The joy of sexual liberation

“One minute, he’s just a teenage lad in Alaska having joyful unprotected sex, the next minute- get to the Republican Convention! I think that is the best safe sex message of all time. ‘Use a condom, or become Republican!’ “ – Russell Brand

When a woman keeps a wild ape, and it one day acts like a wild ape, resulting in it being killed, my instant reaction is “poor ape”. When a bull fighter dies bullfighting, my instant reaction is “the bull didn’t want to be there, so I really don’t care that you’ve died”. When an ape is shot, for being an ape, I feel for the ape. I do not however, feel that Ape Legislation is needed to curb this in the future. It’s an unfortunate and mad episode that probably wont be repeated. End of discussion.

Similarly, when a fourteen year old boy impregnates a girl, my instant reaction is “aah bad luck“. Controversial as that might be, when suddenly talk of “We need more abstinence teaching” erupts, I find myself somewhat bemused and I must confess, amused. Why are they wasting their time telling me what I already know, when they could be doing something useful, like teaching the benefit of love and acceptance, understanding and tolerance? Something that will actually matter in the long run, instead preaching abstinence to a bunch of horny teenagers who will ignore everything you’ve said the moment the classroom door swings open for break time?

They could have spent six hours a day teaching me the benefits and joy of not having sex, when I was a teenager; nothing was going to stop me. It was almost like the grey haired, grey skinned Conservatives who evidently lost their personalities around about the 1970s were telling me in their equally grey, drab, lugubrious, monotone voices “We weren’t sexually delinquent, and look at us now!!” and i’m sat there thinking “yeeeeaaaah, i’m going to do the exact opposite of what you did.“

During sex education at my school, I do not remember much of what was said. Mainly due to my overbearing sex drive that still burdens my existence to this day, informing me that the woman at the front of the class showing us all how to shove a condom on a cucumber, has a great pair of tits. Abstinence is almost telling me it’s wrong and somehow “different” to find a joy in casual sex. It isn’t wrong. It isn’t different. It’s how we’d all be if society accepted it. I knew damn well that the safest form of contraception was to not have sex, but if the indelibly attractive girl sat two seats infront of me were to turn round and say “Hey Jamie, let’s have sex!“, i’d have been nude and waiting with a bed, some romantic music, and a candle (or rushing off her with me to the school toilets – more likely) before she’d finished the sentence. In the years that followed, I was a bit of a slut, and I loved it. I was suspicious, and still am (people who worked with me who read this blog, or went to school with me, who read this blog will attest to this) of authority. I always felt like I was being forced to be something i’m not. That I must be how authority wants me to be, whether that authority was a boss, a teacher or a man-made “God” (If the Jonas Brothers go to heaven, I really don’t want to go to heaven), there was always something other than my mind, telling me how to be a good person, and it conflicted with my own ideals, it seemed to contradict itself. The same people who were telling me that a good wholesome christian family was morally superior, were telling me that immigrants are ruining Britain and homosexuality isn’t natural. My idea of love and responsibility to fellow man did not follow theirs. No amount of adults (especially given that my teacher was pregnant at the time) telling me that the best option in a scenario that included me, an incredibly attractive girl and her saying “let’s have sex” would be for me to say “hey, let’s just cuddle” were going to bring me over to what I saw as their restrictive and soul destroying Sex-Nazi regime.

They still aren’t.

I have wonderful philosophy of the sexual liberation kind. An insatiable yet desirous mind like mine is such a beautiful contradiction. I’m the (some would say) disturbed kind who will see a feminist take her bra off to burn it and instead of thinking “I support your cause!!!”, i’m thinking “Bra off? She’s well up for it”. I think people know my kind as “ignorant”, I simply know my kind as “men”.

I can’t go through a day without spotting an attractive lady; a fleeting smile on a train station platform, a casual glance in a shop – and trying to act disastrously cool. The addition of the adverb ‘disastrously’ is needed, believe me. It has to be used to describe how I become when presented with such beauty. Illustrating this point perfectly; two incredibly attractive women strolled past me a year or two back, and whilst I dedicated the limited supply of energy I could to looking somewhat desirable, I tripped over. Noticing that I had committed irrevocably to the falling in an overly dramatic way, I felt I had to continue the over dramatic fall until it’s rightful conclusion, which just so happened to be an incredibly camp squeal and for the first and only time in my life, for some reason, found my self saying to the girls as they walked by laughing at the twat on the floor…. “oooooo what am I like ey?“……. Smooooooooooth.

I cannot fault anyone for having a high sex drive, and enjoying themselves. You could have slept with 2000 men or women, if you enjoy sex, then go for it. If you want to wait for the right person and have a regimented sex life, then fine, you’re individual, that’s your right. Labels such as “tart” and “slut” are not necessary.

So with that said, I did some research.
Over at goodmorals.com (When it comes to sex, me and good morals don’t mix too well, so this site was already setting alarm bells off, I sense I was about to be told off) the author had a few words to say about my sort of philosophy, and so I want to argue some of her points now, with a deep, scrupulous answer to justify my ideal of free love and salacious togetherness…….

She uses this to highlight why women are being used as sexual objects by men….
“Consider: At a daily beer-chugging contest in Cancun, boys “punish” girls who spill a drop by demanding a “breast-flashing.” A female diarist reports that “Megan and Anna” were chosen by the guys up on stage to run into the ocean and do a bathing-suit swap with the guys.”

- Is Cancun expensive? That sounds magnificent. Do Megan and Anna have Facebook? They sound fun! They certainly don’t sound like they feel dirty and raped. In fact, in that situation, and knowing the minds of young men, Megan and Anna were much more in control of those boys than vice versa.

“In a Penthouse-sponsored contest, a male audience shouts for young women to “take it off,” and many comply. “

- It’s like a filthy story. The debaucharous swines. I tell you, i’d be the first to cover my eyes, until the evil licentious acts stop. Yeah that’s a lie.

“……not to our daughters’ liberation, but to their debasement.”

- And I’d like to thank the parents of such girls for adding to my market.

“while most boys just want to have fun, so long as they can find a willing partner.”

- Are “good morals” and “fun” impossible to reconcile? If the subjective nature of “Good morals” leads me to a boring sex life, whilst frustration and stress takes over my life, then I think i’ll leave the ‘ole good moral thing to someone else.

“Second, they respected and encouraged girls’ natural modesty. In their view, modesty — the quality which leads human beings to avoid sexual displays — acts as a kind of armor to protect girls’ sexual vulnerability.”

- I never realised all women had such weak minds. Is it REALLY us men who are leading them to a terrible life of sexual fun and excitement that’s the problem? Or is it patronising snobs like the author of this site, presuming all women don’t have the power to say “no”. And this modesty thing she speaks of can fuck off. Excuse my lack of eloquence.

“Far from oppressing girls, modesty puts them on equal footing with boys, by prompting them to avoid casual sex while they search for a suitable lifelong partner.”

- That doesn’t put her on an equal footing with men!!! An equal footing with men, would mean all women were fantastically easy to bed. They aren’t. In fact, women hold much more sexual power than men! You flash your boobs my way, and I’ll happily rob a bank for you. That’s power!

“Is it only girls who lose in a pornographic culture? No, boys suffer too. For starters, they grow up confused.”

- I’m not confused. Never have been. I like sex. I like casual sex. I like relationship sex. If someone wants to sleep with thousands of people, because they enjoy it, I encourage them to. Similarly, if someone wants to wait for that one special person, although I couldn’t do such a thing, I encourage them. Go with whatever you feel is right for you. For me, what is right, is enjoying life.

“By delaying sex, girls inspire boys to strive to be worthy of them. They help boys learn to consider others’ needs and desires, and prepare them to assume the obligations of home and family.”

- By delaying sex, you’re punishing me, for not washing the dishes or something. You cannot control human nature. Some of us have high sex drives, some of us don’t. You cannot impose universal rules or principles when it comes to consenting adults. I reject the suggestion that because I quite like to … you know….. enjoy myself as it were, i’m somehow unable to consider the needs of others. If I get into Politics like I hope to, it will be purely to help those less fortunate, because the welfare of those who are unable to speak for themselves politically, I care deeply about. And of course, if they happen to be pretty, bonus!

“We buy our girls postage-stamp size tops and skirts, and drive them to movies that glamorize promiscuity.”

- I cannot thank you enough.

I wonder if the author of that site sees a Calvin Klein advert, full of muscle bound men in tight underwear and says “those poor men, they look like they’re having fun, but really…… they’re being used and exploited.”

Joking aside, why is sex such a taboo? Sex is supposed to be fun, exciting, pleasurable, and relaxing. I like the idea of sexual liberation. I never “matured” when it came to sex. I still giggle at an equivocated form of language I may have thrown together that in my mind is a magnificent innuendo, but in the minds of other’s is just a little too puerile. (Admittedly, sleeping with a girl, who’s clearly enjoying herself, and ignoring, with alarming skill, her cat sitting at the end of the bed watching every thing with it’s one working eye that appeared to say “you dirty fuckers” is a real passion killer for me…… never again… I learned from that)………..I believe in sex, free from shackles of good wholesome Christian based morality. I love the mellifluous sound of the phrase “sexual liberation” and impunity in the same way that I love immigration impunity, total freedom to roam, total freedom to fuck….. that’s my beautifully crafted political position for when I run as President of the World (It beats “Make love not war“). Be gay if you want to be gay. Sleep with whoever you want to sleep with. Attach or detach any ‘feelings’ that you feel may or may not be needed for a sexual relationship to exist. We’re here for seventy years and then, nothing. Have sex with whoever you want to, love everyone regardless of their differences, live for peace and justice, reject malice, ignore racial boundaries, help those who need it, and enjoy yourself!
Stop worrying!

Now, let’s shag!

Thatcher

Why is Thatcher all over our TV screens tonight? Documentaries, dramas, and interviews. The woman was the devil. As the Guardian said of her legacy; “Greed seemed to replace compassion as a core value.”

Me and my dad just had a huge debate.

During the 1980s we ran a small shop. We relied on factory workers coming in at lunch time, for food. Slowly, after Thatcher got in, the factories closed down and our expenditure exceeded our income (£500 rent under Callaghan……. £1500 under Thatcher). Lawson insisted that we should buy the property (my dad had met Lawson and chatted with him many times) and that we’d benefit. And then interest rates shot up and in came the poll tax. We were literally fucked. We couldn’t afford to live. The Tories fucked us over. It was just us either. It was pretty much the entire North of England. Parts of the North still haven’t fully recovered.

She destroyed British manufacturing. For every 200 jobs at McDonalds created, another 300 car manufacturing jobs were lost. And when your country doesn’t make anything to sell, there really isn’t long that gravy train of easy money can last. And so, twenty five years later, we’re all in deep puddle of rancid recession…. which can be traced right the way back to Thatcherism. Back to my story….

That small shop was our livelihood, in a horribly rough area of Leicester. My mum went downstairs in the middle of the night one night, to find my dad crying… i’ve never seen my dad cry…. saying just how fucked we were. We had to give up the business, and we were homeless for a while, until my dads friend very kindly rented us one of his houses, very cheap, which we’re still in now.
There were thousands like us. Miners, industry workers, small family business owners making just enough to get by. Our problem was, we didn’t wear suits and work in offices. And so Thatcher punished us. She offered no retraining. She offered no support. She tore a Nation apart and made it richer in the superficial short term. She is responsible for where we are now. Inequality doubled under her, homelessness shot up, and human suffering became a largely ignored concept.
To then hear her say “The poor only have themselves to blame”, makes me, to this day, want to piss on her grave the moment she dies.

She made it ok for John Major, as Prime Minister in 1993 to say that the “Recession is over”. How short sighted and despicable. The recession wasn’t over for the three million unemployed under Thatcher, or the miners and industry workers who aren’t being retrained. The recession isn’t over now, when we still get letters demanding payment for items that we couldn’t sell, twenty years ago.

Every time a Republican over in America speaks, they echo the same sentiments Thatcher was ramming down our throats twenty five years ago. It failed. It was a mess of an ideology. It was a disaster. Come up with something new.

Now, we all voted Labour in 2005. In their manifesto they said they would not introduce University top up fees. They then introduced University top up fees. They then said we’d have a referendum on the EU constitution. They then didn’t bother. I also don’t remember them telling us we’d live under constant CCTV watch, but we have. My dad despises what Labour have become, but he insists he’d vote Labour to keep the Tories out. If we lived in a marginal seat between Tory and Liberal, he’d vote Liberal to keep the Tories out. Even though he’s a Labour supporter overall.

My point, was that I wouldn’t tactical vote. I’m Liberal Democrat, and so even if I know voting Liberal will some how let the Tories in, i’m still voting Liberal, because it’s principle. If I vote Labour instead, knowing it’ll keep the Tories out, but Labour get in, I have no right to complain when Labour lie even more, i’m giving them the mandate to lie and cheat. My Dad claims tactical voting is principled. I think otherwise. A principle is not interchangable.

Now maybe it depends whether your principle is with a particular party, or whether your principle is against a particular party. But in my opinion, you cannot be a Labour man, and then vote Liberal. However, the flaw in my thinking is in a scenario my dad put to me.
If your vote will decide the election. The Tories need one more seat to win the election, otherwise Labour have won, and you’re in a constituency that is either going Liberal Democrat or Tory, but you support Labour, who do you vote for? If you vote Labour, knowing they can’t win the seat, then the Tories will get power. So is tactical voting suddenly principled?
But then is voting Labour not principled? Because you know you now wont have power?
But then is voting Liberal also not principled, because you don’t support them in the first place?
Is there even a principled vote in that scenario?

It’s a difficult question for my weak, tired mind to comprehend the philosophy behind. Either way, as long as another selfish, community spirit killing, social destroying, education obliterating, Health Service murdering Thatcher doesn’t come along too soon, i’m happy.

The World of the Celebrity

The multi talent (and when I say “multi” I mean “devoid of all”) that is Paris Hilton has moved to the UK. Sad times. She has a new show over here called Paris Hilton’s British Best Friend. As you can imagine from the provocative title, the show revolves around a useless Celebrity offering to help make an equally useless and overly annoying person famous on a reality TV show. It’s an easy concept to understand. Imagine shit. Now imagine two lumps of shit. There you go.

Another person who has become famous off the back of Reality TV is Jade Goody. Recently she has been diagnosed with terminal cancer. And whilst I wouldn’t wish death upon anyone, and I think it’s a tragedy when anyone so young is doomed to die so quickly, I also have to question how deeply obsessed we’ve become with useless celebrities, when the Prime Minister, in the middle of the worst economic crises in almost a century, stops what he’s doing to show his support for her. For those of you who are not familiar with Jade Goody, to sum up her Celebrity life, she was on Big Brother 3, she got naked, said “I always fought East Angula was abwoad” along with other incredibly dumb comments, then went on Celebrity Big Brother in 2007 in which she was chucked out for Racism, the whole of India hated her for it, and now she’s famous for having cancer. That’s pretty much it.

She might be a lovely woman personally, I don’t know her. She’s merely a pawn in the relentless game of consumerism. The very same Consumerism that enriches the celebrity culture, by suggesting subtly, that it’s ok to be useless, you can still make a fortune. The same consumerism that says it’s ok to be useless, if you’re suddenly struck with a terminal illness the country will slide to a halt to stick by you, but will chose to ignore the millions of others who suffer a similar fate.

Why are people like Jordan, Jade Goody, Paris Hilton…. people who are famous for being famous, all talked about constantly, their lives reported on a daily basis, for absolutely no reason? They may enrich the very ideals of consumerism but they do not enrich our lives. They do not have a lasting affect on history. They produce nothing of worth. They are not our generation’s answer to Mozart or Dostoevsky. They are largely useless, unintelligent, artificial creations whose existence means nothing. They exist, purely as a by-product of consumerism. The horrible notion that we NEED to buy useless items; advertising rammed down our throats to make certain companies huge profits to the detriment of society as a whole.

We’re all (including me) guilty of buying into the shit. We don’t think for ourselves. And suddenly the real problems laying right out in front of us are ignored because Paris Hilton has a new show that we must watch. Or we have bought a new Xbox game that we must play on. We buy crap celebrity magazines, from whose selling point is an upskirt photograph of Britney spears getting out of a car, we ignore that their photographer has waited in the gutter to get that shot. We accept it as normal. “WORLD EXCLUSIVE: CHARLOTTE CHURCH SEEN IN A BAR WITH MYSTERY MAN!!” … of course it’s a fucking World Exclusive, no other Country gives a shit. I live here, and I don’t give a shit.
Celebrities like Jade Goody are just commodities, to be bought and sold, regardless of quality. It isn’t their faults. They are just trying to live, to provide a better life for their families. It is the fault of a society that has came to accept mediocrity and uselessness can be used as a virtue. Something I cannot remember Aristotle suggesting as a prevalent and distinguished virtue.

We do not have heroes any more. A soldier who dies in combat is remembered for a day. The next day, his truly heroic name is forgotten again. But Paris Hilton’s will remain for a very long time. An intellectually dead society that promotes easy celebrity and ignores true talent and passion. Useless celebrities, famous for being famous, are the pantheon of modern times. Gratuitous fame.

A few days ago a guy called Peer Michael Portner died of Cancer. He invented a device that meant that those suffering heart failure could be kept alive until a heart transplant could be done.
In August 2008, a man named Alexander Solzhenitsyn died. He was a Nobel Literature Prize Winner. He was part of the Soviet Red Army during WWII, but dissented and endured a life in labour camps, he survived torture and persecution, and he survived cancer. He was exiled from Soviet Russia in 1974, and risked death by writing a book about the oppression of the Soviet Police State. Both Portner and Solzhenitsyn, were brilliant men. Surely they’re worth talking about much more than a woman who was largely forgotten until she said “shilpa poppadom“?

It’s a sad reflection on the way we live, that millions can die each year through simple problems like water and food deprivation, and no one stands up and says how terrible that is. No one shouts out with such anger and fierce hatred for the plight of the needlessly dying, It isn’t front page of every paper like it should be. It just “is”. And yet, Jade Goody, who exists less as a person, and more as a merchantable commodity, gets cancer and the Country comes to a standstill. As a 23 year old male growing up in England, i’m slowly closing the books I read to improve my knowledge; realising instead that they are largely fatuous in our times, that signing up to a reality show and doing something slightly outrageous will set me up financially for life.

The World confuses me.

The Minority Republicans

It was the first time i’d heard of Bobby Jindal, and my instant reaction after his speech was “And this man is actually allowed to talk?” He should be banned from talking, he’s an insult to those of us who can talk without sounding patronising. He’s an insult to oratory. Cicero died all over again last night, this time with shame.

So President Obama made a great speech again, oozing with the same confidence that helped win him the White House, to a joint session of Congress. Fantastically eloquent, and full of exactly what needed to be said. He was absolutely right in blaming the problems America faces, on the greed of short term gains. He was right when he suggested that the distorted world of International Capitalism has lead to making the rich richer instead of investing in the future.

And the Republicans response? Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana. A man who once said “Transparency inspires confidence, and confidence promotes cohesion” and then his own office ranked last in the Country’s transparency ratings. A man who was referred to by The Wall Street Journal as…. “a boy wonder of the party. At 25, he was appointed to fix Louisiana’s failing Medicaid program, and succeeded.“… despite the fact that since taking over Healthcare in Louisiana, they dropped from 48th in the league, to 50th largely due to the fact that all he did, was cut spending, and made it harder for poorer patients to see a doctor. A man who voted against Gay marriage. There’s nothing like the Civil rights of one minority gaining the right to oppress another. He’s totally against abortion, and voted against all forms of stem cell research. So, to sum up, he’s against gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, helping the poor, and because he refused to take some of the bail out money to help workers in his state claiming it will lead to tax rises on the wealthy, he’s also a big business suck up. So wait, isn’t that pretty much what the Republicans have stood for all the time? This guy isn’t new or exciting or different. He’s the same shit. He’s begging for the same failed policies. He’s asking to restore confidence with the American people, by offering nothing new. He’s basically saying “We set the country on fire, so I propose we put the fire out, with this new and exciting ….. fire.”

Jindal would only be “new” if he recognised the hypocrisy of stating just how wonderfully pro-life you are, but then cutting all costs that help sustain life for those who are less fortunate than the horribly rich.
He basically said “Hey, The Republicans understand ordinary Americans…….. and that’s why we wont support any plan that is made to help you!!! But we WILL help the rich become even richer!!…..oh, and i’m black by the way, in case you didn’t notice.”

So I wonder, of all the people who could have spoken for the GOP, and knowing their track record on disastrous eloquence, surely Jindal isn’t the best they have? I mean, watching his response to Obama was cringe worthy. He spoke as if addressing a class room of five year olds. Even Fox News didn’t like it. When Fox News don’t like something a Republican has to say, then you know you’re in trouble.

So given that he’s no different to every Republican who came before him, given that he’s offering nothing new, given that he claims his health reforms were some how magnificent because it saved money rather than measuring the level of healthcare on the fact that people, actual humans, not money, but people – suffered more under him than they did previously, and given that he’s a horribly patronising speaker, why did the GOP choose him? I suspect for the same reason they chose Palin when Hilary Clinton was commanding the vote of the Female population. I suspect for the same reason that they chose Michael Steele when Obama had commanded a landslide of the vote of the Black population. Because they represent minorities. There is no other reason why Jindal would be chosen ahead of all the Republicans out there, other than he’s young (to counter the idea that the GOP is full of old men) and of a minority (to counter the idea that the GOP is full of old… white men). It really doesn’t matter how utterly detestable the man is, he’s a minority and that’s the GOPs way of yelling “LOOK WE’RE NOT RACIST!!!.. Despite the fact that we’ve spent decades ignoring anyone who isn’t rich and white“. Jindal started his speech, stating all his minority status credentials. To me, this proved just how important it is to Republicans that they have a spokesman who happens to have a different skin colour, to counter the love for Obama. They failed massively to chose someone of a minority who is actually talented in the field of Politics. The Democrats chose wisely with Obama. The Republicans failed to chose wisely with both Palin and now with Jindal. It’s like they’re saying “Well he’s black, what more do you want?” The alternative of course, is that they picked Jindal for his intelligence, which makes me think that if he’s the best they have, if Palin is one of the best they have, if Michael Steele is one of the best they have, if George Bush was the very best choice the Republicans had eight years ago, the rest of the Republicans must share the combined intelligence of a goat, a retarded goat…. as unfair to retarded goats as that is.

The Democrats should counter with a gay Atheist guy at the top. The GOP could never match that. A gay GOP member (i’m not talking about those many, many undercover Gay GOP members like Glenn Murphy who found his mouth accidentally around a penis. Or Bob Allen who mysteriously offered to give a cop $20 to suck him off) would have to start every speech with “I realise i’m unnatural, disgusting, and God hates me, but…..“

Obama clearly has a talent for eloquence, and I think we’d all agree, also has a great mind. Similarly, although he doesn’t have the talent for oratory that Obama has, John McCain has a great mind. By comparison, Bobby Jindal is a disaster, much like Sarah Palin was a disaster. The GOP need to stop trying to show just how inclusive and diverse they are, and start showing that they understand why America didn’t want them anywhere near Government for at least the next four years.

Good luck to them.

British “Democracy”

Democracy is an ideal. It’s never been tried in it’s purest form. America, the birthplace of modern democracy gets to exercise it’s democratic rights by choosing a President every four years, out of a pool of….. two candidates.

Over here in the UK, we have an unelected head of state, who just so happens to be the biggest benefit claimant on the planet, who we have to bow to whenever she walks past. So much for the power of Democracy.

It would seem today that our Democracy is slowly eroding. The sea of the New Labour (who I voted for in 2005) is pounding the foundations of Democracy every second of every day. It shouldn’t strike me as inconceivable though given that no one actually voted for Gordon Brown to be Prime Minister. It’s not like Labour value democracy and freedom right this minute.

Last month, the Information Tribunal decided that the record taken of Cabinet meetings running up to the decision to go to War with Iraq, should be made public. The subject of the meetings was whether the War was legal under international law.

The Tribunal said “The decision to commit the nation’s armed forces to the invasion of another country is momentous in its own right” … and they’re right. The decision to go to War is of such huge importance. Almost six years later, we should, as voters, in a ‘healthy’ democracy, be given the information that lead to so many of our men dying for such a failure of a war. We know that Blair made the decision himself, we know that he was seen as the UKs answer to a President. We know that MPs, those who represent us, the people, were just left in the dark. We know the war was illegal, so let’s cut the bullshit and release the papers. These people need to be held to account.

But no.

Today in the Commons, Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, vetoed the decision of the Tribunal, and said that the papers would now not be released. He claims the papers would do “serious damage to the government“….. Unfortunately Mr Straw, that’s not how Democracy works. You cannot cover up that which may hurt you.

The Tories said the decision was “right” because… “the release of the minutes would make ministers more reluctant to discuss controversial subjects in future, impeding good government.”
The Tories of course have to say the decision was right. Because they know, as we all know, that they will be the next Government of the United Kingdom, and by calling for information of what is said at Cabinet meetings to be made public, they immediately give the opposition a reason to demand any little bit of Cabinet information the Tories in power might have, regarding absolutely anything. So yes, the Tories are playing politics with this.

Jack Straw told the Commons that releasing the documents would negatively affect the workings of Cabinet Government. Which, in the language of reality, means that Cabinet Government works best when it’s free to lie, cover up, and keep secret anything that they may have said and done which the public would look at with disgust. What Jack Straw essentially said was that secrecy and the ability to lie without being questioned is more important to uphold than law, justice, Democracy and accountability.

Shadow Justice Secretary, Dominic Grieve was right when he questioned today, how it make Jack Straw look in the public eye “…for someone so closely involved in the key decisions to go to war, now to be personally blocking the release of that information”. The answer to that questioning lies in the heckles from MPs in the Commons when Straw announced the veto, of “Disgraceful“. That’s how it looks.

With regard to Straw claiming to be acting in the interest of the workings of Cabinet Government (the workings of which, have been slowly eroded since Thatcher), the Liberal Democrat Spokesman David Howarth is quoted today as saying quite rightfully “This decision has more to do with preventing embarrassment than with protecting the system of government.” It is indeed, a scandal of epic proportions.

It creates an us VS them mentality. Jack Staw told the Commons that releasing the minutes was “Not in the public interest“. It sets a dangerous precedent when one man can tell an entire Nation that we as voters aren’t allowed to decide for ourselves what is and isn’t in our interest to know. And forgive me if i’m wrong, but when a person’s son or daughter or brother or sister or husband or wife is killed in a War built on secrecy and deception, it’s well within their “interest” to know why they lost someone they loved. Straw has absolutely no right to say otherwise.

For all the good Labour have done for those of us who were left behind under the previous Tory government, their legacy is one of lies, covering their own back, deception, keeping the public at arms length, terrible policies, a fallen economy and scandal. It’s a shame. And now to cover up just how damaging they have been, they ignore the entire Nation when we demand to know why our soldiers have died and are continuing to die. What if I were arrested, asked by the police for my address, and I were to say “It’s not in your interest to know my address, it would damage the working of my family and how they view me as a person“. I’d be laughed at. Jack Straw lied. He now looks as if he’s covering something up. Like a day time chat show guest who refuses to take a lie detector test because he has “no reason to“, we know he’s lying. And this is deeply embarrassing for the Government.

Tony Wright, Chairman of the Public Administration Select Committee rightly asked in the Commons “Won’t this confirm people’s beliefs… there is something in the minutes which needs to be hidden?” It sure as hell confirms that I, along with millions of us who have supported the Labour Party in the past, will stay well away from voting for them at the next election. Every week, there exists another reason to despise these people ruling over us.

As we speak, we in the UK appear to be Nationalising banks whilst we Privatise the Post Office, even though Labour in their manifesto pledged to keep the Post Office in public hands. It’s like Labour are playing Democracy in reverse, the last past the post wins system. They appear to want to see how few votes a once strong Party can now suck in.

I support Democracy. It’s just a shame it’s never been tried.

Russell Brand Live

“To me a heaven would be a big bull ring with me holding two barrera seats and a trout stream outside that no one else was allowed to fish in and two lovely houses in the town; one where I would have my wife and children and be monogamous and love them truly and well and the other where I would have my nine beautiful mistresses on 9 different floors” – Ernest Hemingway

Please…. please… tell me the man above, does not represent Conservative America as a whole?
Brand said of those who keep saying “he’s our President, not yours!!! Sort your own politics out before insulting ours!”…… If that’s the case, stay out of the affairs of the rest of the World. And they speak as if we don’t think our own politicians are just as shit as America’s politicians.

****

Americans are not exactly renowned throughout the rest of the World for their edgy sense of humour, which acts as no surprise when I remember seeing the headline in our papers over here in the UK that Russell Brand’s performance as the host of the 2008 MTV VMA awards didn’t go down too well with our American cousins. England however, loved it.

The VMAs aren’t popular over here. There is nothing more cringeworthy than seeing a bunch of over paid minimally talented musicians thank Jesus for a largely pointless award (Although given that Jesus is spending his time helping Chris Brown win best video at a ridiculous award show, it helps to explain his lack of interest in global poverty around the World). However, Russell Brand (with the exception of those who read The Daily Mail) is incredibly popular over here. Sell out tour after sell out tour, fast selling DVDs and known for his incredibly friendly yet child like nature. We know he has a salacious mind, we know he’s sexually liberated, and we know when you put him in a room with horrible little Christian pop star idiots who have a problem with anyone who likes sex, he’s going to have a field day.

This weekend, my beautiful girlfriend and I went to see Russell Brand perform live in Nottingham. This tour is off the back of the scandals he’s recently been involved in. These involve Sachsgate, which in my childish mind, and those like me, was very funny. And of course, the fantastic digs during the VMAs last year. Namely, calling George Bush, “that retarded cowboy fella, who wouldn’t be trusted with a pair of scissors in our country” and the Jonas Brothers for their ridiculous yet very public vow of celebacy and those horrible rings they wear. When the Bush joke didn’t go too well in America, Brand said he went back stage and he along with his writing partner had to scrap the jokes they’d written, knowing that the Americans just don’t understand our humour.

However, in Nottingham, Brand told us those jokes. They had the audience laughing for a very long time. He certainly made the right choice not to use them at the VMAs, if the American Right can’t handle Bush jokes and the Jonas’s “Professional Virginity jokes” they would have exploded in a fountain of humourless droplets when hearing the other jokes he had planned. Whilst we were in tears of laughter, Brand said “Yeah thanks, could of done with you there on the night though!” Which I thought was a nice little touch.

I will keep them to myself, just in case 14 year old American Girls who seem to think the Jonas’s are heroes, decides it’s wrong to be taking the piss out of the Kanye West, and Michael Jackson. Or in case Jordin Sparks decides to say, with much cringe worthiness again … “I just wanna say, it’s not bad to wear a promise ring because not every guy and girl wants to be a slut, OK?“….. I guess in her mind, i’d be classed as a slut…… which, i’m now even more proud of. As Brand said “A bit of sex never hurt anyone“. I’ve never labelled anybody a slut for enjoying sex. If you want to have sex with as many people as possible because you enjoy sex, like Hemingway enjoyed sex, like Brand enjoys sex…. then go for it! Sexual liberation is a beautiful thing!

Yahoo Questions revolving around whether all Americans now hate Brand, have comments (which really do fall into the realm of disbelief) like….” I’m from America and personally this guy was the worst piece of crap to host the VMAs. I could’ve stood up there and made better jokes than that unknown goofy looking idiot. ” ……… These kinds of incredibly ridiculous comments, add to the reason why those of us who understand his humour, his quick witted comments, his incredible mind, are slowly coming to consider Russell Brand, like Ricky Gervais, to be a comedy genius.

Brand, on Friday night read us all a list of his favourite death threats from Americans after the VMAs.
One guy, sent a rather amusing death threat, to which Brand amusingly replied to with…

The show focused a lot on how he was perceived in America and the crazy death threats he received. If Right Winged America doesn’t like anybody insulting their ex-President; and if Right Winged America doesn’t like the idea of sexual freedom, I think it’s best that pretty much all of our comedians and our Comedy shows don’t try to cross the Atlantic any time soon.

For us, Russell Brand is possibly the most intelligent yet naive, brilliant yet child like in his mannerisms, sex crazed yet civil and polite, able to poke fun at himself but with such egotism and self awareness it’s beautifully crafted. It seemed from his live show that the past year of controversy he has caused, was part of a design. The nice things Brand has done, have not been widely publicised (like here and here) instead largely going unnoticed.

He speaks for a generation of Brits who do not view the World through the hate filled specs of the Right Wing. He speaks as a Libertine, who accept that sex shouldn’t be a taboo and shouldn’t be strictly confined to ‘loving couples’ that it should be embraced and enjoyed and the scare tactics attached to it by institutions like the Church should not be taken seriously.. He speaks as someone from a Working class background whose vocabulary and vast literary knowledge outweighs that of most English Masters students. And his ability to destroy the arguments of those Far Right Winged Patriots and Nationalists is beyond that of any Politician throughout the Country. America doesn’t understand, because America has never understood our humour, much like we don’t understand their often misplaced and slightly ignorant Patriotism.

I wont tar every American as being devoid of all humour. Because that would be untrue and harsh. A lot of Americans “get it”. A lot just don’t find him funny, not because they hate him, but purely because Brand is not to their taste, which is fair enough. But those Americans who find him offensive and actually took the time out to complain that he insulted Bush, should be ashamed that they find comedy insulting, yet a President who lies and cheats his way through eight years they have no problem with.

British humour has always stood way above American humour for my taste. I find light hearted Sein Feld-like comedy boring, predictable, and replayed over and over again in shows like Frasier and Friends. I love controversy. I love intelligent comedy that isn’t just catering to a Conservative audience. I love “different”, and for that reason, Russell Brand remains one of my favourite comedians.

Still, I had a fun weekend. Here’s me with a few friends. If you happen to be a Christian pop star, it’s probably best you avert your eyes, because you’re about to see me, being kissed by a female friend, who then in the next picture, grabs the breast of my lovely girlfriend. THE FIENDS!

One Nation under CCTV

“To be governed is to be kept in sight, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right, nor the wisdom, nor the virtue to do so.”
—Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

I’m not one to complain about the supposed “CCTV” society. I refuse to submit to the exaggerated cries of “ORWELL WAS RIGHT!!” when he wrote “1984“. I think that although many people will complain that the 1.4million surveillance cameras on our streets, take away a part of the foundation of our liberal democracy, namely our rights as free entities; those cameras do a job in catching criminals in the act. Killer, Michael Lynch is now serving a life sentence, after CCTV caught the moment he fatally stabbed Darren Pollen in 2005. CCTV does a good job. My problem however, lies with the faceless bureaucrats who watch our every move, without revealing their intentions or who they are to a nation under their constant surveillance. They are, in essence, playing a God-like role, even though they are no different to us. They are the people who’s speed cameras aren’t placed around school areas, but instead exist on dark, lifeless country lanes, at the bottom of a hill, where people are most likely to be caught. Although they may be playing the role of social God, that isn’t their objective. The objective, is purely to make money.

We felt the full force of CCTV Britain today.

My dad was caught stationary in a yellow box (you aren’t allowed to stop in a yellow box, because it obstructs traffic coming in the other direction) for 14 seconds, whilst in London a few months back. We were in the yellow box, because the guy in the lane next to us at the traffic lights shot ahead of us, swerved into our lane, and blocked us in. Completely not our fault in the slightest. I was sat in the car at the time. I remember it happening, because my dad beeped the horn… he never beeps the horn unless someone has been REALLY shitty.
Transport for London, charged us a £60 after we were caught on their CCTV system.

So my dad appealed.

We got a letter back saying “I have reviewed the tape, and …blah blah blah” …. full of “I have …. I have….. So I conclude…” etc, long story short – we’re still charged £60 if we pay it in 14 days (Unless we take to it an independent reviewer, in which case, it becomes £120).

Firstly, why has someone working for Transport For London, the company charging us in the first place, been given the task of judge in this matter? It’s like me killing someone, and then being my own judge at my trial. It makes no sense.

So my dad called up TFL, and got a call centre. My dad asked to speak to this “I” person. The person who watched the tape. The faceless bureaucrat who charges £120 if you take the matter to an independent reviewer. The faceless bureaucrat who charges £10 if you want to see the tape. The call centre said…….. “They just write the letters, they don’t talk on the phone“. Which is reassuring to know. It sounds almost like “They live in the shadows, watching your every move….. you can’t find them……. they’ll find you“, but given that we’re not in an Orwellian novel, actually translates as….. “There is no “I” , it’s an automated computer system“. They told my dad that he could not speak to a supervisor.

My dad complained that he’s being almost made to accept that someone who wants his money, somewhere has sat in a dark room and watched a video of him in a box, then wrote a letter with no name on it, who is then going to take his money even though we have literally no evidence of anyone watching the video, especially given that the conclusion is the wrong one on their part. The man then said “I’m going to terminate this call now”.

End of call.

My dad then rang London Travel Watch, an advisory body that deal with this sort of thing. They said they don’t have a number for the people who write the letters either. So, London Travel Watch, cannot do anything when it comes to watching Travel… in London. Marvellous.

I can’t believe it’s got to the stage where this can happen, and is widely accepted as all right. And where CCTV can help provide evidence for thousands of crimes that would otherwise go unpunished, it can also act as a money making machine with very little accountability from the people actually taking your money. This extends to councils across the United Kingdom, such as Dorset Council, who admitted using CCTV to spy on a family, to make sure they were who they said they were. The council envoked the powers of RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) which is a counter Terrorism act, to spy on the family using covert surveillance techniques. The Council envoked the powers of RIPA against this particular family, who were innocent of all potential wrongdoing. The Council did not inform the innocent family that they’d been spied on for the past few weeks.

It appears that the abuses of CCTV by Councils and the hidden faceless bureaucrats across the UK is getting worse and worse every year. It does not need to be like that. We do not need to give up certain liberties and freedoms in place of added security and protection. The two, if used and regulated properly can work together. Something that our young CCTV world, is considerably unaware of.

The pride in luck

My indescribably curious mind is unable to fully comprehend the statement “i’m proud to be British“. I stay clear of saying it, because it provokes a deep thoughtfulness that just exists to annoy me. I always finding myself questioning the sentiment, and then questioning my conclusion; the conclusion I always come to is that you cannot be proud to be a Nationality. And so by definition, I musn’t be proud to be English. Which begs the question, how can I be proud of our troops, the guys dying in far away lands so I can live free and in luxury? And here lies the paradox; I feel a deep sense of pride toward those guys. They are performing a task that I could never perform, and they do a damn good job. They are the lifeline of this country. And so, with that in mind, I must be proud to be English afterall, right?

So the next few paragraphs, is simply my mind trying to work this whole thing through. I apologise in advance if it doesn’t make much sense.

I always wonder what it is people mean when they say “I’m proud to be British” or “I’m proud to be American” or suggesting pride in any Nationality at all. It is much like those who insist that they are incredibly “proud to be White” or “proud to be Black“. To me, it’s never made sense. I’ve never been able to bring myself around to saying that i’m proud to be white, or proud to be British. To say “i’m proud to be British” would be like saying “i’m proud to have a nose“. It isn’t about being proud to be White, or black, or British. It’s about feeling relieved at how lucky you got to be where you are.

I think that language plays a strong role in this debate. There appears to be no middle ground. You either declare that you’re proud to be British, or you declare that you’re not proud to be British. There is no compromise. It’s language rather than intelligence. If I say i’m proud to be British, I go against my principles as a Humanist. If I say i’m not proud to be British, it suggests I dislike this country, which I don’t. So what other option do I have at my disposal?

I figure I was born in England, through luck through chance. I did not have a say in the matter. Similarly, I was born white. It was pure luck. I could have just as easily been born into a third World country and dead before my fifth birthday. I didn’t choose to be born here. I did not achieve anything to have significant pride in.

I love this country. I love the liberal values. I love that anybody is welcome. I love that we’re understanding. I love that we’re tolerant. I love that we live in relative luxury. I love the opportunities we are presented with on a daily basis. I love our foods. I love our sense of decency and friendliness. I love our TV. I love our willingness to contribute to social projects like the NHS and the education system because we’re happy to help those less fortunate. But I did not achieve any of that. I was lucky to be born here. I cannot show pride in something I haven’t achieved. I cannot show pride in luck.

I am proud of my ancestors for their struggle during Wars, including my great grandad who died during World War One. He was a kid, younger than I am now. I cannot imagine how scared he must have been. His sacrifice means I can sit here in comfort and write this now in freedom. My grandad fought in the Navy during World War II. I’m proud of him for his strength and courage. But I see this as completely different to being proud of a land mass.

Here’s where language comes into it again. Saying you’re proud TO BE British suggests you assume you’ve achieved something in your quest to be born here. It’s like me saying i’m proud to have two hands. I didn’t have a say in how many hands I have. It’s the same as somebody saying “I’m proud to be black“…. you cannot have pride in something you had no control over. You can however, be proud of the brilliant men and women of the black race (Like Dr King and Rosa Parks) who dedicated their lives so that as a black person, you are now free and equal to the white person. You can be proud of their fight. You can be proud that they stood up for what was right, you can be proud of them. I can quite happily say I’m proud of how far our ancestors have come, how much of a fight they have put up, how much they have sacrificed in order for their children to have more opportunities than they had themselves. I’m proud of our ancestors.

If you were to say “I’m proud TO BE an accountant”, you’ve achieved that level of success that has granted you the feeling of pride that you aim inwards at yourself. So by that very same logic, saying “I’m proud TO BE English” suggests you’ve achieved Englishness, which you haven’t.

I realise the statement “I’m proud of our ancestors” is somewhat contradictory to my original statement that you cannot take pride in something you did not achieve. Given that I had no say in the achievements of my ancestors, how can I be proud? Well, i’m not suggesting pride in myself, in the same way that people are when they say “i’m proud to be british“. I’m showing pride in others. You can show pride of your fellow countrymen during certain times. War perhaps. Or the fight for certain rights. The colonies were right to be proud of their fighters. They were right to be proud of people like Franklin and Jefferson, Hamilton and Washington. These people along with the other founders, freed them.

England is a mixed land. All that is actually truly ‘English‘ (in the man made sense) is the land itself. The people, are a mixture of Roman, Celt, Saxon, and Norse. Our technology owes itself to Japan, America, China, Europe and every other land of the World. Our clothes, our food, our medicines, our literature, our ideas, are all intermixed. Our history and culture, is intertwined with the history of the rest of the World. We are not a static entity free from outside influence. So by suggesting pride in being English, you must also suggest pride in the mixture of heritage that got us to where we are today. So by that logic, you cannot (as the BNP does) suggest pride in England, whilst wishing to close our borders to international trade of goods and a labour force. By doing that, you are not proud of England. You are the opposite.

People may ask “Can I be proud of my brother or sister then, given that I had no choice in them being my brother or sister?” This is much more difficult to answer. Love and pride are two different things entirely. When they’re born, you love them an incredible amount. The feeling of pride comes later on, when they achieve something. You may feel a strong sense of pride in their eagerness to learn to walk. Or their love of learning. Or their new University degree. Or how mature they have become, settling down to raise a family. Similarly, if your sibling were to murder someone, you might say “i’m not proud that he’s my brother“. This lack of pride is due to their actions rather than their relation to you. So why shouldn’t a sense of strong pride be down to their actions rather than their relation to you?

And so this brings me on to our troops. These guys, as I stated previously, I consider to be our lifeline. The reason we’re a strong nation. They are the pride of the people. And as we’ve seen, it is possible to be proud of those who fight for you, who give their lives to fight for you, without suggesting pride in your by-chance birth. You can be proud of English men without suggesting pride in being born here.

To conclude:
Is it possible to be proud to be English? No.
Is it possible to be proud of the achievements of those who have fought and shaped the privileged times we live in today? Yes.
Is it possible to be proud of little achievements of our friends and family? Yes.

One of my friends has summed this up perfectly, by suggesting that the word “pride” is the wrong word to use. We should say that we feel “privileged to be English“. I’d agree with that. Pride and privilege are getting confused more and more recently. I do not feel proud to be British. Similarly, I do not feel any animosity toward being British. I simply feel privileged to be British.

My head hurts. Too much thinking. Too much debating with myself.

The Labour Leadership

When President Sarkozy of France indicated that the VAT cut over here in Britain, had not worked, Downing Street released the statement…

“It is important to remember the context in which he was making the comments, which as I understand it, was a domestic debate on television about the way forward for the French economy and French proposals for an economic stimulus.”

I think they missed the point. They always appear to miss the point. I’m not quite sure that the context matters at all. If Sarkozy had said “The VAT cut didn’t work” during a domestic debate about the French economy, or if he’d have said “The VAT cut didn’t work” during a sensual bath with Gordon Brown himself, it means the same thing. Not only that, but he’s right. The VAT cut didn’t work. It didn’t go far enough. Especially given that most retailers had cut prices distinctively more than ever before anyway.

The German Chancellor has accused Britain and America of failing to understand and control under-regulated areas of the economy, which in turn has lead to this whole disaster. Like Sarkosy, the German Chancellor is right. It doesn’t matter how many times Brown refuses to acknowledge his role in this crises, nor does it matter how many times he says “It’s a global problem“, the recent poll numbers, putting the Tories at a 20 point lead suggest that the public just doesn’t buy into what he says.

So why then, is it being suggested that Brown may step down as Prime Minister, to head up a Global Financial Regulator body? Although he’s denied his interest in such an appointment, it must be tempting for him. He has endured 10 years as Britain’s Chancellor before taking over from Blair as Prime Minister in 1997. But that begs the question, if Brown has been in charge of the Economy for the ten years leading up to the biggest economic disaster in generations, in which a lot of blame can be placed directly at the door of the new Prime Minister, why does anyone think, of the billions of people that live on our wonderful planet, that he, above all others, is the right man for the job? Surely along with people like Alan Greenspan and George Bush, he’d be kept well away from any kind of financial responsibility? We do not need failed Brownomics. We do not need failed Thatcherite economic policies. We need something new; something that preaches social morality within the confines of the free market model.

Labour After Brown.

I do not ever want to see a Conservative Government in this Country again. The roots of the economic crises today, can be traced in an almost perfect line back to the years in which Thatcher beat it into an entire generation, that the free market could solve everything. It didn’t work, clearly.

However, the Tories will win the next general election. That’s now a given. And they wont win by a small majority either, they will command a significant majority. So the worry is, who is to lead the Labour Party if Gordon Brown were to step down to take on a Global Regulatory role, or when Labour lose the next general election?

The talk of Journalist town appears to suggest that Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman is gearing up for a leadership bid. Does Labour really lack the talent? This is a woman who once said “Yep “ when asked if Labour should apologise for the false intelligence of the Iraq war, and then a few nights later claimed she’d never said that and demanded evidence.
The same Harriet Harman who once said that she would happily go out at night in her town of Peckham and not fear for her safety, but then went out in a stab proof vest.
The same Harriet Harman, who quite disgustingly, tried to nullify the high court ruling that all MPs receipts should be published, by trying to exempt MPs from the Freedom of Information act.
I would rather not vote at all, than be given a choice between Harriet Harman and David Cameron.

She certainly appears to be stepping up her profile recently, agreeing to speak at a ‘Womens Conference’ at the exact same time as the G20 meetings take place. She also started pushing for bank bonus caps recently, having kept relatively quiet for months. Is she trying to win over the support of the Labour left? According to politicalbetting.com, Harman is doing what Labour leaders do prior to an election and sucking up to the Unions. Politicalbetting asks if Harman is becoming our version of Palin…. I can safely say, yes she is, because she’s ridiculous, and useless all at the same time.

Harman certainly seems to be positioning herself one step above the competition, which would include David Miliband (my favourite as successor to Brown) and Alan Johnson, who really aren’t making any effort or publicity. In 2008, Miliband wrote an article in the Guardian about his vision for the future of the Labour Party. He doesn’t mention Gordon Brown’s involvement in that future once. He also suggests here… “The odds are against us, no question. But I still believe we can win the next election.”… That Labour has issues and must over come those odds. That issue, at that time, was Gordon Brown. Miliband looked set to offer an alternative to Brown. He ended up backing down. Perhaps that’s a weakness that should not be brought to the Prime Minister’s chair. He does however, attack the Tories, and David Cameron in particular. That isn’t what a Foreign Secretary does. It is however, what a man with big ambitions does. So perhaps the subtle hint at an ambitious future, was enough to start the ball rolling in 2008. He seems however, to have stayed quiet so far this time around, allowing Harman to get the publicity over a possible leadership contest.

For the sake of the Labour Party, let’s inject new blood into the system. Harman is not leadership material. She’s a typical Politician who cannot answer questions straight, and repeatedly contradicts herself, whether it be on her comments over a much needed apology for flawed intelligence leading up to the Iraq war, or preaching how wonderfully safe the streets of London are, whilst herself strolling around in a stab proof vest; just stands to show she is in fact a disaster of a Leader-in-waiting.

The public do not like Harman. She has made too many PR mistakes to claw back any ounce of respect. And whilst I’d push for The Foreign Secretary, David Miliband as next Labour leader simply because he reflects my own Blairite tendencies whilst looking young and fresh enough to pose an adequate threat to Cameron’s Tories; why should we leave it to the Party itself to decide? Why can’t we have a real democratically elected leader through perhaps a Primary system as in America?

Because if Harman is given the top job, she doesn’t stand a chance against the fresh looking, but lacking fresh ideas; Cameron’s Tories.

The Spirit of Bipartisanship

If I were to bang my head on a brick wall over and over, i’d quickly come to the conclusion that it hurts, and that I probably shouldn’t spend my time banging my head against that wall any more. If I were to try to solve the pain, by continuing to bang my head on the brick wall, i’d soon be wondering what made me think that continuing to bang my head, would help.

John McCain complained recently that President Obama had failed in his attempts to create a bipartisan atmosphere with regards to the “OMG SOCIALISM ARGH!!!” stimulus package that has recently been passed through Congress. Now, I accept that McCain himself is a great hero of bipartisan Politics (regardless of the fact that he thinks President Bush was right, 95% of the time), on such topics as Global Warming and Campaign finance, McCain has reached across the isle, and that is indeed admirable. But I do go the feeling that a long with 90% of Republican Bloggers I come across day to day on WordPress, he’s horribly bitter.

I’m perfectly aware that the Plan has many social elements within it, that Republicans deem “pork“, regardless of who it helps. But that’s what Republicans must have expected from Democrats. Similarly, they got their $275bn tax relief and cannot legitimately yell “Socialism” when the Stimulus offers Businesses, the bonus depreciation feature exists, when tax credits for struggling small businesses exist, when there is double in what small businesses can write off when it comes to capital investments and new equipment purchases.
I refuse to call $41bn for grants to local school districts; $39bn to subsidise health insurance for the unemployed; $4bn in prevention care; $31bn to upgrade and repair public buildings – “pork”. But obviously anything that doesn’t amount to a mass of tax cuts for the rich, is going to demand the calls of “SOCIALISM” from the opposition.

I’m unaware of how much Fidel Castro would have been willing to accept as truly Socialist with this package. Perhaps he’d have welcomed cash for money-losing companies by allowing them to claim tax credits on past profits dating back five years instead of two, or the bonus depreciation for Businesses buying up new equipment, for a tax credit for businesses who hire disconnected youths and veterans.

In an attempt for me to appear a little bit bipartisan here, I will accept that $650million to convert TV boxes to digital seems a little odd. Although a worthy cause, like $15bn for College Scholarships is a worthy cause, it’s unlikely to stimulate the short term economic woes of a Nation on the brink of economic disaster. This is certainly just a way for those like Pelosi to sneak into the stimulus, those niggling partisan leftovers. However, if the money given for College Scholarships, goes to the right place, meaning the Colleges now how money that they were losing, meaning they don’t have to lay off staff, then it can only be a good thing, regardless of the motive for it appearing in the bill. Investing in infrastructure is also, not ‘pork’.

The word ‘pork’ is interesting, when it seems to only apply to investing in infrastructure, and not to the trillions spent on the deaths of thousands of American troops and 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. That’s deemed ok. But key infrastructure, PORK apparently.

I am more inclined to accept the Obama Stimulus as completely necessary, than I am to accept the argument that it’s full of “pork”. A stimulus is supposed to be full of so-called “pork” because it works. FDR’s worked. The ‘pork’ is not just words on paper. For example, I recently say Fox News state that “$10 million for urban canal inspection is pork spending”…. not it isn’t. It’s a plan to create jobs, and it will indeed, create jobs. That’s how a stimulus works.

Back to McCain. He told CNN recently that this wasn’t the change Obama promised. That, although Obama went to Capitol hill for input, most of what the Republicans offered was just wiped off the table.
What he appears to mean is, Obama must give in to Republican demands, otherwise they will just act as a roadblock regardless of the proposals.

I am not saying the Democrats and Obama have this sorted out perfectly, nor am I saying that the Stimulus will definitely work. But for the Republicans to publicly state how much of a failure it is before it had even taken shape, is nothing but tit for tat partisan bullshit from the Right Wing of the Political spectrum. Especially considering they have full support for a party that has systematically destroyed the economy, and waged an unjust expensive war over the past eight years. It’s a bit rich of them to be taking the high ground now. It’s as if they’ve been asleep for eight years, woke up on January 20th, and yelled “WE HAVE THE ANSWERS NOW!!“…. forgive me for not falling for it. Forgive me for thinking that the useless Bush tax cuts that were not utilised for the best of the Economy by those rich businessmen who shipped work overseas; those tax cuts that McCain supported, were nothing short of an absolute disaster and highlighted the failure of American Capitalism. Forgive me for thinking that Republicans calling it “robbing future generations” is a despicable charge, given that they had no problem spending taxpayers money bailing out Wall Street, and then had no problem robbing American families of the lives of their children, brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers in the first “Resource War” in Iraq.

I would give a lot of credit, to a Republican who would happily admit that their policies may have failed them, these past eight years. I cannot wait to see that day. I compare the Republican bitterness outrage at this stimulus bill, with the lack of outrage at the Bush stimulus package, the largely useless Bush stimulus package. It’s incredible how little the Republicans are consistent in their hatred of stimulus packages. Spending trillions on an unjust war, and then wasting trillions on big business tax cuts has caused this mess. It’s a failure. And McCain thinks he has a right to suggest otherwise?

The Republican Party seriously needs to change it’s attitude.

When the CBO report shows that Clinton left office with a “budget surplus projected to be $5.6trillion over ten years” compared to the Bush administration leaving office with a “projected deficit of well over $4trillion for that same period“, you have to really start asking if these people should be given the chance to talk at all. The damning report from the CBO continues…“As a result of their misguided fiscal choices,
President Bush and Republican Congresses squandered the budget opportunities they inherited and are passing along historically large budget deficits that will persist for years.” So the question needs to be answered, why do you Republicans suddenly think you deserve to be heard now?

I’m sure the spirit of bipartisanship is needed to a degree, and like John McCain, i’m sure Obama has attempted it. But it has to be taken with so much caution, and it has to be taken knowing just how damaging the Republicans have been since 2001. Take on board suggestions that both Republicans and Democrats agree on. Do not listen to calls for mass tax breaks for the rich, because that is not the way to solve every problem (as we’ve now discovered). The caution has to be taken. Obama is doing the right thing by not giving into these people.

Bipartisanship has to come from both sides. Republicans have to acknowledge their dire failings in order to even gain an ounce of credibility, they have to say “Ok, we messed up, we’re ready to have a rethink“, any short of that, and they just should not be taken seriously.

Perhaps the Republicans are frustrated because they have no control anymore. Perhaps they are all more like Limbaugh than we all think and that they want Obama to fail, because if this stimulus succeeds in pulling America out from the pit of Republican destruction, it will only serve to make the Republicans look a hundred times worse than they do right now.

Given that the majority of Americans who read my blog are Republicans, I fear i’m in for a bit of a beating because of this. I will try and survive. Clearly they do not feature in the 67% approval rating for the way he handled the passing of the Stimulus bill. Instead, they must appear in the laughable 31% that approve of the Republicans in Congress as opposed to the 48% who approve of the Democrats in Congress. They certainly don’t figure in the 68% who approve of the job Obama has done up until now. But you know, what do those 68% know anyway!!!!

If America had wanted much more failed Republican policies, policies that had created this mess in the first place, policies that had resulted in record unemployment, a highly costly illegal war, and tax cuts for the rich who then squander away their even greater wealth, then McCain would now be President. America chose not to keep banging it’s head against the brick wall.

The Right to hysteria

I’m sure we as a Western society need to take responsibility of our thoughts before we make such outlandish suggestions filled with unfounded propaganda. It needs to come from both sides of the Political divide. There are those Liberals among us who will argue until they cannot argue any more, that the Bush Administration were actively involved and had funded 9/11. They will work tirelessly to find any unimportant discrepency and tie it to a mass conspiracy. It is ultimately a fatuous argument on their part.

Similarly, there are those on the Conservative side of the fence, who see a scratch on the flesh and call it a canon ball wound of great proportions. I’m talking about ‘Freedom of speech’. Conservative writers, much like Liberal writers, will not deviate from their ideology. They will insist that the opposing ideology is wrong, not just on certain issues, but on everything they stand for. A GOP Blogger Gopwire writes recently that us Liberals have a deep underlying plan to “to “hush” conservative’s so Obama and his cronnies can be free to destroy our nation as we know it.” I take great offence at this, because there is no plan to silence anyone. And it isn’t just liberals that have attacked what people consider to be their rights, throughout history. Conservatives are just as guilty. You cannot argue that one side is destroying your liberty whilst blindly supporting the same on the other side. Rhetoric as powerful as “free to destroy our nation as we know it” engages not the thoughtful brain, but the easily lead. There are those, like that particular blogger who will insist that Obama has a plan to destroy the Nation purely because his policies disagree with those of the Ideology he blindly and obediently follows. There are those who consider George Bush to have been the devil, even though those in their own Democratic camp have been failing to pay taxes, screwing the system, and generally acting rather corrupt whilst preaching ‘change’. The term “destroy our nation as we know it” is ridiculous hysteria of the worst variety.

There are those Liberals who insist that Nuclear weapons do not serve the purpose they claim to serve, and are in fact inherently evil. There are those Conservatives on the other side of the fence who believe that Nuclear Weapons are a key to National security. I agree with both. They are inherently evil, but one cannot expect to disable your Nuclear capability in the hopes that your enemy will do the same thing out of good will. It just isn’t realistic. The Liberals in this case, refuse to acknowledge that they may be wrong.

There are those Liberal bloggers who insist that Israel is disastrously evil. And whilst the actions of Israel recently, is nothing short of genocide, I cannot help but wonder why those Liberals will not step out of their ideological bearing and condemn Hamas for their wickedness and hatred since coming to power; and in fact before gaining power.

Similarly, there are those who refuse to acknowledge that Western Policy may have something to do with the rise of Extremism. They don’t “hate our freedoms” they don’t want to “destroy our way of life“, they simply hate us for how we’ve treated their Nations in the past. They think it gives them a right to fight fire with fire. We’re all in agreement that terrorism is by definition, evil. But why are we quick to label our enemies terrorists, whilst we are apparently fine with the atrocities our own Governments cause? Why are we surprised that we’re hated?

On the other hand, Conservatives are refusing to take even slight blame for the collapse of the Global economy. They will not for a second hear of the notion that a free deregulated market concept is anything but perfect. They instead, find the most obscure reasons to blame Liberals for the disaster. The Free Market ideal much like the Socialist ideal, is just that; an ideal. It doesn’t work in reality. But even when it fails, the Conservative branch will refuse to accept it.

There are those who insist that Socialism can work, regardless of the fact that where ever it’s been tried, it’s ended in a nightmare of genocide and dictatorship. There are also those who live by the wonders of the Free Market, regardless of that fact that it has left so many nations behind, drenched in indescribable poverty. Neither side will admit it’s notion is flawed. Massively flawed.

Others will live by what the media says, unquestionable in their acquiescence. In ‘Audacity of Hope’ by Barack Obama, along with other sources, speak of an article not too long ago suggested that Guards at Guantanamo Bay had flushed Koran’s down the toilet to the dismay of Muslim inmates. The Pentagon then released a report outlining that although the Koran’s had not been flushed, the female U.S Guards had pretended to smear menstrual blood on the faces of inmates during questioning, and pissed all over the Koran and an inmate. Fox News went that day with the headline: “Pentagon finds no evidence of Koran being flushed“. I often feel anger toward Fox News reports, there bias is shameful. And yet, many people will sit and quote them on their blogs, insisting that they are right… because Bill O’Reilly said so. They do not think for themselves. They do not investigate for themselves. The presume that their bias choice of media, is entirely without fault in it’s assessments. The media has a love affair with partisanship. The people have a love affair with partisanship. That, will never change.

There are those who sport tshirts and logos with “Communism killed 30,000,000 and all I got was this lousy tshirt”, whilst failing to acknowledge the deaths of thousands under Capitalist Regimes like Pinochet’s Chile. Just because one ideology kills less innocents than another, doesn’t make it relatively moral. It just means one dictator with no ideology was much more committed to murder and genocide than the other evil dictator with no ideology. Why are we arguing that it is the fault of the ideology, rather than the tyrants who profess to be apart of that ideology?

Similarly, Obama is savaged by Republicans and conservatives for saying “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done“. One forum dedicates a topic of conversation to this, with the Topic title being “Obama against free speech for Conservatives/Republicans/Private citizens“. No he isn’t. He’s merely stating an opinion. Which is surely, his freedom of speech right? Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to say whatever you want to say without consequence. Limbaugh has called Obama “The magic Negro“; he’s said “I hope Obama fails“; Of African Americans, he said “They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?“; and he once referred to Obama as “Osama Obama“. The Republicans and Conservatives did not express anger at the utter lack of respect and tact that Limbaugh has shown, they waited until Obama responded and then stood to support Limbaugh. It’s slightly unnerving when that happens. It is not supporting free speech, it is out right support for the freedom to insult and cause trouble without having to stand up to the consequences. You cannot throw such deep hate filled attacks at people and then hide behind “I’m just exercising freedom of speech!!” when you’re called up on it.

Over here in the UK recently, Dutch Freedom Party MP Geert Wilders has been denied entry to the U.K, based on the fact that he is trying to show his film linking Terrorism to the Koran, and Islam in general. It is a film filled with one side of a very complex argument. Wilders does not talk to any Muslims who strictly oppose and denounce all Terrorism in the name of their holy book. He merely sticks to the notion that the Koran and therefore Islam is evil. He fails to point out that actually, there are those who practice Islam, who are strongly opposed to Extemism. Instead, he applies his twisted logic to include all Islam. By that same logic, we could apply the Phelp’s family’s reading of Christianity, to the entire Christian nation.
There will always be excuses by those intending to defend their beliefs, which is there right to do. However, to ignore punctilious evidence that contradicts their beliefs, is disturbingly wrong.

Whilst Wilder has a right to say exactly what he believes, and it was a mistake for the British Government to ban him from the Country, it has sparked a multitude of Conservative Bloggers, who suggest that the British are now pandering to Islam because we’re afraid to offend Muslims. That whilst we allow home grown muslims to call for the slaughter of those who insult Mohammad, we don’t allow the opposite argument to take shape. They go further to claim that it is an out right attack on freedom of speech. This, in my opinion, is utterly misleading.

The suggestion that the UK Government is afraid of offending muslims is a weak one at best, given that the main issue Extemists have with the UK is that we support Israel and the war in Iraq. The fact that a Fascist MP was banned from our shores will only prove to ignite misguided Nationalists like the BNP who insist that we’re becoming a Nation pandering to Muslims. The Government cannot expect to beat the rise of the Nationalists, by banning those who may support the Nationalist cause. Nationalists can only be beaten through debate which serves to ridicule their pathetic cause. Geert Wilders himself, said of Britain “Be brave. Be a defender of free speech. If you don’t you are weak. You are cowards. Your country has already taken a big step in the direction of Islamification.” What he, the Nationalists and all those who insist that banning Wilders from British shores is a step toward the abolition of freedom of speech do not talk about, or report on their Nationalist websites filled with hate and propaganda, is that Wilders is not the only person to be banned from British shores..

Muslim cleric Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi was refused entry. He has described suicide bombers as “martyrs” and homosexuality as “a disease”.

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan barred on the grounds that his racist and anti-Semitic views could threaten public order

Now forgive me if i’m wrong, but those people are Muslims right? In fact 80 Islamic Hate Preaches are among the 230 people banned from the UK. You cannot, as the Nationalists would like to do, suggest that freedom of speech is dying purely because those who support your flawed ideology are banned from the Country, yet not make a sound the moment that those who disagree with you are banned. To truely possess freedom of speech, we must allow the hate fill muslims to be beaten by logic and reason, whilst at the same time we defeat those Fascists and Nationalists with the same logic and reason. They may be entirely wrong and flawed in their arguments, but they both have the right to say it, providing they can in fact deal with the consequences of those words.

However, it certainly doesn’t help the Islamic cause, when the protest Wilder’s film about Muslims being violent, by calling for his death.
The problem with Islam is that it cannot claim to take the moral high ground against those who attack the faith, by burning and threatening to kill those responsible for insulting it. Much like the problem with the West, in that anyone who threatens us we call “Terrorists” and yet, we fight terrorism, with terrorism. It’s one big bag of hypocrisy from every side you look. No one side has the moral high ground.

In any event, i’m derailing from the point of this blog. To suggest such a small provision is an attempt to destroy all freedom of speech; like suggesting that the Obama Stimulus is somehow equal to turning the United States of America into Soviet America is misleading and shows a lack of forethought. When Bush was doing it, no one suggested Socialism. When Guiliani’s New York debt reached record highs and spending increased by 30%, no Republican called out “SOCIALISM!”. The moment someone who happens to disagree with them does it, it’s suddenly Leninist.

Similarly, Democrats and those of us on The Left cannot legitimately attack those like the Bush Administration for it’s Free Market failure, when people like Rahm Emmanuel, who served on the board of Directors as Freddie Mac lied and cheated it’s way through scandal; is now given pretty much the top job in Washington. It isn’t change. It’s much of the same. It isn’t Socialism. It isn’t an attack on any fundamental rights, it does not require Political Drama Queens on either side of the political fence to act as if they World is falling down around them whenever the ideological tide changes slightly (ever so slightly) against them. It’s getting boring now.

“You’re wrong.“
“Why?“
“Because you’re Liberal.“
“But you’re wrong.“
“Why?“
“Because you’re Conservative.“
That’s how modern politics is. That’s how modern political bloggers write. I must concede that I too am guilty of this. We don’t care what the opposition has to offer, it will be wrong and useless and too much of the same or too Socialist before it’s even been offered. We take a point and we find evidence to back up our point whilst ignoring all evidence to the contrary. Again, I must concede that i’m guilty of this, but i’m certainly not the only one. I’m yet to read a blog or a Newspaper or the website of a Political Party who come to an equally well rounded opinion.

The Labour Party of the 1970s destroyed the lives of millions. The Conservative Parties of the 1980s and 1990s destroyed the lives of millions. The Labour Parties of 1990s and 00s are destroying the lives of millions. And suddenly we’re all taken in by the Conservative opposition. They must be better than what we already have, we all presume. But it will take another decade before that Conservative Party who will inevitably become the next Government, again, destroy the lives of millions, by which time we’ll have a New New Labour, who offer change, and then proceed to destroy the lives of millions. It’s the same shit, over and over. Do we really believe David Cameron to be any different?

I fully accept that differences in opinion and ideology and the crucial need to have all sides allowed to talk, is a gift of Democracy to the developed World. However, when both sides refuse to accept that the other side may have a point; when both sides refuse to accept how tragically wrong they have been in the past; when both sides refuse to work together rather choosing instead to push their own agenda through (Although I support the Obama Stimulus fully, I do feel Pelosi appears to have used it to her own ideological advantage, which is so desperately wrong) whilst at all times attacking limited aspects of the other side rather than accepting certain arguments they may give as valid; when all of that happens, we are not Democratic. We are two teams of political stubborn spin and twisters, hellbent on destroying the opposition regardless of how negatively it affects the Country.

By creating such deep divide based on a ‘get-one-over’ on your opponent system, we are allowing those people who make a small dent in their car sound like a hellish car crash when they relay the story on their blogs and news articles to influence the weak minds of a generation.

I do not believe Obama is either Socialist or evil. I believe he is trying to do what is best for the Country. Similarly, I believe John McCain and Sarah Palin were not evil, they simply wanted to do what was best for the Country. They just differ in how that goal is to be achieved. Suggesting either McCain or Obama have some hidden agenda, without actual evidence (And I don’t mean taking what you consider to be evidence, out of it’s original context) or adequate quotations, is deeply ignorant. And although that may be true, as Freedom of Speech would have it, those who cry SOCIALIST the moment Obama provides support for those who need it most, or the moment they cry OUT OF TOUCH the moment Sarah Palin makes a mistake when interviewed (as if she’s the only one) have the right to their hysteria.

I’m slowly becoming disillusioned with Politicians across the board in general.

Socialist Healthcare works

“I find it offensive that one in four of the livers donated, go to alcoholics. If there are two people side by side wanting a liver, and both have the right tissue match, and one is an alcoholic, there’s no contest -you take the one who’s not an alcoholic, they are more entitled.” - Eunice Booker, The Observer, front page, 15/02/09

It would appear that we, as a Nation are taking steps to punish people for being flawed. Unlike Eunice, I do not believe that the non-alcoholic in that scenario is more entitled to a liver transplant. I don’t believe anyone is “more entitled“. According to The Observer today, 151 liver transplants out of the 623 administered, were the result of alcohol abuse. As a non-drinker myself, I recognise that if I were in the situation where a drinker was given a liver transplant over myself, I would be annoyed. I accept that. However, without logical thought one could end up distraught at all medical problems.

The man who takes too long in the dentist chair causing you to miss work; because he hasn’t brushed his teeth enough; The woman who is taking up a bed in intensive care because she was txting whilst driving; The man taking up NHS time and money having his tummy tucked because he ate too many chips; The woman taking up Surgeon’s time because she smoked too much and contracted Cancer. Where does it end?

I get the feeling we’re becoming a society hell-bent on attacking anyone who is not like us. Anyone we consider to be less than perfect, we instantly take a dislike toward. On the train to Nottingham on Thursday last week, on my way to go for a lovely meal with my beautiful Girlfriend, I was sat behind a homeless man. He was old and worn out. He had a huge scar running from the top of his forehead to the tip of his left cheek. He kept walking up to the bathroom to hide, so that the ticket inspector didn’t catch him. It was snowing outside. He was wearing incredibly thin clothing. He asked a man passing by on the train if he could spare some change. The man, with his hair slicked back, wearing an incredible posh pin-stripe suit said “fuck off”. I looked at the man as he passed by and shook my head at him complete with a disgusted look.

The homeless man turned round to face me and said “What do you say when homeless people ask for money?” I told him I usually give them the odd pound if I can spare it. He went on “…I’ve got nowhere to sleep tonight, or anything to eat, do you have any change you could perhaps spare?” .. so naturally, I gave him the £2 I had left in my pocket and a packet of crisps I had in my bag. He got up and left to go try his luck elsewhere, but not before thanking me, and getting up with a smile on his face.
As we came to Nottingham station. The very kind lady sat behind me, asked if she could give me back the £2 i’d given to that homeless man, because she didn’t want me to now be short of money. It was only £2 so I wasn’t that fussed; thanked her for her kindness and politely turned it down.

That particular situation has had me thinking all weekend. The diversity of social responsibility was incredible in that brief thirty minute journey. A homeless man who clearly wasn’t completely sane. I’d guess years of living on the street, with no family, perhaps a rough childhood and the appalling conditions he’s had to live with, which inevitably included that scarred face. Then there was me, a typical young man worrying about money, what he wants from life, how he’s going to be able to afford posh holidays and a big house when he’s older who’s also happy to talk to and help the homeless because I do not see them as worthless animals, but as human beings who have simply been unable to cope with the money making side of life, like a cog that has fallen out of the machinery. Then there was the business man, who metaphorically pissed all over the tramp, whose only sense of responsibility is himself. As if money made him a better species of human. And then of course, there was the kind lady sat behind me who was willing to help the person who helped the homeless person.

The beauty of the NHS is it encourages social responsibility. It is the last calling card of the socialist. It says that regardless of who you are, and how much you earn, you are not entitled to a better standard of healthcare than anyone else. It is largely humanist in it’s approach to life. It takes the idea that healthcare should not be withheld from you, if there isn’t a profit to be made, and instead puts you and I on equal stepping. And rightfully so. I am not more or less important than a homeless man who has never worked a day in his life. Because healthcare should not be a commodity. The NHS, is a national treasure.

John McCain during the 2008 Presidential race referred to the British NHS as “undesirable“. Undoubtedly, as many Conservatives like to do, he focused on those who were not pleased with their level of healthcare from the NHS, the disgruntled few. Which accounts for such a small percentage, it’s an insult to those of us who need the NHS; such my dad, who had a heart attack a few years back, and who the NHS saved the life of.
John McCain must be blissfully unaware that according to the World Health Organisation, whilst over 45million Americans cannot afford adequate Health Insurance, the American Government pays 15.2% of GDP toward Health. However, over here in the UK, we’re all covered. Whether we’re worth billions of pounds, or the homeless man I met on the train; and it still costs less of our GDP (8.2% in fact) than the USA. We are in fact, healthier as a nation on the whole, than the U.S.A. And that can be strongly attributed to such a World class Health Service. If that is “undesirable” or “socialist“, then we should be damn proud to be undesirable and socialist, because it works. When the system currently in place in America allows 47 million people to be incapable of receiving adequate health care, and when health insurance costs are rising faster than wages or inflation, you have to really start choosing your words with much more care and attention before you start attacking the system of another Nation.

According to the NCHCA Third of U.S Firms in 2007 did not offer healthcare insurance. 8.1 million children in the U.S were uninsured. Almost 90 million people between 2006 and 2007 spent a period of time without healthcare insurance. And our system is undesirable? It would appear that we have the right system with creases that need to be ironed out, whereas the U.S, has the wrong system entirely. You cannot run away from all ideas born out of Socialist ideals. Some do work!

I’ve always wondered why Healthcare in America, if universal, would be “Socialist” yet police and fire coverage aren’t? Perhaps that question can be answered by what Professor Brendan McSweeney from the Holloway School of Management referred to as “market-failure denial“. The same people who seem to think that Stalin’s Centralised Government in which the guys at the top exploited the guys below, is any different from the guys at the top of a bank or the top of a Corporation exploiting those below them. The only difference of course being, that one is called “Government” the other is called “Company“. It’s a bunch of Eastern bloc Communists scattered across the place hiding under the name ‘Capitalism’, whose Corporate central planning is more costly than that of most developing nations, and whose central planners (management – the guys a million miles away from the workers) earn hundreds of thousands more than those who work for them, who have never seen them before since working there and yet insist on devising targets and procedures. Central planning, is of course, “Communist“. The same people more happy to bail out bankers, than offer healthcare to those who need it most. The same people who are more than happy to yell “I’m pro life!!!“….. until the baby is born into a poor family, in which case, it suddenly isn’t as deserving of life as a rich child.
Go figure.

As for the Observer story from this morning, the moment we start questioning who is more deserving of healthcare, is the moment we start down the slippery slope toward total privatised healthcare.

The Treasury Select Committee strikes

The Treasury Select Committee, as we speak, are destroying questioning former Royal Bank of Scotland Chief Exec. Sir (Sir? What the fuck) Fred Goodwin; former HBOS Chief Exec. Andy Hornby; former RBS Chairman Sir Tom McKillop; and former Chairman of HBOS Lord Stevenson over their absolute greedy destruction of the banking system.

As this is likely to go on for a few days, i’m merely going to comment on some of the comments I heard from them today. All the ‘defendants’ have had weeks of training by experts on how to answer questions that might be put to them, and how to come across to the public. So, predictably, they all apologised for the financial crises. An apology that is deemed all the more ridiculous, by the knowledge that those like Sir Goodwin, have been doing this kind of immoral banking for decades.

After the pointless and well scripted apologies, the bankers were asked by the Select Committee if they felt their banks had lived up to their objective; to safe guard savings and investments. The answer? … “um….well…” They were asked again. The answer? “hmmm. we did not foresee….erm…“. And that was that. I think we can take that as a definite no.

Andy Hornby at HBOS made a point to tell the Committee his bonuses were all invested in shares, and so he’d “lost more money than he’d earned”. I’m not quite sure how this is worked out. His bonus, is merely that; a bonus. That doesn’t affect his £1.6million salary. He’s hardly losing. I’d suggest the word “losing” will be deeply resented among those of us who aren’t in the little circle of bankers.

Amusingly, MP John Mann asked Hornby what the level of JSA for his former staff was likely to be. Hornby looked confused. Hornby then asked what JSA is. Mann had to point out that JSA is job seekers allowance. That benefit money we all have to take, when we’re looking for work, after being shafted by major bankers. Ignorance is bliss for these people.

Asked what they thought of President Obama’s policy to cap the wages of American bail out bankers, the four ‘defendants’ all claimed to know nothing about it. These people know exactly what’s happening. It worries them. They have systematically destroyed many people’s lives, and the result is that their great wealth and power is being threatened, and they don’t like it. It’s the reason they shout “Socialism is coming to America!!!” (clearly they’ve never been to Cuba) the moment another case is made against them.

A reporter on Fox News said yesterday “The American people don’t like this new breed of change“. He was countered by another who rightly stated “There was an election for this exact change less than three months ago“. What the ‘people’ don’t want, is a return to the failed policies of the Right Wing that has lead to these bankers being allowed to do what they’re doing. It doesn’t work. It quite evidentally, hasn’t worked. Those of us who aren’t in bitter denial that our ideology has been proven to be an utter mess, are happy that we have Obama on board to support our values. “Socialism” wouldn’t have to be brought to America if the “Capitalists” had acted responsibly in the first place. Republicans can’t bring themselves to accept this. Even their British Counterparts, the Conservative Party had accepted it in part, by distancing themselves from Thatcher recently. It amazes me that the Republicans still have the nerve to claim they know how to deal with this mess better than anyone else. If they knew, why didn’t they stop it happening? They’ve had eight years!!! Why suddenly now do they have the answers? Why are they trying to put their own fire out, with more fire?

All of the defendants claimed that they had “not seen just how serious this crises would eventually become”.… Which suggests they aren’t really as good at what they do as their multi million pound salaries would have us believe. Another claim made by those who still cling to the notion that the free deregulated market is so wondrous,was made by Sir Fred Goodwin, who said if “the best bankers felt they were not paid enough, they would leave.” This was an attempt to justify their salaries and bonuses. Now, two problems. Firstly, you don’t have the best bankers. If these are the best we have, god help up. Secondly, if another bank wants to employ a banker who has destroyed the previous bank he worked for, at a higher wage!!!… then more fool them. I’m quite happy to take a quarter of that £1.6million wage, to fuck up their company.That’d be great. It pleases me to know that these greedy bastards are wriggling their way out of it, because we all know it’s bullshit on their part.

When accused by the MPs as living for the good times and ignoring all criticism, in a culture of greed and materialism, Sir Fred Goodwin stated quite amusingly “led the bank in a responsible fashion“. Well that’s reassuring.

It was also revealed that Andy Thornby, since leaving HBOS, has taken a £60,000 a month job as a consultant…..for Lloyds TSB… the company that took over HBOS. The MPs rightfully pointed out that he could pay the salaries of 36 of his low-paid staff that have lost their jobs at HBOS because of his utter uselessness for that amount. They asked “Why is failure being rewarded? Why are you still getting this money?” £60,000 a month! He should be in prison, not allowed such high wages. It amazes me that they do not fully comprehend just what they have done.Thornby then went on to say that HBOS had over 100 years of experiance and high quality risk management under their belts. Yeah…. how’s that worked out for you?

Lord Stevenson, of HBOS, the UKs biggest mortgage lender, claimed that they did not see the collapse of the property price coming. Which must just please the shareholders over at HBOS, that with the mighty levels of responsibility HBOS has as the leading UK mortgage lender, haven’t really been accepted.

A few months after Goodwin at RBS acquired Natwest, he axed 18,000 jobs. A month later, RBS bought a new £17.5million private jet. Now at the risk of sounding as Conservatives and Republicans would suggest, a “socialist“, i’d say that people and those jobs that were axed, are far more morally important than Goodwin’s “right” to buy a new £17.5million Private Jet. He lives in a World far away from the majority of us.

One of the biggest revelations today, was that a risk assessment officer working at RBS was sacked for suggesting bad times ahead. He told the bankers to “slow down” and that there was going to be problems in the future if they carried on. This was four years ago. He then took RBS to court for unfair dismissal and won. However, a gagging order was placed on him. He was not allowed to talk about why he was sacked. He was in short, silenced. He was then replaced in his role by a friend of the chairman who had absolutely no training or qualifications to be a risk assessment officer, but as previously stated, was a friend of the chairman. She didn’t deliver the same damning verdict as her predecessor. She was given a bonus. The company then pretty much collapsed, just as her predecessor had forseen.

They spent the first ten minutes of the proceedings apologising “sincerely” and that they took full responsibility. The next two and a half hours they spent telling us it wasn’t them after all. It strikes me as utterly contemptuous that these people who are living quite luxuriously off the bail out money from tax payers, can then repossess the homes of the people who have just helped pay for their next luxury holiday. How is this ‘fair’ capitalism? Yes they should apologise. They should spend three hours on their knees apologising. They should offer to give large sums of their personal wealth to the people who are no struggling to survive. That would truly should just how sorry they are. Instead, they’re so sorry, they’re going to leave the Select Committee, and head to a lovely beach somewhere on tax payers money, after taking their private jet paid for at the expense of 18,000 jobs. And this is a fair system? Get a grip on reality.

Thornby, who kept insisting he’d not seen a penny of his bonuses because he’d invested them in shares spoke as if that was a good thing. As if he did that out of the kindness of his heart. The reason he invested those bonuses, was purely to make more money, on top of the bonuses. To make if you will, a bonus out of a bonus. Isn’t that the legacy of one big greedy culture that was swept the Western World over the past thirty years. To then try to suggest that it’s an admirable thing, is ridiculous.

For the past hour, the bankers have all suggested it’s too easy for us to blame them; that actually the Government is to blame, and that the FSA is to blame. The collapse of the wholesale market is to blame. Everybody but themselves. Like children having a tantrum. The product of the Thatcherite era of deregulation and the flawed notion that leaving it to the professionals is the way forward. Thatcher famously exclaimed “There is no such thing as society“. Promoting self interest and greed. Echoes of the future, it would seem.

The Etonian problem

Conservative Leader David Cameron has told The Telegraph that he would like to send his children to state school. Something the last Tory Government would not do. Instead chosing to send their child to private schools whilst themselves running the state school system.

One might say that Cameron is doing the right thing. If he plans to run the state school system one day, he should show his confidence in it. However, despite that, I do think that the Conservative Leader is using his kids to his advantage politically, which is somewhat uncomfortable to know.

Cameron himself is an Etonian himself. His Shadow Cabinet is comprised largely of ex-Public school Etonians and even his best man at his wedding is an Etonian. He surrounds himself with one class of people. Oliver Letwin, Edward Llewellyn, Danny Kruger, George Brides, Zac Goldsmith; All from Eton. The last time a group of elite Etonians held such power, was the Tory Prime Minister in the 1950s, Harold McMillan.

It is always going to be difficult for someone like David Cameron to prove that his Eton roots will not influence his political agenda. Secretly, his Eton roots are considered a bit of an embarrasment. Cameron is trying to place himself as ‘in touch’ against a Government who appear more and more out of touch every day. Cameron has urged the Tories to lose their old toff image, to embrace Gay marriage, to embrace meritocracy and to lose the concept that they are a party run by the rich in support of the rich. As difficult as that task will be, I give him full credit for trying. He’s already vowed to look after the NHS even though former Tory governments have slashed it’s budget disastrously in the past. He has also plegded to scrap stamp for first time home buyers whilst investing in new, greener homes. He may have made a mistake among certain members of the electorate who were considering voting Tory over Labour this time around when in 2006, he tried to distance himself from the Thatcher era, which divided a nation in the 1980s. But then in 2008, did everything but get on his knees and bow down to her. This was a mistake. It could have cost him had an election been called at the very end of 2008.

Cameron is clearly trying to present himself as anything but the Etonian toff we all think he is. And all credit to him for that.
The Tories however showed their true blue colours when faced with the current economic crises, by offering nothing but blame placing. Pledging nothing to help families and people struggling the most, the Tories simply promised a cut in public spending. It is in the Conservatives genes to refuse to suggest that the deregulation they so highly cherished through the 1980s and 1990s might not have been as successful as they thought it would. Unlike the Republicans in the U.S, the Tories aren’t just complaining about certain parts of the stimulus package… their arguing against the need for a stimulus at all. People still need help with their homes, with their schools, with their hospitals; and Cameron’s somewhat suspicious slide back to the right wing of British politics could well prove to be an indicator of things to come, when he inevitably becomes our next Prime Minister. But, given that he’s the first Tory to actually try to impress into the public’s mind, a sense that the old toff Tories are transforming into a new in-touch party for the rich and for the poor, is worth crediting him for.

However, using your children to further enchance this new image of his? Why did he need to tell us he will send his children to state school? Why not just do it? Also, the state schools he talks about sending his children to, will not be the typical state schools like that ones the majority of the British public went to. They will be the state schools that are the very best funded in the land. They can be found in the rich area of London in which the Cameron family resides. So I do happen to find it slightly misleading and ever so slightly of bad taste to be using your children to try to break from the perception of Etonian public school boy out of touch past.

Not that any of this matters in the long run. The electorate will not vote for Cameron because they have delved into his ideals, they will vote for Cameron, because they despise Brown.

The assassination of the Left

“As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?” – Alexis De Tocqueville

I over heard two little old ladies discussing Obama, on the Bus a few days back. One said to the other ..”..he’ll be assassinated before long, all the good ones are…” . This statement got me thinking.

According to The Telegraph, last year; “Security surrounding Barack Obama has been stepped up amid fears he could be an assassination target“. So the threat is there.

As I watched the Inauguration, the preposterous thought lingering at the back of my mind as the motorcade (As i’m sure it did with many people watching that day) made it’s way down Pennsylvania Avenue, was “If he gets out of that car, he could be killed“. He got out. He lived. I was clearly being a little over paranoid.

However, if you’d have asked people on November 22nd 1963, if they thought the President could be so easily killed, they’d have laughed at you too. They’d have claimed it ridiculous to even consider. And even afterwards, the blaming of such a colossal historical event such as the Kennedy Assassination is widely blamed on one crazed man, despite an incredible amount of evidence pointing to the contrary.

Strong Left Wing characters on the World stage with deep influence do not last very long. John Kennedy was one of many which to date includes Robert Kennedy, Dr Martin Luther King Jr, Ghandi, John Lennon, Fidel Castro (who despite being alive, has been the subject of many plots), Che Guevara, and half the establish Left wing of Chile. It’s something even the late comedian Bill Hicks picked up on. Especially when it comes to Kennedy, there could not be more evidence to suggest a connection to people like E.Howard Hunt (who even admitted his involvement in the assassination) Who was also involved in the removal of the Left wing government of Guatamala, Che’s death and in Watergate. It seems that when the Left wing becomes pretty powerful, the Left Wing pays the price. Do I believe it’s one big right winged conspiracy? No. Not at all. I believe that when the power of the rich becomes threatened, they act to protect themselves. Who do I believe the Kennedy assassination can be largely attributed to? Lyndon Johnson. It’s all about power, it’s all about money.
Unfortunately for the Kennedy conspirators… they didn’t count on a film of the event taking place that day. Nor did they count on Hunt being identified pretty conclusively by a Photographer that day. They should also be slamming their heads into the wall over the ridiculous notion that a gangster like Jack Ruby shot Oswald purely because he “felt for Jackie and the kids“.
Having read the Warren Commission’s report all the way through a couple of times, and having likewise read the Hutton Enquiry’s report into the death of Dr David Kelly over here in England, it’s not very long before you come to the conclusion that a Commission’s Report will never tell the entire truth.

A man named David Sanchez Morales, who is somewhat of a legend in CIA circles, who colleagues have claimed “if you see him walking down the street in a foreign country, then you know a coup is about to take place”… is quoted as saying to a friend and reporter in 1973; “I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when we got the little bastard.” The evidence is overwhelming in that if they want to, the powers that be can eliminate the President of the United States and his brother, and get away with it.

So based on the logic, is it possible that President Obama could be assassinated? Yes… based on the fact that he’s clearly left wing and i’m not sure if America is ready to accept such a President for very long. I’m not suggesting that those who disagree as strongly as many do with him, are all out to see him dead, not at all. Like those of us who hated George Bush, we did not want to see him killed. We wanted to see him democratically removed from Office. Likewise, the majority of those who disagree strongly with President Obama want to see him removed Democratically and peacefully. But there will be those, who do not care for such notions.
Capping the wages of guys at the Companies who demanded bail out money; although a fantastic and much needed move, was also incredibly dangerous.
Princeton University professor of Political Science, Melissa Harris-Lacewell stated that ” “For many black supporters, there is a lot of anxiety that he will be killed. It is on people’s minds.“. The fact that he is Black is much less of a fear for those of us who like Obama, than it is that he’s a Left Winger. His ideology presents the most problematic of dilemmas.

The Hindustan Times referred to President Obama as the “biggest ever assassination target in US History“. I think that’s true. His skin colour is one thing, but mix that together with his ideology and he’s easily the biggest target for assassination that has ever stepped foot in the White House.

Now, i’m in no way claiming to hero worship either Kennedy brother. They were both a little bit dodgy to say the least. But as ideologies go, I relate to them. Much as I do to Obama.

The fact is, if the unthinkable were to happen and Obama were to be injured or worst still, killed, regardless who committed the act, it would be blamed on White Supremacists. The Kennedy assassination was blamed on an Anti-Castro lone gunman. The RFK Assasination was blamed on a disgruntled Palestinian.

Whatever the truth may be in these cases, the public will never know. We will never know why people heard shots coming from the Grassy Knoll. We will never know why a man had an umbrella opened on a sunny day. We will never know why a tramp was arrested who looked like Howard Hunt and the interview that took place between the police chief and the tramp was never recovered. We will never know why Oswald chose to say “I’m just the patsy“. We will never know why Jack Ruby killed Oswald. But we have our own minds. We can look at the evidence, and we can use our common sense to come to our own conclusions. I conclude that Kennedy was killed because Johnson was a little bit too ambitious. I conclude that RFK and Martin Luther King were killed because they threatened the status quo. I conclude that if Obama is killed, it’s because agents for hope and change, even including President Lincoln, do not last too long in Politics.

Perhaps i’m wrong. Perhaps the 1960s was such a turbulent decade. Perhaps those who wanted such powerful change both economically and on the issue of civil rights, were ahead of their time. Perhaps they were easy targets. Perhaps the threat of Communism was such a worry that anyone with Left Wing values were considered a threat. Perhaps those days of such malicious undercover CIA operations is over. Perhaps Obama has inherited such a financial mess, and such a hated ex-President, that that fact alone will keep him safe. Let’s hope so.