 2004, George Bush referred to John Kerry as.... "The most liberal member of the senate." And suddenly the label is dropped and "Progressive" was picked up by Democrats. Why is Liberal such a term of abuse rather than pride? Why is Conservative, not a term of abuse? Conservatives originally opposed the civil rights act; they STILL have serious issues with homosexuality; they continue to preach pro-life nonsense yet allow any American to carry a gun; whilst supporting the death penalty; they have decided that unborn children have healthcare rights that children born into poor families shouldn't be entitled to because to do so would mean the dreaded Socialism; they consider the poor to be nothing more than a nuscience in the way of big business; they still think Obama is wrong to be closing Guantanamo suggesting that the Conservatives like to torture; and they produced Sarah Palin. How are Liberals considered worse than that?
    The concept that Liberals are soft on National Defence is a weak one at best. No major terrorist attack happened on Clintons watch. It did on Bush's watch. Nixon, a Republican was forced to resign, and Reagan was shot. Bush however, may have even known that Terrorists planned to hit America, and didn't act in time. He then waged an unjust war, with no rebuilding plan, that sparked even greater hatred toward America and the West.

    Franklin Roosevelt was Liberal in the sense that he created The Social Security Administration. Lincoln put an end to Slavery and so was Liberal. Martin Luther King was as Liberal as one get be, and is so widely respected he has a day named after him. The bill of Rights is a Liberal document. The Global Warming Lobby with their pesky evidence, need a Liberal to champion their cause. We saw the destruction that dripped disastrously from the mouth of Conservative Sarah Palin, whose main concern was not that we're clearly killing the planet, but the profit to be made from oil drilling. John Adams is quoted as saying quite beautifully and eloquently, in a way that only Adams could... "Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially for the lower classes of people, are so extremely wise and useful that to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant." .......And so from this, we can deduce that America was born of the virtues of the Liberal mind.

    George Bush once said... "Only a liberal senator from Massachusetts would say that a 49 percent increase in funding for education was not enough. "..... He's wrong. Not just a liberal from Massachusetts would say such an education funding increase isn't enough, I would also say it's not enough. A 70% increase is not enough, education should be a priority, whether private or state education, children should have the best. They should be at war with each other for the best teachers, paying a fortune to secure them, they are the future, they need the very best, the money needs to be going to the education of tomorrows CEOs and Politicians, so that they do not make the same mistake as this generation of CEOs and Politicians. 49% is not enough, when so much has been wasted on unjust and illegal wars.

    Over here in England, The National Health Service Act of 1946 created a free healthcare service regardless of social status, implemented by Clement Atlee's Labour Government; Liberal achievement. Liberals continue to invest more money in State Schooling than any Conservative Government has ever done. Liberals introduced both the Minimum Wage and the Education Maintenance Allowance, and made it possible for people on low incomes, like myself, to go to University. Conservatives, originally opposed the NHS and have cut funding to it ever since, opposed the minimum wage under the flawed idea that the Markets are best placed to deal with wages, and opposed the idea that we're all entitled to equal levels of education, regardless of Wealth.
    In 1918, "Representation of the People Act" gave Women the right to vote, a Liberal achievement. Less well known was the "Abandonment of Animals Act of 1960", making it an offence to abandon an animal. A Liberal achievement. And what do we have to show for Conservative achievements? Thatcher. A nightmare of a woman.
    "The Factories Act of 1961", put great emphasis on the safety of Factory Workers, whose welfare had been ignored throughout successive Conservative Governments whose concern was merely "profit". Let us Liberals deal with humanity, Conservatives should stick to greed. "The Suicide Act" of the same year, decriminalised Suicide, so that anyone who failed to take their own life, could no longer be prosecuted. Liberal achievement.
    In 1988, the "Local Government Act", in particular Section 28 stated "The Local Government Shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship". This nasty little piece of hate filled legislation was the work of the Conservative Government. Local Governments worked tirelessly to ban any publications that suggested Homosexuality was ok. It's nazi-esque approach was nothing short of disgusting, yet characterises the Thatcher years perfectly. In 2002, the Labour Government, having revoked Section 28, allowed Gay couples to adopt. Liberal achievement.

    The Conservative Government of the 1980s may be considered Progressive in that they allowed those renting Council Houses to buy their homes at cheap prices from the local authority, with the Housing Act. Putting this into context is much more difficult. Whilst it's a nice idea to sell council houses to tennants, you also have to keep building new council houses because suddenly the demand in the private sector shrinks and so available housing becomes less, and so prices shoot up, and we're left with the mess of a housing market we have today. Not only that, but if you're going to allow poorer people to buy their homes from the local authority, be sure you look after the economy. The Tories didn't. When the recession hit, people suddenly couldn't afford their repayments, and so many homes that wouldn't have been taken from tennants had they been renting from the council still, were repossessed. Homelessness almost doubled in London. And people still appear to worship Margaret Thatcher. The Right To By, Housing Act was a disaster of a Government trying to win usually safe Labour Votes.

    The bulk of Conservatives felt in necessary to allow the Bush administration to keep as many secrets as it liked as long as it cited "National Security" as it's reasoning. You can bet that those same Conservatives wont allow Obama to do the same. Unless Obama's White House is fully transparent, those Conservatives are going to become more and more hypocritical and more and more quasi-Liberal by the moment.

    The term Liberal should be a badge worn with pride. Liberals are on the right side of history.
  • 7 Comments
  • Post A Comment!
  • Permanent Link


    • We already know!!

    2009-Jan-26
    So it would seem, that last week in British Politics became decidedly boring. This in turn, meant the BBC had very little to report. Which meant, it's editors were forced to submit articles to the Politics section of the BBC News website, that appear to have been posted by Captain Obvious.

    Take this article, referring to the leader of the Liberal Democrat's Nick Clegg's claims on the Andrew Marr show, that The Tories offer nothing different to pull Britain through tough economic change.
    Clegg is quoted as saying ... "I don't believe for a moment that a Conservative government will take radical action to make the tax system fairer." ... As if we didn't already know this. Firstly, they aren't called Conservatives for no reason. Radical isn't really in their vocabulary. Secondly, when the word "Radical" does breach Conservative Security, the Country ends up with a Thatcher. I cannot imagine anyone in the Country other than the greedy bankers she spawned, would want to see radical Conservatives again.
    Clegg wasn't finished with the obvious statements. He went on to suggest that a Tory Government would not help those on middle or lower incomes. Again, did he really need to make that point? Does anyone seriously believe a Conservative Government who have pledged to simply do nothing productive for the less advantaged in Society during this long horrible recession, are the best choice for those struggling the most?
    The Conservative Party Website says... "Our welfare programme will be delivered by private and voluntary providers, who will only be paid when someone gets and keeps a job.
    Combined with our commitment to end the couple penalty in the tax credits system, our radical welfare plans will help lift almost half a million children out of poverty    .".... Private Welfare? Delivered by those out for profit? Not only can I see that pushing more people into poverty given that they pledge to not raise minimum wage, but I foresee that parents will feel forced to work longer hours, meaning that work becomes more important than family. The Tories will never help poor families. We do not need Mr Clegg to point that out.

    Late 2008, Goldman Sachs asked for a $7,000,000,000 bail out. They put $6,000,000,000 aside for bonuses, according to The Guardian. It defended it's bonuses by suggesting bonuses are needed to attract the best people. The best people, who seemingly lost £1.4bn for the fourth-quarter of 2008. I'm quite happy to lose that much money for a company, if it means a hefty bonus at the end. Bring it on.
    Similarly, according to The Daily Mail, between 2003 and 2007, Sir Fred Goodwin, boss of Rbos received £15.5million in pay and bonuses, and Eric Daniels of Lloyds TSB received £10.2million.
    The housing market boom, seeing prices pushed for modest properties, way beyond the £1million mark, is estimated to have been worth an incredible £5.5bn according to Savills, in London, by City Bonus buyers alone. Greed. Nothing more than pure Greed. So why has it taken so long for an MP to stand up and critise this greed culture. Lord Myners told The Times, that "The golden days of huge bonuses are over" and that "grossly over-rewarded" executives must shoulder some of the blame for the global recession. In short, right winged economic policy, the concept that deregulated... "the markets will save the World!!" is so horribly overestimating the power of the greedy minority who rule the World. Lord Myners went on to uncover himself as Captain Obvious, with this "Let us be quite clear: there has been mismanagement of our banks." No shit.

    Whenever I watch Parliament, in particular Prime Minister's Questions, it strikes me as inconceivable how little Parliament is actually allowed to scrutinise Whitehall. It does not matter how many time the Prime Minister is asked a question, he will never answer it truthfully, and he will try his very hardest to sneak around the question. And yet, The BBC seems to think it's a story worth telling that the Prime Minister wont answer MPs questions adequately. As if it's shocking. As if we didn't already know they do this. According to the BBC citing The Ministerial Code, Members of the Government should be......." as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest".... and yet quite evidently, they aren't, in fact, they couldn't be further from that rule if they tried.
    We know that Labour is incredibly out of touch, we know that they have very little support, we know they do themselves very little favours when they try to block calls for more transparency and scrutiny, like the full disclosure of MPs allowances under the Freedom of Information act, which Harriet Harman has been using the most ridiculous legal jargon to postpone quite tragically for Democracy, as long as possible. But it goes even deeper into the realms of the hypocritical and ridiculous when Labour's Deputy commons leader Chris Bryant tells the BBC that openness is vital in Parliament.
    Norman Baker goes on to, according to the BBC "accuse Mr Brown of using stock excuses to avoid answering questions". Is this really a story? The entire country knows just how slimey Politicians are when it comes to the truth. You just have to sit watching Prime Ministers questions to know this.

    Captain Obvious has been busy this week.
  • 0 Comments
  • Post A Comment!
  • Permanent Link


    • A very Jamie update

    2009-Jan-25
    I've managed successfully to ignore the fact that I turned 23 last week. Choosing instead to focus my full attention on the recent magnificent rise to power of President Obama. I don't want this blog to be too political, but we should all be happy that Guantanamo is going to be closed, and that Fox News have decided that it means Terrorists are going to be living next door to ordinary Americans. Got to love Fox News.

    But anyway, yes, I turned 23. It isn't an age i'm happy about turning. Instead of wishing me a happy birthday, I insisted my friends use the phrase "Happy Wednesday". I don't want to get older. I don't want the responsibility. I want to be twelve again, on the fields of England, kicking a football against the crazy lady's fence, until her unstable husband chases us. That's how life should be. The life of a child is not "innocent" or "tender", it's life. The life of an adult is disastrously pointless.

    There is some consolation to be taken from getting older. This week I promptly quit my Digital Photography Course at London South Bank University, I left the accommodation, complete with my broken room full of holes surrounding the room, stains on the walls, an uncomfortable bed, and dead flies glued to the tops of the walls, shot straight down the Northern Line on the Tube to Kings Cross and came home to Leicester.

    I got home, to find that I have received an unconditional offer from De Montfort University in my home town, to study Political Journalism at Degree level, along with an apparent "Academic Scholarship" entitling me to £1000 every year for the duration of my course. Which i'm taking as conclusive proof, that i'm fucking amazing. It shouldn't be called an academic scholarship, it should be called the "fucking amazing person award".

    Not only that, but i have even bigger news....
    I bought a Wii!!!!
    It's the most fun i've had on a games console in years. It makes sense that my entire family has hijacked it though. My sister for Wii Sports Bowling. My dad for Tiger Woods golf and my mum, for... oddly..... Wii Sports Boxing, on which, she destroyed me.

    I've also spent an extra bit of "treat myself" money this month. Not only on my lovely new Wii, but on The West Wing Season 2; which is the only season I hadn't yet bought, a couple of books; The Presidents by Stephen Graubard, Blair Unbound by Anthony Seldon, Interventions by Noam Chomsky, and The Prime Ministers by Peter Hennessy. They should keep me occupied whilst my family hijack the Wii.

    And that's not all!!! My beautiful Girlfriend Stacy, bought us two tickets for Russell Brand Live, this along with me buying us two tickets in July at Wembley for Oasis live.

    Apart from being fucking old, it's going to be an interesting year.
  • 4 Comments
  • Post A Comment!
  • Permanent Link


    • The wrath of the Republican bloggers

    2009-Jan-23
    It would appear that Republican bloggers on Wordpress fell asleep in 2001, and woke up on January 20th 2009. It is as if the second President Obama was sworn into Office, the bitter wing of the Republican bloggers started making up as much nonsense as they could to discredit a legacy that had barely even begun. We're less than three days in and Republican bloggers everywhere are vilifying Obama, questioning his life, his sincerity, with just plain nonsense. The British media has picked up on it too. It's incredible, the wrath of Right Wing America.

    As the inauguration procession moved down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the White House on Tuesday, Fox News reporters kept saying "This is really slow" and "slowest motorcade we've ever seen" and "he should be speeding this up". There is no pleasing Republicans. They are bitter, and they will find any little detail to attack Obama on. Is it because he's Black? Possibly for a few a black President is a difficult concept to understand, but I think it's because he's a Democrat. George W Bush is by far the worst President America has ever been graced with. An entire Planet could not wait to see the back of him. It is merely a few disillusioned Republicans who still cling to the idea that this war hungry, fear mongering, destroyer of the economy was actually quite impressive. These people, are never going to accept that a Republican might not be that good.

    Bastardnation for example has run a story in which he states that Barack Obama was sworn in for a second time, without the press there, and so not the full transparency he promised. However, the swearing in photos were released the same day. Bastardnation knew it happened, the day it happened, in fact, about a minute after it happened. It's hardly the best kept secret since Roswell. It was fully transparent. It clearly had no malice attached too it. If we did not now know about it, then that would qualify as a cover up and not fully transparent. Of course the entire press corps should have been allowed it, merely a rookie mistake. You Republicans have allowed Bush to get away with genocide over the past eight years, a picture of Obama should be the least of your concerns.
    Clutching at straws already.

    Firstjohnfourfive subtly suggests that Obama is unqualified to be President. Under what circumstances, it's unclear. Suggesting of course, that simply, the Republicans don't like him. That's all. That's the reason he's unqualified. No Democrat would be qualified to run for President, under the Republican supporters. If it were true that Obama was somehow unqualified that raises a few bigger questions...
    1) Why didn't the actual Republican Party raise this issue, investigate it fully, and come to a conclusion themselves, rather than hoping that a couple of bitter bloggers might watch a Fox News report and come up with their own insane conclusions.
    2) Does America seriously not look into the qualifications of it's public servants before they take office? Even my local corner shop asks to see my qualifications, and verifies them. If Obama is not qualified, serious questions need to be asked about the background of candidates.

    CNN Blogs wasted ten minutes of my life, telling me that Obama didn't wear his jacket on his first day in the Oval Office. They claim that it was a Bush and Regan policy that out of respect for the office of President, the jacket is to be worn by anyone in the room. Fine. That was Bush and Regan. It's a shame Bush policy stopped at jacket wearing and didn't extend as far as lying to the World before entering an unjustifiable war, or destroying the economy. I'm unaware of why not wearing a jacket is disrespectful, yet lying to the public leading to a mass of American soldiers dying miserably in an unjust war, is perfectly respectable? As ever, Republican logic is beyond my understanding.
    Comments from Republicans grace the blog, such as...
    "That is the most powerful room in the world. It is a place to be respected, not hang out in. Consider it symbolic, but it was a constant reminder of the size of the task it is to lead the greatest nation on earth. Bush and Reagan got it right!!!"
    - I just love the idea that Obama is merely 'hanging out'. If Bush got it right, then i'd hate to see the state of the planet when someone gets it wrong. It's just a jacket! It might have been hot in there. Who cares? He could be wearing a tshirt with Sarah Palin looking out of her Alaskan home and waving to Putin over in Russia... She can see him, you know!!!.... he could wear a shirt that says... "I just looooove the gays!!" It wouldn't matter, as long as he gets the job done correctly!! I could not give a shit what my leader choses to wear, as long as he runs the Country better than Bush could ever have done. I cannot imagine Republican nonsense is going to steep lower than this one.

    The mass of Republican anti-Obama bloggers will never have a positive thing to say of Obama. They will always shoot him down. They will never admit that he may have made the right move. They will continue to stick up for the deeply flawed legacy of George Bush and they will refuse to accept that Sarah Palin, was a nightmare choice for Vice President. In the eyes of the deeply Republican, Obama can never do anything right.

    And then of course there are those who keep complaining that Obama isn't a fan of torture. As if it's perfectly feasible for America to stamp it's moral fist across the World, whilst at the same time, administering electric shocks, burning, forcing prisoners to be naked and pose for sexually explicit photos, covering their eyes and pretending to execute them, lack of food and water, without actually determining whether these detainees have committed any kind of crime or not. British man "Asif Iqbal" was held at Guantanamo, told that he could be killed and no one would know who did it, forcibly injected with drugs, sleep deprived, and subjected to sexual humiliation. A guard, on arrival, told Iqbal ... "you killed my family in the Twin Towers, now it's pay back time..." purely because Iqbal in Muslim. He was found to be completely innocent of all charges. If that's the attitude of right wing America, isn't it right, by their logic, that those families of the victims of dead Iraqis have the right to "pay back" America? Flawed logic by a flawed Right Wing ideology, which then wonders why the World absolutely despises them.

    It must please the Democrats to know that they've managed to annoy Republicans for no good reason other than being Democrats. It must please Democrats even more to know that the entire World, supports them.

    Defeat is a bitter pill to swallow clearly.



  • 1 Comments
  • Post A Comment!
  • Permanent Link


    • Israel, Palestine, and the problem of Religion

    2009-Jan-22
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." - Blaise Pascal

    I've purposely reserved judgement on the entire Gaza problem that has dwarfed the region in war over the past few months, simply because I do not know enough about it.

    All I hear is "Israel did this to us!!!!" and then "Hamas have done this to us!!!!!" Both sides have legitimate greviances. It isn't as if one side of the argument is right and the other is wrong. It just isn't that simple. The debate goes back generations. And rather disgustingly, involves religion. How many people need to die before the ignorant start to turn their backs on their destructive and evil religious beliefs based on disastrous levels of intolerance.

    Jews are seen as just Jewish. Muslims are seen as just Muslims. They are not observing each other as people, as having lives, emotions, ambitions, a sense of humour, a sense of love, a friendly side, a sensitive side, these people view each other as either Muslim or Jewish. This, is so indescribably wrong in the modern World.

    My thoughts echo those of my fellow left wingers, across the planet. Palestinians deserve there own settlement equal in rights to that of Israel. Do I think a two state solution would solve the issues? No, of course not. Israel has systematically attempted to displace all Muslim life from it's borders since it's creation and similarly, the Palestinians have no desire for peace with Israel.

    I refuse to succumb to Palestinian influenced blogs doing the rounds on Wordpress, that speak of a rather disturbing and an increasing hatred toward Israel. Some, such as Maqtanim who says on his rather bias and simplistic over view of the conflict "I always spoke against Hitler. I could not support what he did with the Jews. I hated him… until this January!" I do not know what kind of intelligent human being can connect the horrendous suffering of the people in Nazi occupied nations during the 1930s and 1940s to the war in the middle East today. It makes very little sense to me, other than the very loose link with religion and Judaism. The innocent lives lost during the Second World War have absolutely nothing to do with the Israeli Government and it's disproportionate use of force in Gaza.

    The people who lost their lives to the Nazi regime of the 1930s and 1940s have deeper links to the people who have lost their lives during this conflict today, both the lives of the Israelis and the Palestinians who have died, than they do to any religious sect of the past.

    "Religion to me has always been the wound, not the bandage." - Dennis Potter

    One of the comments on Maqtanim's blog states "i really don’t find it wrong…what Hamas did…" It is obnoxious and ignorant comments like this, that penetrate the hearts of generations of Israelis and Palestinians who blindly follow the cause of their leaders without stopping to think of the devestation left in it's wake.
    Hamas sending rockets into Israel during a ceasefire is not Israels fault. Nor is it the fault of the innocent people killed during those rocket attacks. Nor will it dismantle the state of Israel, it simply makes matters worse. It works only to provoke Israel into a war that Hamas could not possibly win, but will unite the blindly acquiscing Gazans to it's rather dubious cause of, and I quote from Hamas' Charter "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." Israel exists. Innocent lives are growing every day. Hamas and the Muslim people cannot change that. And killing people in order to raise it's profile, is not the answer.

    Now forgive me for my niavity, but if Canada suddenly declared it wanted to "obliterate" America, sending rockets across the border, America has a right to blockade Canada's ports and America has the right to fight back, and to do whatever it can to protect it's citizens against a Fundamentalist evil that wishes to "Obliterate" it. The Muslim leadership of Gaza in the shape of Hamas is hypocritical, and represents the oppressive, fundamentalist and destructive wing of Islam. The same Muslims who marched on London in protest of the Iraq War with signs reading "Europe; your 9/11 is coming" and "behead those who insult Mohammad". These people give Islam a bad name. Hamas represents these people.
    Hamas' Charter also states "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors." These people are designed for war. The Palestinians seems to assume that they have a right to kill whoever they want to kill, to threaten whoever they want to threaten purely because they're Muslim, and Israel should just let it happen. Until the Palestinian people, and the completely disgusting fundamentalist Muslims understand that they are not a higher form of human than any one else, and that their elected officials are provoking war, this conflict will never be resolved. The comment on Maqtanim's blog, goes to show the level of blind obediance shown to Hamas.

    "You’re basically killing each other to see who’s got the better imaginary friend." - Richard Jeni

    This is not to say that Israel has acted respectfully and with dignity. Up until this war, Israel had my full support. At the present time, Israel is responsible for the slaughter of 1500 people, many including children. That is not war, that is genocide. The Israeli government should be held responsible. They have acted with malice and harnessed their entire military might with the prime objective of shameful murder. Some, like myself would say they have gone too far. Others, and I can see where they are coming from, may say that with the continued threat from the parasites of Hamas threatening security every second, who seemingly expect no retaliation for their rocket attacks, Israel is well within it's right to say "enough is enough, this cannot continue."

    I differ somewhat with my fellow left wingers, as many seem to be in complete support of the Palestinians, I on the other hand feel somewhat uneasy by the goals and aspirations of Hamas, and therefore the goals and aspirations of the millions of people who voted for Hamas.....
    Hamas member "cleric Yunis Al Astal" stated in 2008 that Rome would soon become...."an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread though Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas, even Eastern Europe." If an Islamic group were to launch rocket attacks against Rome whilst systematically call for it's immediate turn to Islam, and Rome struck back, like Israel is well within it's right to do now, can I assume that people such as Maqtanim would refer to Rome as murderers too? Or will he finally admit that the Palestinians are not all together free of blame?
    The problem within Islam lies with groups like Hamas and it's supporters. It leads groups within Countries like Britain to preach hatred toward Islam on the whole, as if every Muslim on the planet is some great evil, which is wrong. Similarly, when such a large portion of the muslim population of Gaza vote for a terrorist government whose mission includes the destruction of Israel, they do not do themselves any favours.

    There is no easy conclusion, the Palestinian people properly and accordingly elected a terrorist government hellbent on war and destruction, who now take the "woe is me" route when their devious little plan didn't work out too well. However, the Palestinian lives that have been lost were innocent, many children, slaughtered for political reasons. One government disliking another government has lead to a genocide perputrated by the Israeli government, and this is entirely wrong. It doesn't matter what religion one is, it doesn't matter what Country you are born or who your allegiance is too, systematic slaughter of innocent lives, is wrong. They have gone too far. All I can possibly say on the matter is that neither side is innocent, boh sides have committed evils, and so both sides cannot be held too far from the overall blame. Nor can Religion be far from the blame.

    As usual, religion, or more specifically; the blindly faithful, in their attempts to please their oppressive God's, stand to create an 'us versus them' mentality, whether it be pro-life vs pro-choice; Homosexuality vs the anti-homosexuality brigade; the role of women as nothing but sub servant to man vs the role of women as free and equal; Palestine vs Israel. All of this is based on nothing more than personal feelings of intolerance; based on the past; based on something they cannot prove but use quite disturbingly to justify their own appalling prejudices and grandiose ambitions. This in turn leads to violence, hatred, ignorance, a feeling of supremacy in comparison to those of other faiths, and ultimately to death and war. I firmly believe that Religion and those who refuse to question some of the more extreme perversions hidden deep within their respective doctrines have nothing to offer the World other than a barrier to peace and justice, hope and progression. This is the real issue facing the middle East and the World in general. Defeat Religion, defeat intolerance.

    "One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke
  • 0 Comments
  • Post A Comment!
  • Permanent Link


    • President Barack Obama

    2009-Jan-21


    ****


    "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." - President Obama

    My grandparents claim to have felt the hope that echoed around the World when John F Kennedy became the President of the USA way back in 1960, from as far away as we are in the United Kingdom. The glimour of hope that change had come, that the World super power was not in the firm control of the Business elite, and the anguish and sorrow they felt when they heard of Kennedy's assasination. They both say that the feeling of hope rekindled was evident in their minds yesterday at the inauguration of President Barack Obama.

    Sky News played a video this morning of an interview with a Black American child. The interviewer asked what the election of President Obama meant to him, the child said...
    "It means that when people see a black man on TV, they won’t see only a criminal or an athlete. They’ll see a president, a lawyer or a doctor." - How beautiful and powerful can one child's voice be? This voice, this single sentence, encapsulates a new America spectacularly.

    In the hearts of those of us who have become disillusioned with America, (which includes Democrats, and the entire World, apart from the Republicans) hateful of the Bush Administration, sick of out dated intolerant Republican policies, it was a monumentous occasion to witness the end of such intolerance, not just with a new administration, but with an African American President who less than a century ago, would have been banned from sitting on the same bus as the white man.

    Often i'll be searching online blogs and come across those of cynical Republicans who have already condemned Obama to political hell, judging his legacy before it's even begun, purely because he's a democrat. Ridiculous comments like "He's socialist", when Socialism is about as far from Obama as a word could be, "He wont hand over his birth certificate"... as if they don't adequately vet a potential senator and President before they take the job. "His middle name..... Hussain..... like Sadam..... AARRRGH!!!"...this one speaks for itself. "He refuses to swear on the bible, proving he's a muslim".... as if it matters what faith a man is.
    All of this before the inauguration, even though he did in fact swear on the Bible. Republican smear tactics, tactics of an extremist party with extremist views, and who put forward an extremist candidate for Vice President. It was hope versus continued fear, and hope presided, thankfully. Why wont those same Republican Bloggers admit that their President over the past eight years has achieved nothing short of criminal, and should be taking the place of those at Guantanamo.

    Aside from the policies Obama has which are right, good, and above all, hopeful for a country that has relied too long on the reckless behaviour of the wealthy, it's the symbol that is enduring and so attractive. The symbol of a new World based not on the colour of somebodies skin. The symbol that you do not have to be somehow affiliated with Oil production to be welcomed into Washington. The symbol that the last eight years is dead, and a new era based not on fear or on hidden corruption and lies is replaced by intergrity, human decency, and kindness. It's a symbol that becomes increasingly difficult to avoid buying in to. I certainly buy into it fully. I do not expect Obama to be a sort of Jesus-like figure, like some do. I merely welcome the departure of the destructive nature of Republican Conservativism. It has to be fair to say that the Republicans, who have spent eight years killing, silencing, looting Nations for nothing more than individual wealth whilst all the time letting Americans know that if you feel guilty that America is causing so much pain and suffering across the planet, then you're not a true American, is over. Already, my faith in the most powerful nation on Earth is slowly renewing.

    For the past eight years, or four years at least, it's been difficult to envisage a time when "President Bush" was no more. The moment Obama was sworn in, his speech; his passion for what he was saying, inspired a smile from me, knowing it marked the end of the Bush regime so beautifully and eloquently, it rolled back the policies of the past eight years. The speech needed to renew hope and faith in America, it did just that.

    BBC News interviewed a Republican voting couple in their home in Kansas. Their home, was a 200 acre land, sixteen room house, who claimed to be "struggling". The lady they interviewed, was speaking to them from her library. I thought to myself, this is the legacy that has died today, the stupidity of people like this, the absolute nerve of these kinds of people to claim to be "struggling". The BBC did it beautifully with the voice over man saying "We interviewed the family from their 200 acre property, that they really don't need." That alone, embodies the passions of the Left.

    As I sat watching the inauguration, I could not emit the image from my mind, of the Black Panthers, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali dumping his Olympic medals because they wanted to send him to war yet wouldn't let him sit on the same bus as a white man, Rosa Parks, and all those who suffered the wrath of the Ku Klux Klan, the slaves who built the White House, the thousands of black Americans who have struggled for equality across America over the generations. Yesterday, was the greatest day in the history of black America, and a day that will be remembered forever.

    The election of President Obama is not about one man. History alone will judge the substance of his Presidency. The election of President Obama is a symbol. A symbol of how far America has come. How America does not need to be all about slamming an iron fist across the World, that love and hope is not dead, that the Republican Party has not indoctrinated the American public in intolerance, disunity and callous individualism.

    When it was all over, Obama was stood with his wife and children, the new occupants of the White house, smiling gleefully at the future, after a speech that should be carved into stone, it pained me to see them walk off without turning to George Bush and say "You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so, whatever you do say will be used as evidence in court"..... maybe one day.

    Still, Did the BBC really need to tell me what roads in Washington were closed today? My car barely gets me to Tesco in Wigston.

  • 3 Comments
  • Post A Comment!
  • Permanent Link


    • Immigrants: We need them!!

    2009-Jan-20
    This blog will argue that immigration is much needed. I'd appreciate genuine arguments against my blog instead of the usual "fucking muzzies coming to our country with their fucking burkas, fuck off, you terrorist scum".

    INTRO:
    I'm becoming increasingly uneasy about the level of animosity toward anyone who happens to have an Asian skin complexion in this country, particularly in the City I live, Leicester. Whenever someone says "I'm not racist but...." you can guarantee they've been reading the Daily Mail, and are about to spew some disgusting out of date bile.

    I've said before, the majority of British Nationalists, who insist that they love our Country and see immigration eroding our culture, have absolutely no knowledge of our 'culture' other than the fact that they like to drink a lot, fight a bit, and be a bit racist. Our culture consists of historical events like the Protestant Reformation during Henry VIII, Edward and Elizabeth's reigns, the Civil War of the 17th Century, art movements like Gothic, Renaissance Realism, pop art and post-modernism, the horrors of the Great War that saw the deaths of millions of people for less than a square foot of land. The fight for liberalism, as Churchill's army of warriors defeated the destructive force of Fascism. This is our culture, and the Nationalists are the ones responsible for trying destroying it.

    We have a large Asian community in Leicester. One of my friends tried to suggest that the white man is in the minority in Leicester now. He went on to suggest over 70% of the City must now be foreign. I disagreed. He laughed and decided to insult my intelligence some more. It annoyed me quite deeply. He suggested that if I look around, it's like "spot the white man".
    Firstly, even if that was the case, why is that a problem? If I were the only white guy living on my street, what's the problem? As long as they don't treat me like shit, why should I care? It's a skin colour. It does not go deeper than that.
    And secondly, I was fucking right. According to Leicester City Council, the White race accounts for 63% of the population of Leicester. So to sum that up, I was right, he was wrong.

    I'd now like to argue against those who believe Immigration should be cut off, and we should "keep Britain White".

    AGE:
    During the 1950s, after the War, we in Britain had what is described as the "baby boom". Soldiers coming home and starting families. Between the 1980s and today, we have a "baby slump". Hundreds of thousands of more women are starting careers early and not having children. Which means, we have an ageing population. The baby boom generation is getting old. The younger generation need to support the pensions of those ageing majority. This is known as the "dependency ratio". Given that there aren't enough younger people to deal with this, if we took the BNP line and stopped immigration completely, we'd have the worst pensions crises ever. If this extended to Europe, according to the author Philippe Legrain, the population of Europe would fall by 60 million by 2050. This creates a worker shortage, meaning businesses close, deflation sky rockets. An economic disaster. You need immigration.

    The Welfare State:
    I refuse to give a response to the awful "they come over here, taking all our benefits" whilst in the same breathe muttering "they come over here, taking all our jobs", it's an old outdated argument that no one has been able to prove.
    The majority of immigrant workers come to Britain (according to Home Office Stats) in their 20s. They then start to work, they pay taxes.
    Those workers have not been to British schools and so they have cost the tax payer nothing, whilst they pay back into the tax system. Which means more investment into public services like The NHS. So actually, we benefit, not them.
    Many then start up a business, paying more into the tax system. Perhaps they'll then have children, who will go to British schools, on the money pumped into the tax system by their parents, which is fair and just. All the time contributing to an ageing British population.

    "GO HOME!!"
    Many immigrants come here for a better life. If you lived in a Country where you feared for the life of you and your family every day, wouldn't you jump at the opportunity for a better life elsewhere?
    The Phillipines has began calling those people who leave the country, to work abroad "heroes". This is because the workers, after paying tax in America for example, then send some of their earnings home, which boosts the local economies, allowing the National economy of these countries to grow, lifting millions out of poverty. It has no damaging affect on America. It's a boost to the poor nation's economy, and it's much needed. Otherwise we get rich, whilst the poor get worse and worse, and that's simply wrong. It also then means the poor countries are able to create new opportunities, new jobs, new exports, which benefit us directly.

    Job Creation:
    "Stealing all our jobs" seems to be suggesting that there is a static number of jobs, limited in presence, and that immigrants are fighting the British born Whites for those jobs. This is simply ignorance.
    When an immigrant comes to live here, he's going to need a house, a car, a bed, a bath, a towel, a mug, a photograph frame, sugar, a carpet, and every other luxury you can possibly imagine. When 200,000 come here, there is a sharp rise in demand for such objects, which means production needs to increase, which means new jobs need to be created for supplies to meet demand, which means instead of stealing all our jobs, immigration create jobs. It's basic economics. If we denied these people access to our country, demand would fall sharply, prices would deflate, wages would dramatically decrease because the pool of unemployed would get bigger and bigger as businesses everywhere shut up shop.
    We'd all be worse off.

    "This Country is a mess!!"
    To suggest the country is now a mess, is to compare it to a previous time when it wasn't a mess. I'm not sure that this has ever been the case. Was it the 1900s during a needless war in which parents watched as their children were sent to their deaths for no good reason? Or the 1920s during the Great Depression? Or the 1940s and World War, when kids were sent away from cities and their parents? Or the 1950s/60s when women were treated as 2nd class, gay people were imprisoned simply for their sexuality and racial prejudice was rife? Or the 1970s when our binmen went on strike leading to the winter of discontent? Or the 1980s when the miners went on strike and 60% of Liverpool was unemployed? Or the 1990s when The Spice Girls topped the charts?
    When was the World and in particular Britain, perfect? It wasn't.

    My conclusion:
    A Nation is simply a line on a map. A meaningless flag. A place where those who have deep Patriotic feelings can get together and proclaim just how wonderful their Country is compared to the rest of the World.
    We are all citizens of the same Planet. We all benefit each other economically. We all bring with us knowledge and cultural awareness that can benefit each other both socially and for our own mental strength. Only by mixing and interacting, sharing and understanding, can there ever be anything near to peace.

  • 0 Comments
  • Post A Comment!
  • Permanent Link


    • Heathrow Expansion

    2009-Jan-19
    As you walk down toward Parliament, from Trafalgar Square, whilst Lord Nelson looms proudly overhead, you enter Whitehall; Civil Service Paradise. On the right hand side of the street you can expect to be greeted by miserable police men standing guard over a huge cast iron fence; the entrance to Downing Street. Time ago, the public could freely walk down Downing Street, but now it's blocked off. What do they fear? An unhappy British public backlash against broken promises and devious lies?

    Perhaps blocking off Downing Street should be extended to the small town of Sipson in West London, the site of the proposed Third Runway at Heathrow. The entire village is being knocked down. The residents who live there have no say. The Government hasn't apologised. The residents have to move. And yet, this hardly gets a mention. The focus of the Nations attention both in opposition to the plans and in support of the plans, revolve around the Environment, no one appears to want to mention the 700 people displaced by this announcement. One lady living in the village talked of how horrible she felt, telling her young daughter that their school was to be demolished and that they'd have to move away from her friends. No doubt she's wondering why a Labour Government could be so much of a suck up to Big Business. What do I think of the situation?

    The Environment?
    It's disastrously rich of the government to be asking the public to cut down on Carbon Emissions, to tell us that higher taxes on bigger cars is tough but needed, that we're all guilty, and then decide to build the third runway at Heathrow. According to BBC News last week, emissions on the third runway at Heathrow, in a year, would be twice as high as the entire nation of Kenya. Surely a third runway is encouraging Air Travel? Thus increasing emissions? Thus encouraging Global Warming?
    The Government has pledged to only allow new technology with low emission rating aircraft to be using the Third Runway come 2020. The only flaw in this ingenious plan is that we don't have any low emission rating aircraft, nor have any been designed. The entire fate of 700 villagers in Sipson, rests on the concept that by 2020 we might have better aircraft. In 2020, we might have flying cars, so i'd quite like to build a landing pad where Number 10 Downing Street is.
    The Gov said that by 2050, they want carbon emissions from Heathrow to have dropped by 80% to below 2005 levels. Which in laymans terms means that for the next 21 years at least, emissions will rise over 80% from 2005. What about the 700 homes?

    The Economy:
    This week the widening of the M1 between Junction 21 and Junction 31 was cancelled, putting hundreds out of work, South West Trains cut 480 jobs earlier this week. Woolworths bust, MFI bust, B&Q look close to failure, banks not lending but sucking up public funds, all this despite a huge injection of the wealth of the nation into the private sector to save the economy and jobs. A better financial infrastructure complete with an overhaul of the entirely useless FSA, better public transport including a better bus system, cheaper train pricing (It cost for £42 today to travel from London to Leicester...... it'd cost £10 petrol to drive it..... where's the incentive to catch the train?) and investment in new, clean public transport... perhaps a 'greener' tram system like the one running Nottingham. Stop taxing drivers heavily! We need incentive to ditch our cars. The answer is not building a new runway. Those jobs at the new Heathrow runway do not exist, they aren't affecting anyone's lives like the jobs lost at Woolworths or the road building scheme. No jobs would be lost if this project was cancelled because none have been created so far. But still......What about the 700 homes?

    The Expansion?
    The expansion of Heathrow is supposedly going to deal with the fact that Heathrow is jam packed already. Even though, Heathrow is not jam packed. The only people i've heard say that Heathrow is struggling to keep up with growing demand, are the Chief Exec. of BAA, the Financial Director of Virgin and Geoff Hoon. As if that's a surprise. Most people see Heathrow, notice that prices are falling rapidly, and we wonder, if demand was that high, surely prices would soar? Isn't that the backbone and fundamental idea of the free market system?
    What happens when Heathrow's third runway reaches full capacity (assuming of course these new low emission aircraft save the day)? Will we need to build a fourth runway to keep up with Rome and Paris too? Or will the Government of that future date say "Woah woah woah, we have five fucking airports in London already!!! Heathrow, Luton, Kent, Gatwick and Stanstead, let's improve facilities first!" I hope so. And still, What about the 700 homes?

    Sipson?
    Ah onto the 700 homes that the Government does not care for.
    As well as the obscene notion that a Government has the right to decide the fate of the lives of 700 residents, by having no second thought in planning the demolition of their homes, there are also those to be taken into consideration who will live next to the new runway. The Gov appears to be of the opinion that people who live north of Sipson will be more than happy to allow a new runway to disrupt their lives with noise pollution, and carbon emissions. If we take those people into consideration, along with the 700 residents of Sipson, we have a total of over 2000 residents affected by this.
    Heathrow Primary school, one of the best in the region will be gone, William Byrd Primary School would be just past the runway, meaning low flying aircraft every few minutes taking off and landing. Harmondsworth Primary school would sit in between Runway two and the new Runway three. Perfect place for a Primary School i'm sure you'd agree.

    Labour?
    It is not the policy of a left of centre Government to be so heavily influenced by the demands of big Business. As the Guardian pointed out yesterday, many of New Labour's senior members have strong connections to the Aviation industry.
    How does a Labour government allow big bankers to "speculate" so much so that millions of people lose their jobs and their savings to these crooks who inevitably get away with it, yet 700 innocent lives are destroyed by the introduction of runway at an airport, designed to ease the travel woes of such cretinous bankers.
    Labour, are born out of Socialist ideals. A socialist ideal does not involve the destruction of 700 homes and the lies that try to justify it. Nor does it involve blatant disregard of their past, to concentrate on business ties. It appears to be another stab in the back of Humanitarian beliefs and fuel in the furnaces of the speeding money money money train.
    I'd agree that the difference between a left wing government and a right winged Conservative counterpart, is the left wing's appetite for progression, both socially and economically, but the proposed expansion of Heathrow is beyond wrong. It cannot be allowed to go ahead.
    Labour MP John McDonnell was suspended by Labour this week for his strong opposition to the Heathrow proposal. Punishing those who disagree with you? We're not Zimbabwe for Christ's sake. We're a leading Democratic Nation. And yet, our MPs are not allowed to disagree with the destructive nature of this current Government without fear of suspension. They appear scared to put it to a House of Commons vote too. Because, they'd lose. Much like the EU "Treaty".

    The plans need to be scrapped, but here exists the problem. For the plans to be scrapped, the Tories would have to win the next election for the plans to be abolished, and that's a risk not worth taking.

    Perhaps we could build a third runway over Downing Street.

  • 1 Comments
  • Post A Comment!
  • Permanent Link


    • We're all American now

    2009-Jan-14
    Am I going mad?
    Or am I one of the few sane people left in the Western World?

    I sat watching George Bush deliver another speech of bullshit and propaganda in which he metaphorically masturbated Tony Blair. Blair was awarded The Presidential Medal of Freedom for his success in fighting terrorism. I'd assume this refers to the biggest disaster in war history, perhaps worse than Vietnam: Iraq. Currently this doesn't surprise me. We seem to have become a World dedicated to rewarding failure. When asked why Goldman Sachs' top guys will still be getting a bonus this year, The Independent was told "you have to pay big money to get the best guys"... such are 'the best guys' whose company is guilty of corruption, incompetence and partly responsible for the destruction of the entire free market. And those are the best guys? I'd hate to see the worst guys. Do they just sit in a room throwing faeces at a wall?

    At one point, referring to Blair, Bush used the phrase "...Helped to free millions of people in Iraq". If we must use that dreadful lie, we must also use "Has helped murder 600,000 innocent Iraqi people including many children, along with thousands on our own troops, whose family still don't know what cause their sons, husbands, brothers, uncles died for."

    It was one of those horribly cringeworthy speeches, that only George Bush appears to deem appropriate. I'm neither casting a negative nor positive judgement on Blair as a Prime Minister. In fact, I quite liked him when it comes to domestic issues, but based on his foreign policy and his 'special' friendship with the World's most villainous Terrorist Bush, his legacy will always be judged in a horribly even if somewhat unfairly negative light.

    Bush thanked Blair for his public support for 'freedom' and 'liberty'. Whenever those phrases are used so frequently, I wonder to myself what they mean, what they stand for exactly. Is it that in one breath we support Democracy, and then denounce it the moment a political party that does not like us, wins an election? Is it condemning homosexuality? Is it making flag buring a crime? Is it support for the regimes of dictators like Pinochet, because he's agreeing to let your companies exploit his people? Is it seeking nuclear proliferation across the globe, yet hypocritically having the largest stock pile of nuclear arms on the planet? Is freedom experienced by the innocent men being held at Guantanamo without representation? Is freedom the love of warantless wiretapping? Experts (according to 'The Economist') have said that under the Bush administration, classified documentation has rised from 8.1 million in 2001 to 14.2 million in 2005 and that it is now much more difficult to obtain documents under the freedom of information act than ever before. Is this the Freedom the Bush administration so happily boasts about? Ex-felons (according to the Economist again, one in thirty seven adults in America has spent time behind bars) in some States, are banned from voting.

    Bush went on to applaud Blair's attitude to spreading Democracy across the globe. That Democracy goes hand in hand with freedom. He must be speaking of the failure to export Democracy to countries that just don't want it, but killing enough people whilst trying? Or perhaps it's the continued support for Governments like the Eqyption Government, whose President 'Mumbarak' has been in power for 28 years? Is it condemning Hamas and cutting off Aid because Hamas' goal is to destroy Israel, yet standing side by side with Israel when their goal since birth has been to clear it's region of all Islamic influence? Is it condemning Iran for testing missiles, yet ignoring Israel when they (according to U.S Intelligence - as much as an oxymoron as that is- Officials) "conducted an exercise that simulated a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities"? Or was it the support for the murderous regime of Batista in Cuba, yet (and unsurprisingly) hypocritically condemning every breath Castro takes. Right winged murderous dictators GOOD? Left wing, whether murderous or not, BAD? Freedom is only freedom when it suits American economic interests. Democracy is only democracy when the out come means that McDonalds can poison as many local water supplies as it can get it's hands on.

    Blair should not have been given this medal. He was awarded it in 2003 but has only agreed to collect it this year. Can you imagine the out cry it would cause among the families of dead soldiers who to this day do not understand why their children have died in a war zone, who have been given no reason or explanation, that the man who sent them to their deaths, is being rewarded for doing so? It's a horrible consequence of a horrible period of history controlled by those who profit from War.

    In a loose way, and perhaps this is where Bush feels so strongly about rewarding Blair for his help in achieving, we're all American now.
  • 1 Comments
  • Post A Comment!
  • Permanent Link


    • The meaning of maturity

    2009-Jan-12
    In a relatively short amount of time I turn 23. With this, comes the expectation of maturity. I sincerely wonder what maturity means. I want to say maturity begins when you start to accept "reality" but "reality" is subjective. There is no making sense of the World, ever. Therefore "Maturity" simply means "Giving up on trying to figure the World out". I consider the young person, who has no inhibitions, or worries, or responsibilities to be the epitome of humanity. Thriving to learn instead of thriving to earn.

    As a 19 year old I started to question everything in life. From work, to authority, from money, to responsibility. I questioned it, because it seems forced upon us. We do not choose a life of work, a life of bending over for authority, we're expected to embrace it, because it just IS. It's how it is. There is no other route. I started to question this. Why am I working to make other people money? When I grow old, would I look back on a life as an I.T Technician and say "well that was worth it". Who am I benefitting other than the guys in charge? In what way, is that life not a waste?
    Instead of being encouraged to question everything, never accept anything as set in stone, instead of being helped to understand the search for answers, we're instead told to "grow up" or "get a job" or "stop slacking". It isn't slacking, it's being a human, not a money making machine.

    I've questioned things like this ever since. But I get the horrible feeling that i'm supposed to question it, i'm expected to have the rebellious attitude, but then by the time I reach my mid twenties, the thought train crashes, and maturity is supposed to kick in. The word "Maturity" itself strikes me as somewhat contradictory. Maturity, if I were to write the dictionary, means "giving up" and accepting everything as it is, never questionning and just adhering, accepting that nothing will ever change, becoming "reality's" bitch. In essence, that's maturity. And yet the word itself, has come to represent sophistication, discipline, mental strength and strong ambition. It's contradictory because there is no mental strength in trading in your core beliefs for a life of aquiscing to every request thrown at you in the hope of a decent pay packet.

    Maturity is a word that represents a dubious ideal that i'm not entirely sure I want to be a part of. It goes on my list of manipulative language along side 'Freedom' and 'Democracy'. In my overly "immature" mind, I see nothing wrong with a deep need to question the World. A deep need to reject Authority on the basis that these people are just people, regardless of social status, and a deep need to never accept the way things are, to want to see an improved World. This isn't the product of the general theory of immaturity, simply me being me.

    Kids, teenagers and people within their early twenties want to ask Why. "Why" are things as they are? "Why" can't the world be better? "Why" must we all live by Conservative values and just accept the way things are? The transition to maturity simply means abandoning that beautiful longing for answers, and replacing it with blind acceptance. If this is maturity, I never want to be mature.

    So what else then, constitutes maturity? The ability to rationalise an argument? A lot of Politicians can't do that today. In fact, a lot of business men and women, and a lot of fully grown adults are incapable of throwing together a logical argument. The ability to say sorry when one is wrong? That's not maturity, that's common sense and a good upbringing. Or is maturity simply the idea that we should never stop questioning, we should never stop laughing, we should never take anything in life seriously, and we should never stop playing.
  • 2 Comments
  • Post A Comment!
  • Permanent Link


    • The less we care...

    2009-Jan-11
    There appear to be a growing number of Wordpress blogs sporting this tshirt design. "Communism killed 100 million people and all I got was this lousy tshirt." As a Socialist, this instantly grabbed my attention.

    Communism has killed no one. Communism, like Capitalism, has never been achieved. Different degrees of Socialism have been achieved, but never the extreme of either wing. Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, or Castro's Cuba are all Totalitarian Dictatorships. Marx talked of a Classless, Stateless system as true Communism. Anything short of this is not Communism. When the Right Wing uses Communism to suggest responsibility for millions of innocent lives lost, they take the blame away from the crazed dictators like Stalin and Mao, and into the hands of an ideology that never existed in the first place.

    But if they insist on suggesting that Communism is responsible for millions of deaths, using their very logic, let's examine the alternative, Capitalism.
  • Millions die every year in parts of Africa, because parts of Africa don't have natural resources that the Americans can use as a reason to invade and free the country.
  • AIDs and other disease victims throughout the third world who are denied access to the much needed treatments and drugs, because the Pharmaceutical companies might lose a bit of money.
  • Every victim of the Iraq war. Including British and American soldiers.
  • In fact, every victim of a war waged by America against any nation that isn't Democratic or isn't allowing McDonalds to set up shop, since the 1950s.
  • The miners and the child chimney sweeps of the Industrial Revolution.
  • The local tribes who were displaced so that Coca Cola and other such companies can use the Water supply, which they then contaminate, causing untold dreadful mutations and deaths.
  • The wiping out of the left wing of Chile, under Pinochet, supported by America and Britain.
  • Opposition to Organised Crime backed candidates for Political positions in "liberated" Eastern Bloc nations, who happen to have connections to the US and UK intelligence quarters. Proving that justice and politics is just as much a commodity as the rest of the World.
  • Famine and extreme poverty victims. We can afford to feed all of these people. But it isn't profitable, so we don't. Inexcusable.
  • Anti-Communist waged wars.
  • The people who die in fuel poverty every year because E-on and British Gas quite like the idea of giving their bosses huge bonuses.
  • The forgotten people of the poor undeveloped nations, who are used for profit and then slung out into the mud the moment they aren't valuable any more.
  • Over the next century, millions more, due to the frenzied, animal like chase for natural resources, slowly killing the planet. The very essence of an unplanned economy.

    It is easy for me to blame all those deaths, on Capitalism. But that isn't intelligent. Much like blaming Communism itself for millions of deaths, isn't a well thought out logical argument. Capitalism did not cause the deaths of the people mentioned above. Terrible regimes, and failures of Government caused those deaths. In much the same way as Communism is not responsible for the extreme amount of deaths under the dictatorship of Stalin. In much the same way that Islam is not responsible for 9/11.

    There is no justifiable way to explain away the deaths of those under Dictatorships using the cover of "Communism" such as the deaths of....
    20 million in the Soviet Union, 65 million in the People's Republic of China, 1 million in Vietnam, 2 million in North Korea, 2 million in Cambodia, 1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe, 150,000 in Latin America, 1.7 million in Africa and 1.5 million in Afghanistan. However, us Left Wingers, can freely and happily denounce the Right Wing propaganda attempts to suggest that the ideology of Communism itself is responsible for those deaths, because it isn't, any more so than Capitalism is responsible in some part, to the billions of deaths since the early 1900s throughout the World.

    Only today, The Observer ran a story about Primark using a range of products from a producer who use illegal immigrants paid at just under half the minimum wage. The workers, who naturally come to the West for a better life, for a better chance for their families, are used for cheap labour (£3 an hour they're paid, not a living wage) for 12 hours a day, for seven days a week. We all know Primark exploits. We all know the only reason clothes are disturbingly cheap in Primark is because poverty stricken men, women and children throughout the third World are exploited every hour of every day. And the majority of us don't care. The less we think about it, the less we care. The less we care, the more ignorant, oblivious, greedy and self important we become. This is the result of the Capitalist way of thinking.

    Long Live Socialism.
  • 0 Comments
  • Post A Comment!
  • Permanent Link


    • In defence of Socialism

    2009-Jan-6
    I'm driving past my local hospital not too long ago, and noticed they're now charging people to park. This includes visitors or people bringing someone to the hospital to be treated. It's so so wrong that we've came to the point in history, where that's acceptable, where no one complains, and if we do complain, we're ignored. It's wrong that no one cares. I cannot find a way to justify it.

    London has a huge homeless population. Some are there because they choose to be. They've somewhat heroically rejected the materialistic World. Others are there because their lives have been plagued from day one, abusive parents, warped minds, leading to drug addictions, a circle of pain that seems unbreakable. Some are there because they're just lazy. Whatever the reasons for being on the street, no one should be left to freeze on a cold Winters night. I don't care where we are as a society, no self important prick has the right to utter "get a fucking job" to the freezing man on the street. No one knows his circumstances, no one knows his background, and yet he's abused, by what seems to be a much more greedy, self important, individualistic, selfish population.

    It's a system i'm growing to despise every day. I once heard ex Conservative leader Michael Howard refer to Socialism as a "plague" and I wondered, why is Socialism a plague, and yet he advocates a system in which 50% of the Wealth of the World is concentrated in 2% of the Population? Surely that's a plague worse than Cancer? Socialism mearly wants to take that 50% of the World's wealth, and buy the food needed to feed the Planet. If it's possible (which it is) it should be done! It's disgraceful that it isn't.

    No one deserves a better standard of healthcare or education based on how much money they have. It's a preposterous idea that needs to be eradicated from human thought. Money does not make a person more deserving of fundamental human necessities.

    Indian steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal is officially Britain's richest man, with a staggering personal wealth of £19bn. I don't know if you can comprehend that. I certainly can't. What I can comprehend, on a humanitarian level, is that whilst Mr Mittal has more money than he could ever possibly use, every few seconds a person dies because he/she cannot afford basic food and water. Is this the system Mr Howard finds so spectacular? If even one person dies of such severe poverty, the system that allows it to happen, is so very wrong.

    It's a system that doesn't take into account the future. It goes from Country to Country sucking up all the resources needed to sustain life, as quickly as possible for the sake of a few extra dollars, not caring that future generations are going to be left with a dead World. Forests destroyed for profit. Species of animal destroyed for profit. Mile upon mile of water contaminated so that Coca Cola can profit even more so, at the expense of the people who live there. I cannot morally justify such a system.

    Obviously a system that allows the guys at the top to gain a disgusting amount of wealth and therefore power, will mean that no one at the top or aiming for the top is ever going to criticise this system, they will ensure that the masses think the current system is the height of society. I suggest those people who fall for such nonsense, go take a walk around the Sudan, or closer to home, the forgotten areas of England, and America. Let's ask the people who have been failed by the system, whether the system has helped them develop as people, or just shit all over them, in favour of the minority with the business mind.

    Instead of buying a brand new Porsche, why doesn't the company boss pay his workers more than minimum wage? If minimum wage wasn't in place, you can bet that most workers would be on as less as possible, regardless of the work they do. If i'm paid £50 a day making tshirts, and the tshirts are selling for £5. Surely I should stop working after 10 have sold? Anything else, and i'm essentially working for free? If I then see my boss go and buy a lovely new yaht, do I not have the right to demand a pay rise?

    One of my favourite arguments for the current Economic system, is "it rewards hard work". Does a Premiership footballer work harder than a man cleaning the streets every day? Does Tom Cruise work harder than the man making the bread so you can eat? Let's put the Premiership footballers and Hollywood actors on strike for a month, at the same time as the street cleaners and the food producers, and see what you miss the most. It's the ignorant suggestion that a lawyer working two hours a week, is some how working harder than a cleaner working all day every day. It's a distribution of wealth that is aimed at gaining as much power over others as possible. No one has that right. And it's consuming everything. The poet, is now only a poet for financial gain. Any other reason, would be futile. The Philosophy, is a philosopher for financial gain. Who's going to publish a book that may not make a lot of money? The Musician is no longer the genius, he's the pop star who Simon Cowell can make millions from. It's a system that finds primative people across the World, and says "Ok here's the deal, you either work long hours for us in extremely poor conditions, or we'll take up all your land, and you'll probably just starve to death." It's disgusting, it's vile, it's something I could never advocate. It needs to change.

    England now sees me as a commodity. I should be selling my labour to pay taxes to fund tax cuts for big business. That's all I am now. A commodity. A money making machine. I am no longer a human. No one is a human any more. We're all just here to make money for those of us who already have too much. We could have been repeatedly raped as children, grown up mentally disturbed because of it, and unless we're working 9-5 everyday, the British Public fresh from thirty odd years of a selfish Thatcherite legacy will have no sympathy. You're like a broken TV , worthless, if there was room at land fills, you'd be stuck beneath their broken fridge, or underneath pile after pile of out-of-date food that the Third World would kill for. The Capitalist World tells me I shouldn't worry about who I am, or dwell on how i'm feeling, or try to express myself, or search for a more meaningful purpose to my life, if there isn't money to be made in the process. "I hate money, it's a fucking fetish" - Che Guevara.

    After reading Trotsky and Marx, Friedman and Mises, along with many more Socialist and Capitalist writers, after infact reading more Capitalist theory than Socialist in the hope that i'd be able to challenge my own preconceptions on humanity, I find myself unable to justify Capitalism and the deregulated markets. With every book on Capitalism I read, I find myself pulling closer to Socialism than ever before. Capitalism makes wolves out of good men. Communism is the unspoken ideal.


  • 2 Comments
  • Post A Comment!
  • Permanent Link


    • An Iconic Hero

    2009-Jan-3
    "Che was the most complete human being of our age."
    Jean-Paul Sartre

    Every generation needs a hero. Every generation needs that one person who stands out above the rest as a symbol of resistance. Someone, that the little man can relate to. Every generation needs someone so different, so willing to fight for the people who cannot fight alone for themselves, the forgotton people, the used and abused people, the exploited people. We all need someone to show us that we've all become a little too obsessed with the disturbingly life-consuming chase for individual wealth, that we're forgetting our duty to humanity as a whole. Especially to those less fortunate. There is nothing any one can tell me, to convince me that allowing people to die every day of extreme hunger, whilst others across the World buy their third or fourth house, a yaht, and a new holiday home in Cyprus, can be justified in any way whatsoever.

    It's strangely satisfying to know that such a man, such a great man, is hated by the majority of Conservatives, Capitalists, and American Imperialists. It's a two finger salute that generation after generation will read The Motorcycle Diaries, and wear the iconic Che tshirts, with their red Che posters, as a reminder that people are more important than money, whilst no one will ever wear a tshirt with Margaret Thatcher's face, or Ronald Regan's face, i'd be surprised if anyone names their child "George" again, after the past eight years. Whenever American Imperialists insist on describing someone other than every Republican currently running their country as "communist" or "insurgent" my instant reaction is "ah so what they mean is, people who don't want to become just another American state".

    There are many right winged blogs that shout "terrorist" at the very mention of Che Guevara, and yet they have very little problem with the abuses of America, of Britain, of all Western nations, who continue to manipulate the word "freedom" in the most grotesque, and evil of ways. Che was no terrorist.
    "Here's a list of people he had killed!!!" - Let's set up a list of those killed by American imperialism over the past fifty years shall we? Che killed, because he had to, if he didn't kill, he'd have been killed, That's what war does. None of those killed, were innocent. That's a fact. And yet, more innocent people have died as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than non-innocents. Who's the terrorist now?


    He taught me to think — he taught me the most beautiful thing which is to be human.
    "Urbano", former Cuban rebel fighter


    The same people who cannot help but critise every thing Che Guevara stood for, or his methods, his fight, are the people who bitterly claim Obama to be an evil anti-christ and Socialist. These people are boring now. We've heard their shit for twenty five years. Their free market masturbation, that has lead to the World financial crises perhaps ever. We're bored of it.


    "Che's life is an inspiration for every human being who loves freedom. We will always honor his memory."
    Nelson Mandela


    "He killed people! He's nothing but a terrorist!!" - He killed those who would have killed him given the chance. We don't live in that World. We can never know what it's like to live in a country under a corrupt government that happens to be supported by the Americans, who systematically execute anyone who disagrees with them. We don't know what it's like to live in a World where you should just give in to Capitalism, whilst you watch people dying of starvation all around you.... whilst the ignorant Capitalist Conservatives hail your nation as "free". In a World where you kill or be killed, Che was no terrorist, he was a freedom fighter, a doctor, a teacher, a poet, a writer, a revolutionary. And let's face it, he could never kill as many innocent people as Britain and America has since 2003 (over 600,000 now I believe). If the Right Wing are happy to ignore their politicians horribly destroying lives across the World, purely for profit, then they cannot complain when the Left Wing start to react with violence against their opressors.

    The CIA throughout Latin America during the 1940s and 1950s financed corrupt regimes like those of Pinochet, or Batista, or Videla setting up "death squads" to kill off any resistance. Anyone who stands up against such a dangerous machine, anyone who fights that machine, fighting fire with fire, willing to endure the struggle, is a true hero.

    It usually works like this...

  • America and Britain support a corrupt Capitalist government. Purely for money making opportunities.
  • That corrupt government (for example Cuban under Batista, or Chile under Pinochet) causes untold suffering and poverty.
  • The left wing is all but wiped out.
  • Someone from the oppressed nation steps forward and says "enough is enough" and fights back, sticking up for the less fortunate.
  • America refer to that person as a terrorist.
  • America go to war somewhere..... kill thousands..... anyone who fights back, is a terrorist.
  • If you say "woah woah woah, this isn't right!!!" you're "unamerican" or maybe you're a terrorist too!!!

    Mark Falcoft in his book on Che, had this to say...
    "What has made Guevara a cultural icon is not his example for poor countries, but his capacity to provoke empathy among the spoiled youth of the affluent West."
    I think this sums up the legend of Che Guevara perfectly. You look at Che, you find out what he stood for, and you're introduced to a world where the rich man will do the most evil of things to increase his wealth whilst the poor man lingers on the edge of the mountain, supported by no man, and you cannot help but feel deep empathy. You start to think , Thank the heavens for good men, men who wont just roll over and be fucked by American imperialism. Thank the heavens for people like Che Guevara.
  • 1 Comments
  • Post A Comment!
  • Permanent Link


    • A Very London New Years....

    2009-Jan-2
    A couple of friends (Blain and Michael) of mine, along with my very beautiful girlfriend Stacy and I, took a last minute train down to London on New Years Eve, planning to stay in my Student Flat down there. Seeing the New Year arrive in that very unique London town fashion.

    Our day can be summed up as follows......

  • Camden bars at 8pm, some incredibly cockney guy and his Amy Winehouse lookalike sister, tried to sell us drugs for the next couple of hours. And ended up saying "alwite, give us ya namber, and i'll call you at midnight, the password is pineapple, you say anyfin' else n i'm 'angin up".
  • Down to the Thames for midnight. Absolutely incredible firework display. Street party that went on for the next few hours. Everyone having a fantastic time.
  • Watching some Turkish men dancing when a circle forms around them on the north bank of the Thames opposite the London Eye, suddenly, Michael joins in. Filmed and about to be uploaded onto Facebook.
  • Got to the front of the accommodation i'm staying in, and five workers were trying to hold the door shut on a crazed drunk guy singing whilst trying to fight his way in. My friend burst out laughing. We went around to the side doors, and were met by the manager of the building who yelled at my friend for laughing "That man could hurt himself!!! I bet this has really made your night!!! You're stood laughing at him! It's disgusting, you should be ashamed!"......... I don't want to live in a World where a drunken man who can barely stand needs five people in a panic trying to keep him out, isn't funny to watch.
  • Got in at 4am, me, stacy, two friends, in my flat in London.
  • Fell asleep at 5am
  • Fire alarm went off at 6am.
  • Fell asleep around 6:30am
  • For some odd reason, we were up by 11am.
  • Camden at 1pm.
  • Michael randomly decides to get his arm tatooed in Camden.
  • Walk around London for the next three hours.
  • Meet an American chick, who seems incredibly friendly, and soon to be very very rich. Make sure we get her facebook name.
  • Train home at 5:45.
  • Fell asleep at 8pm.
  • Woke up about about 12:30pm.
  • Writing this blog.

    Here's some photos for you...






















  • 2 Comments
  • Post A Comment!
  • Permanent Link


    • Cheeking it.....

    2008-Dec-29
    I never know how to greet women.
    How odd does that sound? A simple "hello" would probably suffice. I mean, when they lean in close for a kiss-cheek-greeting, my eyes widen and I panic. When I say "panic" I don't mean that I run away with my arms in the air, shouting "ARRRGGGH", that would make it impossible to leave the house ever again. I'm not that bad. But I never know what to do. Do I decide which cheek to go for? Do they present the cheek they want kissing? Do they want both cheeks kissing? If they don't mention how many cheeks will be involved in this kiss greeting, do I choose? If they only wanted one cheek kissing, and I go for the second cheek, and they pull away before I get there, what do I say? "I liked the taste of the first one so I thought 'why not' "? Where do my hands go? Normally if i'm involved in kissing, my hands are drawn to the breasts, surely that's not appropriate? What the fuck is wrong with a handshake? They're easy. They require now strategy beforehand, no tactic. Cheek kissing has no guidelines! It's chaos!

    I see people doing it all the time. Quickly. Well placed. Like they've been doing it for years. "I've been kissing cheeks for ten years now, i know the theory inside out." They know which cheek to go for, how long to kiss for, the appropriate level of "mwah" noises to make, and they slowly get into the flow of conversation, and i'm stood in awe. The lack of awkwardness, the control of chaos, is beautiful. Like when children kick a football purposely against the miserable old man's fence, and he keeps coming out to yell at them, every time, they throw him the stick of childishness, and he chases it, those kids have control of that chaos!!!

    You cannot possibly understand the indelible feeling of awkwardness when you kiss one cheek, and then pull away, whilst they (in slow motion) produce the second cheek that you now aren't kissing. And then you have to go back in, which makes it seem like you didn't want to kiss the cheek in the first place, which in turn acts not as an intended greeting, but she now feels a sharp sense of rejection.

    Similarly, you cannot possibly understand the embarrassment felt when as a male, I go to kiss the second cheek and she pulls away expecting the cheeking kissing fun to have stopped after the first. She was content with one cheek kiss. Any further kissing of cheeks, she has not consented to. You are essentially, a face rapist.

    No amount of face raping will ever come close to the most horrendous scenario known to the World of cheek kissing. It involves your partner's mother, or grandma, or aunty, someone you feel slightly uncomfortable sticking your lips on in the first place. It involves aiming for one cheek, strategically going for that left cheek, you've planned it, you're going in, you're a cheek kissing Romeo right now............ and then, just as you go to kiss that left cheek, she turns to offer her right cheek, and you've managed to miss both, getting her lips. Let's not mince our words up, let's say it like it is, you're now kissing your partner's mum. You can bet that she will recoil in horror. You start wondering what the best way to end your life would be. And then from nowhere, your partner's grandma smiles provocatively in your direction.........................
  • 3 Comments
  • Post A Comment!
  • Permanent Link


    • Pope Ahmadinejad the tampon thief

    2008-Dec-26
    Homosexuality played a key part in Christmas this year.
    Christmas just wouldn't be Christmas without the murderous middle eastern tyrant of "wanting to wipe Israel off the map" fame telling us all we should hate gays.
    Or the nazi pope telling us all that homosexuality is more damaging than Climate Change. Or, more damaging than an idiot in a hat that very much resembles those worn by the Ku Klux Klan, preaching ancient bigoted bullshit to a bunch of brain washed blinded fellow bigots. The Pope needs to stop directing his anger at ordinary people, and direct it at Leona Lewis and Alexandra Burke for metaphorically shitting on the concept of music.
    And then of course there was all the gay porn DVDs granny bought me. She says she bought me them, but they were already opened. I suspect they're the old ones that the family didn't want any more. I mean, Arse Menace II is so 1999.
    Oh and not forgetting the largely ignored fact that Jesus and his twelve disciples were raving homosexuals. Sad times.

    Christmas intrigues me. I celebrate it purely for the gifts, the smiles, the family, and of course the food. I care less that it's the Birth of a man who's life we know absolutely nothing about (The Bible is not a historical record), than I do for the fact that December 25th is also Dido's birthday. I genuinely love Christmas, because the mundanity of life becomes amplified and those little pleasures you find in the simple, seem to grow ever so large.

    As i'm searching "Boots" on the 23rd, waiting to buy even more last minute cheap gifts, wondering if I could peel the price tag off without ripping the packaging, I don't want people to know i've spent only £2 on them.......... even that's a lie..... it was £1.40, with the VAT cut and the Sale discount. I notice a kid acting suspiciously. He suddenly makes a sprint for the doors. It's amazing because it's the first time i've ever seen a chav in sports clothes, actually doing an activity other than cider drinking. As he ran for the door the security guard grabbed him. He'd tried to steal two boxes of...... Tampons. I had two questions at this point. 1) What does he need tampons for? Is his arse bleeding? Is that why he made a break for the door, he needed to get home to "plug it in?" and 2) Is he buying those for someone else? A christmas present perhaps? How pissed off would you be if your boyfriend wrapped up some Tampons for you at Christmas? Nonetheless, it was a beautiful moment made all the more beautiful by the fact that the security guard pulling the tampons away from him, was an angry woman. Is there anything more poetic in life than that?

    I was standing in the queue at "Boots", waiting to pay, when out of nowhere I heard the most paradoxical conversation ever spoken by man. It was a disaster of a conversation but oh so beautiful and Melliflous a conversation that when I recount it to you in a second, I will have to end this blog at that point, because I am unable to find the words that can properly emphasise my indelible joy.
    So prepare yourselves....

    Old man 1 : Ello Dave!
    Old man 2 : Oh ello Kev, how you been?
    Old man 1 : Yeah not bad, how you been?
    Old man 2 : I've been top class mate, how's Edith fairing up these days?
    Old man 1 : She....she died.
    Old man 2 : Oh Kev I am sorry.............................................. looking forward to christmas?
  • 2 Comments
  • Post A Comment!
  • Permanent Link


    • Vote Jamie!

    2008-Dec-23
    I plan to put my name forward for President of the World. So thought it wise to provide you with reasons to vote for me.

    Immigration: Should have an annual cap, i'd agree with that. But immigrants who are in this country, should be given full rights. If an immigrant is better at a job than a British born citizen, then the immigrant should get the job. There should be absolutely no form of discrimination of the grounds of race, sexuality or religion.
    Anyone seeking asylum for fear of their life, should be given asylum. We're a liberal, caring country, it should stay that way.
    I do not believe in a "British way of life" so the rapid cultural changes that occur, i'm very much in favour of.

    Abortion: Should remain Legal on the basis that two doctors agree that it's the right thing to do. Religion should not influence the decision of anyone. I fully support a woman's right to choose. Up to 16 weeks.

    NHS: Our National Treasure. Should be well funded, free from private investment, because that's one step closer to a fully privatised healthcare system, which just cannot happen. The NHS should remain a strong British institution.
    Cut wasteful paperwork and bureaucratic nonsense that strangles the NHS.
    More NHS GP Practices in the most run down of areas. In the hope of cutting waiting lists.
    100 more Walk in centres, by 2012.

    Homosexuality: This is simple for me, homosexual couples should have exactly the same rights as hetrosexual couples. There is absolutely no reason for them not to have. Homosexuality shouldn't even be a topic of debate in this age. If God still refers to Homosexuals as an abomination, then God isn't allowed in my country.

    Religion: Everyone should have the right to believe whatever they choose without anyone causing trouble because of it. A muslim should not be made to feel like a Terrorist by self righteous British Christians. A muslim woman should not be looked down upon for wearing full muslim attire, when a Nun can quite happily wear full Christian attire and have no negative comments thrown at her. Full integration. If anyone is caught inciting racial hatred, their locked up in my country. My aim would be to stop those horribly British Nationalists petitioning Whitehall the moment a new Mosque goes up in their town.
    Religion though, will in no way affect policy making or law.

    Education: I'd put an end to Faith schools. They teach segregation. I'd introduce "Culture" classes, that promote understanding and tolerance, in which mixed race classes teach each other, learn together, and involve themselves in team work together.
    Homosexuality taught as acceptable and not as taboo.
    Evolution taught alongside Creationism, both as theories.
    EMA is a great Labour achievement, and i'd carry it on.
    Extra help for those who aren't achieving standards that they are deemed to be able to achieve.
    Compulsory councilling for those kids who misbehave constantly, to try to understand their problems instead of just chucking them out of school.
    The idea will be to, along side an academic education, join people together, and let kids know it doesn't matter if you're artistic or academic, musical or mathematical, male or female, gay or straight, black or white, from single parent families or mother and father families or brought up by gay parents. A full Liberal, accepting, tolerant education.

    Economy: Mixed. Keynesian. A lot of people are suggesting that Keynes theory is outdated, that it didn't work the first time around. The first time Keynes theory was exercised, 50 odd years ago, we were in the middle of an economic boom. We're now in Economic bust, so it's a completely different set of circumstances.
    In Jamie Land, Banks would be under heavy regulation, any smell of wrongdoing, and they're out. The bankers would be unable to receive huge bonus packages if they haven't performed as well as expected, and the sub prime market would have to undergo incredibly fine tooth combing before being accepted again.
    A higher rate of inheritance tax introduced for the top earners. If you manipulate the free market you can't then have your own brand of inter-family socialism.
    I'd create a new department dedicated to weeding out corporate wrongdoing. Any tax loopholes found to be costing the system a fair bit of money, will be closed.
    There must be a safety net for those less fortunate, there must be a sympathetic shoulder of Government that exists, compassion cannot be allowed to simply die. And so the Welfare state should provide for those less fortunate, but also must be regulated tightly.
    Child benefit will be increased to £1200 a year, paid for by a 1%
    increase in income taxes on the top earners.
    Those on low and middle incomes, will see their taxes dropped by 2%, in order to keep money in the pockets of those who need it most.
    I fully support Labour's new Savings Gateway Scheme.
    Nationalise necessities such as gas and water. People should not be in fuel poverty whilst the head of British Gas rolls in a mountain of profit. We're back to the compassionate side of Britain again. It's not fair that although oil prices have dropped 29% since August 2008, the big Utility companies are not passing those decreases onto customers, and so are raking in a fortune.
    Minimum Wage highered to £7 an hour from £5.73.
    If we can afford to give billions of pounds to bail out greedy bankers, we can afford to invest extra money in helping small businesses through personal advisors, interest free loans, and grants.
    National Insurance, for small firms will be cut by 2%.
    Higher tax rate on cigarettes and alcohol.


    Housing: There are estimated to be 750,000 vacant properties that Landlords are failing to rent out in Britain. The Jamie Government would invest in 1,000,000 new homes by 2012, in the hope of stabilising the housing market, which seems to be an ever increasing problem for first time buyers. We'd invest in many many more council houses, which would not come with the "right to buy" capability, but remain as council houses. All of which, would be far "greener" than the current stock.
    We must be strong in our conviction on where we place housing. We cannot keep throwing up tower blocks of flats, we need to commit to new villages, new green towns.
    Repossession is a final resort policy, after everything else possible has been exhausted, including financial advice from the bank.
    There will be brand new Social housing for the homeless. They will be looked after, fed, and kept safe, they will have councelling to deal with any unresolved problems they may have, but all on the basis that they agree to be helped back into work when their program of rehabilitation is complete. Whilst undergoing this rehabilitation, they will be involved in Social projects. People should not be allowed to be treated like animals on the street.

    Crime: Again, like education, I want to know what drives people to become criminals. There must be a catalyst. As well as much harsher prison sentences for the violent conduct of thugs, drug dealing, murder, rape, child abuse, theft, and other such crimes, they'd be made to undergo weekly psychiatric evaluations to attempt to understand the causes of such crimes.
    Crimes such as possession of Cannabis will warrant a three strikes policy. First time you're caught, a verbal warning, second time; a written warning, and finally, a two month prison sentence. However, the police will be advised not to focus much attention on people just having a bit of social fun, or trying to catch people speeding, and focus more attention on street gangs and thugs.
    A ten year focused plan to put armed police units in the most violent areas of the country. Any one carrying a knife, will face a minimum two year jail sentence and rehabilitation.

    Europe: Until Europe comes up with a well made Constitution, equal in quality to that of the United States of America, then we must stay at arms length, but we must also press the E.U for much tougher line on climate change, social welfare, and lowering economic tariffs. But until the Constitution and timing is perfect, we just cannot fully commit to the E.U.
    Unlike the U.S, Europe should not have a centralised governing body, but a group of States who work together.

    Transport: When it costs £40 for a crowded train journey from the midlands, to London, something is wrong. I propose a nationalised train service, to compete along side the privatised train services, in an attempt to bring prices down. If you're going to tax drivers more and more in the hope that they'll use public transport, then public transport needs to be better funded, cheaper, and more frequent services.
    OAPs still travel free at peak times on buses.
    Bus prices, to be regulated by local government.
    Subsidised school buses.
    And finally, a national tram system, similar to the one currently running successfully in Nottingham, like an overground Tube system, in every major city in the UK. If we really want people to get out of their cars and take public transport, let's give an incentive to do it. Very costly, but ultimately worth it. Progression is the only way, regardless of the opposition it initially faces.


    So that's pretty much it.
    VOTE JAMIE!

  • 1 Comments
  • Post A Comment!
  • Permanent Link


    • Two rants in one

    2008-Dec-21
    Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. - US Federal Bureau of Investigation

    "Have I Got News For You" this week showed the clip of George W Bush having that now infamous shoe threw at him in Iraq last week. The BBC Audience cheered and clapped in admiration for the man who did it. It goes to show the deep tide of hatred toward the most powerful terrorist in the World.

    Rightwingbob.com, a dreadfully ignorant Republican blogger writes "if, as is being suggested in the media, this shoeless journalist is being “hailed a hero in the Arab world,” then it just highlights some serious problems in that culture."
    - I wonder, could right wing Bob be so seriously out of touch with not only the Arab World, but the rest of the Civilised World. Should the Journalist have shook Bush's hand? Bowed to him? "Thank you oh great one, our children are dying in a shower of American bombs and my wife is in ten different pieces across our destroyed house.... but hey, we're a Democracy now, so it's all worth it!" Get a fucking grip.

    It worried me when it happened, that i'd be the only one who thought "good!! If only it'd have hit him" given that all the Conservative papers (The Mail in particular) called it "inconsiderate". The Mail went on to explain that the Journalist who threw the shoe had an opportunity to ask important questions about what we used to call American Foreign Policy and what has become known, throughout the Republican reign of terror as "American Imperialism" and that he blew it, in a mindless act of violence. I'm sorry, but when editor of the Mail's family have been needlessly blown to pieces, invaded, destroyed, for no real reason, i'd like to see him face the Terrorist who did it and ask him an important Political question. It's pathetic. If the past eight years has taught me anything, it's that the word "Terrorist" is disasterously intriguing. If in it's most definable terms, it means "one who causes terror", then I struggle to find a reason why the Bush administration are not the most horrific terrorists to ever grace the Planet. "Terrorist" seems to apply only to those who want revenge for Western aggression. Bush, ingeniously refers to these people as "those who hate our freedoms"..... They don't hate our freedoms. They couldn't care lesss if I start up my own business or not. They hate being abused. They hate being seen as an American resource. I think humanity, particularly Western Humanity, for all it's benefits, has lost touch with human decency, and become way too interested in the material side of life.

    Anyone who causes needless deaths on a grand scale, be them Muslim Extremists, or American imperialists, are terrorists. Let's quit pretending otherwise. A 2006 Washington Post study, estimated that 655,000 innocent Iraqi civilians had died since the War began in 2003. You have to start asking yourself, as a human being, have too many people died? Can anything be worth such a high number of deaths? How do you justify so many deaths? How many will need to die before the Bush Administration is investigated for crimes against humanity? Is it ok that over half a million innocent Iraqi civilians have died, because we're Western, and somehow above those laws that come down on anyone who isn't? By their own standards, by the FBIs standards, by anyone who has a heart's standards, the Bush Administration are the most dangerous group of Terrorists on the planet. There comes a time when people living in civilised societies have to be thinking that no one else needs to die.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Something somewhere within the system has gone terribly wrong when TV adverts exclaim with vengeance "Benefit thieves, we're closing in on you", and yet the World's top financiers can get away with the most despicable display of greed imaginable leading to one huge global financial mess. Of course, it's just another wondrous product of the Thatcher/Regan "What's in it for me?" years. A Conservative legacy of greed that considers single mums who "cheat" the benefit system in order to help feed their children - criminals, and considers those earning upwards of £1million, who also swindle the system in order to be able to afford a new yaht - "successful". Morally, there is something drastically wrong with a system like that. It masks itself manipulatively under the phrase "rewarding hard work".

    This whole business with Madoff for example, I cannot imagine that Santander and other such groups who invested with Madoff, didn't know what was happening. It stinks of corporate greed across the board. Not just Madoff. The Securities and Exchange Commission, the US Financial Regulatory body were warned about this, ten years ago. They seem to have ignored it.
    It is being referred to as "the world's biggest pyramid scheme". I cannot imagine that Santander, HSBC, Nomura RBOS and all the other huge financial centres who invested with Madoff didn't know what was going on. It seems they were benefitting, so it was ok. The moment there's a bit of trouble, they all seem to plead ignorance. I do not believe they are the innocent victims in this.

    As you can tell, i'm becoming increasingly alarmed with the state of the Western World. With the ideal that the free markets work magic, that greed is human nature (it isn't by the way), and that Bush may very well live the rest of his life, in a tranquill surrounding, with his family, whilst the 655,000+ deaths he ordered, continue to pain the families of the victims.
    It comforts me, albeit in the worst possible way, to know that i'm not like these money hungry, fear mongering "people" to know that if I had the power, he'd be in Guantanamo right now. The one thing that a Right Winged, War loving, profit masturbating, selfish Government can be thanked for, is that they provoke so much hatred, so much anger, that groups of Humanitarians, Liberals, and Free Thinkers pop up across the planet, in protest, to show the decent side of Humanity. We get blessed with the Bob Dylan's and the John Lennon's inspiring a generation to say "enough is enough". Is 655,000 deaths and the entire Capitalist economic system who's innocent workers trying to pay off their mortgage and feed their kids, worth it though?

    No.
    One death wouldn't be worth it.
  • 0 Comments
  • Post A Comment!
  • Permanent Link


    • The beginnings of the Tao

    2008-Dec-19
    Lately i've been spending my time reading up on the Ancient Chinese Philosophy of Tao. I do not claim to know a great deal about Tao, or it's more advanced practices. I have never attempted meditation or claimed to follow Tao to it's conclusion, I am picking and choosing which aspects appeal to my life, and can be of some help in my overly confused mind.

    For those of you who are unfamiliar with Tao, the symbol of the Yin/Yang is a Taoist symbol. The black and the white, ever changing. Black inside the White, the White inside the Black, suggests that nothing is absolute, everything is subjective. What's right to one, may be wrong to another. The Yin/Yang also represents the balance of everything. Night and Day, Hot and Cold, Right and Wrong, Male and Female, Pleasure and Pain, Life and Death. The universe is in a delicate balance.

    It gave rise to the Taoist religion of the far east. And although I will never embrace a religious doctrine, given that religious doctrines all take the power of the human mind, the love and the acceptance, and give that power to an unseen force, full of hate and intolerance, i'm always willing to accept philosophies as a guide when i'm too confused to understand the World for myself.

    Today, too much energy is wasted on fear, war, hatred, intolerance, anxiety, energy that could be used instead in a much more fulfilling role. We're all human, and we've all got to put up with each other, we may aswell at least TRY to get on and help each other as best we can. When energy is wasted on hatred, intolerance and fear, it means there is less to spend on compassion, empathy and helpfulness. We are all interconnected. It doesn't matter if you're a Christian or a Darwinist (as I am), you recognise that when you take history back to it's origin, the moment before the big bang, we were all the exact same thing. The same concept. The same. I was you, you were I, we were all the trees, the plants, the animals, we were everything and nothing at the same time. That energy was Tao. The idea is that we're always trying to reach that point of tranquility, that feeling of belonging and oneness. And Taoism offers an idea on how to achieve that feeling.

    Lao Tsu, the Taoist writer, wrote that his three treasures in life, that could never be lost, were Benevolence, frugality (the avoidance of waste) and never trying to be Number 1. I can relate to that. I like those principles. They appeal to me more than any other Philosophical principles i've come across. Benevolence is obvious. Frugality relates to patience and calm above fear and violence. Never trying to be number 1 relates to the idea that we're all the same. No one is above anybody else, that ultimately we all end up the same. The balance of life. Which goes a long way to explain why I wear a Yin/Yang around my neck.

    Tao seems to be subjective. It has no one single meaning. It can mean something different to everyone who gives it some consideration. The general definition of Tao is given as "the path" or "the way". It's the path each of us follows through life. In the same way that the universe itself follows the Tao. It's about recognising your path and following it. You put aside your worries surrounding social demands; money, profit, house, car etc, and recognise that there is more to you than that, and by following the concept of Tao, you work to achieve that end, whatever it may be.

    It doesn't matter if a person is male or female, gay or straight, white or black, as long as it's natural to the individual, as long as they follow the path that they feel is right for them, instead of falling to pressure from outside forces, they are following Tao.

    I like Tao, because it is liberal. It allows people to be themselves, interpret their own "way" the path that they chose. It's almost a
    Chinese version of St.Aquinas Natural Law theory, except much more open to change. Tao is about peace, restraint, understanding, and simplicity, in Taoist Philosophy this concept is known the principle of "Wu Wei" or "Emptiness". It promotes togetherness as opposed to separate from the World. A kind of "go with the flow" feeling. Another Taoist writer "Chuang Tzu" referred to Wu Wei quite beautifully as "purposeless wandering". Again, this is a concept I relate too. I don't want to be forever chasing things I don't really need. Trampling on people in order to make a bit of money. It's not my way. I'm slowly becoming aware of the interconnectedness of everything in life. I'm listening more to my intuition, watching closely, understanding more about myself than i've ever done before. And so naturally, i'm drawn to the Philosophy of Tao.

    Tao offers to keep your feet firmly on the ground whilst you find your own way, it provides a sense of beauty of togetherness and that essentially we're very much the same, whilst accepting that everyone and everything is very much different. It's free, and liberal, accepting and loving, it doesn't say, like so many other religious doctrines that "you MUST live like this!". It's the only Philosophy that appeals to me as ever changing and updating. And in this lack of dogmatic fundamentals, there is very little way of describing Tao, apart from "Not rushing, not forcing, but going along with and understanding the natural flow of the World".

    I think me and this Tao business are going to get a long just fine.
  • 1 Comments
  • Post A Comment!
  • Permanent Link
    • <- Last Page • Next Page ->

    About Me








  • Home
  • Register Today!
  • View my profile
  • Archives
  • Friends
  • Email Me

    Recent Posts

  • My EFX life
  • The right side of history...
  • We already know!!
  • A very Jamie update
  • The wrath of the Republican bloggers

    Links

  • My Wrestling Blog
  • My myspace Blog
  • Elisla
  • Jeremy

    Friends

  • WelshPixie
  • elisla
  • jeremy

    Networking

    Bloggers & Blogging Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory

    The Calendar

    «  February 2010  »
    MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728