The great housing problem

I sit here, trying desperately to understand the reasons that the husband of Home Secretary Jacqui Smith didn’t just visit the plethora of wondrous porn sites that grace the internet, rather than using MPs expenses claim for a porn video which subsequently created another problem in a long list of problems for his incompetent and largely pointless wife. It strikes me as ridiculous.

The issue of whether or not the indelibly randy Richard Timney is “getting any” from wife Jacqui is fatuous and slightly nauseating but it brings back to the forefront of the public mind, the problems that have plagued Mrs Smith for some time. Another shiny gold sticker of woe to add to her wall of thousands of the same.

This time last month, John Lyon, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards agreed to investigate whether Jacqui Smith had broken Parliamentarian rules by claiming £116,000 in second home allowances after she designated her sister’s house in London as her second home, regardless of the fact that she spends (according to her neighbours who made the complaint) about two days a week in that home before returning to her constituency home in Worcester.

This raises three issues; firstly, if MPs like Smith and McNulty have not broken any rules in regard to financing a 2nd home, then the rules are wrong and should be changed. You cannot claim so much money for a second home that is less than eight miles from your constituency home, as in McNulty’s case, it is wrong.

Secondly, just because these rules exist, doesn’t mean MPs like Smith and McNulty are morally obliged to push the rules to their limits. Just because they are inside the law, doesn’t make it acceptable. It isn’t.

Thirdly, and most importantly, second homes are not just a problem for MPs. In a society in which Thatcherism tells us it’s ok to own two, three, four or as many homes as you can possibly buy up because apparently owning equals freedom, we’re left with a deep problem. There are very little affordable homes left in the Country, because those who can afford to, buy them up. Often living in one, whilst using the second as a summer retreat. The “right to buy” has meant that one-time council homes that were built so a young couple could get a cheaply rented home until they had saved enough to jump to the private sector, no longer exists. One time council homes are now owned by the private sector, which during the 1980s pushed the average price of a house up by 225% and more and more people encouraged to invest in a second home. And apparently no one saw this credit crunch – with it’s origins in the sub prime market aimed at those who can’t afford such obscene house prices – coming. Which is apparently fine, easy money, and because community is now a dirty word in comparison to individual, it means those who have holiday homes do not care enough about the local amenities, and so those local once thriving communities die out.

The fishing village of Beadnell in Northumberland is suffering disastrously because any one who dares to reject the flawed notion of social and economic Darwinism is considered out of touch at best and Communist at worst. Beadnell was once a thriving fishing town, but because 256 of the 500 homes in the village are now holiday homes used for a very short period per year; shops, local businesses and schools have had to close down.
Beadnell is just one example. The Scottish village ofBraemar is another example of economic Darwinism imposing it’s strict but certainly not absolute (as opposed to natural selection within nature itself) principle of the wealthy few buying up the available homes for private holiday use, destroying the village life in the process, whilst slowly pushing house prices to the limit, forcing locals out. Would it be too “Socialist” and evil to presume that freedom to destroy a village is not as important to uphold as the freedom for those villagers to live peacefully, and as a community? For all of those who truly equate Capitalism with Democracy, would it not be fair and just, to put it to a vote, whether the citizens of Beadnell or Braemar actually want those rich few, using their village as holiday village? Freedom only appears to actually mean freedom, when it applies to those with money, the rest of us only have the freedom to shut our mouths and let it happen.

Labour offer nothing on their policy website. Absolutely no indication of the future of the housing problem in England and what they plan to do. As usual, useless.
The Tories offer the much of the same bullshit that lead to the problem in the first place. “Conservative Government will make it easier for social tenants to own or part-own their home. This will not only help people up the housing ladder, but also ensure residents have greater pride and a greater stake in their community.”…. So what’s new? Any new homes built under the next Conservative government will be privately owned, which will push housing prices through the roof even more because supply will never reach growing demand due to population rise, and yet another generation of have-nots will be thrown into high rise badly secure blocks of flats polluted with crime and a sense that they are the forgotten children of history. Great. You cannot keep throwing a few new homes into the mix, for short term solutions.

A few people (spurred on by the BNP) seem to be of the opinion that immigrants are “queue jumping” and eating up the last remaining social homes, leaving none for British born citizens. According to a report by the Equality & Human Rights Commission, immigrants made up less than 2% of social housing in the UK. So it isn’t the fault of immigrants, much like every other problem we seem to be blaming on immigrants, isn’t their fault. We appear to ignore the fact that around 800,000 unused private homes around the country, and instead we choose to blame those ‘damn’ immigrants.

So maybe renting is the answer?
No.
Since that wondrous 1988 Housing Act, landlords can freely set rent at whatever price they so choice, which usually means most of the tenant’s wages per month, which in turn means those tenant’s cannot save enough to get a mortgage, even though mortgage payments are usually cheaper than the rent they’re currently paying. And so enter the sub prime market. We all know what happened with that one.

According to Sky News, 83,000 people were homeless in Britain in 2008. Let’s sort that little gem out before we start allowing people to own an entire village, using it once a year for two weeks. If i’m expected to support “freedom” which includes the right to own as many properties as you like, without anyone living in them for most of the year, pushing property prices through the roof, just so you can make a profit and buy a bigger TV, whilst someone else lives on the street, largely ignored, I’m afraid i’m going to have to tell you to fuck off.

And it’s all down to the fact that those cleanly shaven business men in their Armani suits keep telling me that a house is the best investment i’ll ever make……….. I have to disagree with them. A house is not an investment, a house is somewhere to live, to raise a family, and to enjoy. If I ever manage to own my own home, it will not be with the intention to make a nice tidy profit in the future, it will be a home. People should not be allowed to own more than one home.

Still, as long as Jacqui Smith can claim that she broke no rules taking £116,000 for no good reason whatsoever, the equilibrium of greed and immorality is restored.

The G20: Excuse my pessimism.

I wish i’d have travelled down to London today for the G20 marches.
In Seattle ten years ago, riots broke out ahead of a World Trade meeting. The people marching on that day were marching for a fairer economic system, an end to poverty and care for the environmental issues. Ten years on, those same issues are fresh in the minds of the protesters. It stands to reason then, that we have the most incompetent politicians possible. It’s the reason i’m not a big fan of Democracy. So my ideal G20 meeting, would end up with…..

The end of the idea that a CEO earning 300 times more than his workers is “fair”. Because it isn’t. That CEO is not working 300 times harder. He’s taking the wealth created by his workers, and “redistributing” it to himself. It’s so overly wrong.

The end to the idea that higher taxes means less freedom. If it takes higher taxation on the rich, to lift people out of poverty, to feed children, to feed the World. Then go for it. If my pay check means I can’t afford a couple new Xbox games this month, because it’s going to feeding the poor, i’m all for it.

The end to tax havens. Let’s give developing Nations what they need and are fundamentally owed, by tax dodging criminals in expensive suits.

The end of Fox News telling me that capping the salaries of Bank CEOs who took bail out money is going to do more harm than good because those CEOs will just go elsewhere, to banks that offer better uncapped salaries and so places like AIG lose out further. No they don’t. That’s utter nonsense. Firstly, if you have to “pay bonuses” to get the best people, and those best people then destroy the World economic system because their interest in short term profit at the expense of borrowers; they aren’t the “best people”. And secondly, if those better placed banks decide they want to hire the Sir Fred Goodwin’s of the World, the men who destroyed their banks, at a higher salary; then good luck to them, it’ll be the death of them.

Tough penalties for companies who are found to be exploiting the people of poorer nations. Primark for example. Who just seem to be allowed to get away with it. Coca Cola, who poison the much needed water supplies of poor villages for extra profit.

Tough decisions on Climate Change. Huge investment in alternative energy to gradually pull us away from dependency on shrinking oil supplies. A real new Green, low carbon economic deal.

Instead of further bank bailouts, i’d like to see the Government do something for the people. Perhaps pay the mortgage debts of all those who took out sub prime. The banks therefore get the money back that they lent out, and the customer now has a higher share of disposable income to pump through to the rest of the economy.

Those CEOs who are directly responsible for the collapse of the system, should face a jail sentence. If a single mum “plays” the tax system to help her feed her family can face jail, then there is no reason that Sir Fred Goodwin shouldn’t face jail. In fact, there’s more reason.

Occupation, like America in Iraq, or Israel in Gaza, needs to be expressed as a disease of the 20th Century, that isn’t welcome in the 21st Century. Let’s stop the growing concern that resource wars might become common place in the future. Peace should be on the agenda.

Let’s join people together. We’re all in this mess together. So let’s not look at this crises in terms of “our nation against their nation” because it isn’t. A global new deal is needed. Call it a “New World Order” if you want to, but a deal is needed that brings nations together, and benefits everyone, not just the wealthy West.

An end to private campaign funds for democratic elections. Let’s make politicians agree that they are accountable to the people, and to the progress of the World. Not to business. Campaigns should be paid for out of public funds. Nationalised. Because of all public projects, this is the most important.

Put me in charge of the World.

Of course none of that will happen. It’ll just be 20 leaders, coming to no agreement, and we’ll soon be back to business as usual. Tax havens will still exist; African children will still be seen as less important than an American’s right to suck up as much wealth as possible for that new yacht he quite likes the look of; America and Russia will still be utterly suspicious of each other to the detriment of the rest of the World; occupation will still be “necessary” to secure new oil supplies; and of course there will be talk about how climate change is essential but not as essential as masturbating the ego and “freedom” of big business.

Excuse my pessimism.

The leak

In 2003, weapons expert, and United Nations Weapons Inspector in Iraq, Dr David Kelly was found dead in woodlands near his home, on the route he took for his daily walks. That very morning he had sent an email to New York Times journalist Judith Miller in regard to her recent book about bioterrorism. The email included the line “.. many dark actors playing games” when discussing biological warfare across nations.
Kelly was asked to proofread a dossier of evidence against Iraq in the run up to the war. He was asked, because he was a weapons expert. He raised concerns about the claim that Iraq could launch bio and chemical weapons in 45 minutes. Later, he supposedly “leaked” this to the Observer, with the quote…
“They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were – facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.“
Dr Kelly then met with BBC Journalist Andrew Gilligan in a hotel in Charing Cross. Kelly agreed to give evidence and quotes against the 45 minute claim, as long as the BBC kept his name private. He stated that the inclusion of the 45 minute claim was the responsibility of Alaistair Campbell, even though he knew it was dubious at best, and an outright lie at worst.
Two months later, he was found dead.
The Hutton Enquiry (An enquiry set up by Blair – and so was never going to be in the slightest bit honest and objective) concluded that Dr Kelly had killed himself because the stress of the job was just too much to handle. Lord Hutton wrote….
“Whatever pressures and strains Kelly was subjected to by the decisions and actions taken in the weeks before his death, I am satisfied that no one realised or should have realised that those pressures and strains might drive him to take his own life or contribute to his decision to do so.”
So basically, that covers the fact that Kelly wasn’t at all suicidal. The pessimists among us, are undoubtedly suspicious. Kelly clearly knew more than he possibly should, and he appeared to be a threat to the whole legality of the War scenario. Police officially stated that Kelly died from blood loss. However, Doctors including the two medics at the scene of the crime, have since came out and said that the way Kelly died is incontestably suspicious and raises some serious questions that the government and the Hutton inquiry both failed to answer significantly.

In January 2003 Civil servant Katharine Gun working as a translator for GCHQ, leaked a memo to the Guardian, from US Officials at the NSA, which stated the U.S wanted help to bug UN offices in Angola, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, and Pakistan. These nations were considered “swing states”; votes needed for a UN Security Council resolution authorising the Iraq invasion. If i’m not mistaken, President Nixon was impeached for something eerily similar.
Katharine Gun was charged under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1989. Her case was thrown out of court.
A few days ago I watched her at the Public Administrations Committee hearing on leaks and whistleblowers and I admire her greatly. She was charged for telling the truth. She was charged, for trying to put an end to the manipulation and the lies thrown at us by the Bush Administration and the Blair government. Her leaking of this explosive yet insightful document into the underhanded tactics used by the Americans to throw the World into war and waste the lives of so many innocent victims is commendable. She was obliged to do what she did. Her conscience is clean in comparison to Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Blair, Campbell and Brown. What the U.S did, was illegal, and has cost a million-plus lives. It amazes me, and befuddles my naive mind, that those at the top; up to and including George W Bush are not rotting in prison somewhere.
The MPs asked Katharine Gun, at the hearing, why she had gone straight to the media, and why she hadn’t gone to MPs or raised her concerns with government officials……. My reaction to that was twofold, firstly – it’s been six years now and we all know that Bush and Blair lied outrageously and yet nothing has been done, it’s largely been ignored. Those MPs who now want to know why whistleblowers hadn’t came to them first should start looking inward at how useless and untrustworthy we all think they are. Who do you trust? And secondly, if you trust the wrong person, and if the fate of Dr David Kelly is anything to go by, Katharine Gun could easily have been another name Lord Hutton dismissed as dead of “pressures and strains”.

Teo Te Ching: The normality of selfishness

“Manifest plainness, Embrace simplicity, Reduce selfishness, Have few desires”
- Lao Tzu

I have a deep love for anyone who dedicates their lives or part of their wealth to Charitable causes. People who can freely reject consumerism and embrace humanitarianism full throttle I not only admire, but I envy quite significantly so that it annoys me just how weak I am in rejecting the pointless life I lead now, and embrace the route they take.
Those, like myself, who do little when we know we should do more, I do not have all that much respect for. In fact, they (and by they, I include myself) lead a worthless life.

Often the reason given for the success of Capitalism and the failure of Communism, is that the human race is inherently selfish; driven by our own self interest. And whilst I utterly disagree with that, it has become the centre piece for the argument in support of deregulated free trade. What this argument fails to accept is two points; firstly that with upward mobility increasing it isn’t just down to free markets, it’s also down to Government interference in the markets – the New Deal springs to mind, as well as social aspects like the Civil Rights act; Secondly, given that i’m going along the Taoist line – upward mobility has the opposite of downward mobility. America appears to classify it’s economic dominance by the wealth of the rich. The fact that 40,000,000 people cannot afford Health insurance, which includes 10,000,000 children is largely ignored because whilst those people are allowed to suffer in silence, people like Bill Gates can have $60bn. What is so horribly wrong and offensive when I suggest that we take $30bn of Bill Gates wealth, and spend it purely on feeding those who cannot afford to feed themselves? Let’s truly give everyone the right to life. Because not everyone can afford to be on the relentless trail of profit. Some, just need to eat.

Somewhere along the line, compassion died and the morality of self interest became dominant. Suddenly it isn’t Britain or America’s responsibility to lift millions of Third World citizens out of poverty; to feed them; to clothe them; to protect them. We prefer to turn our heads and blame corrupt governments, forgetting nonchalantly that many of those governments we empowered. We chose to ignore that our Western Companies such as Coca Cola have been poisoning water supplies in poverty stricken areas of India, because the profit gained pleases Western shareholders; who appear to be much more important that a few Indian children. And still, there’s an insistence that this system we live by, is the fairest. It isn’t the fairest, it’s merely because we in the West happen to be lucky enough to have been born where we were born, in relative paradise; taught to exploit whenever the opportunity to advance our wealth presents itself. And suddenly we all think if we try hard enough, we can become Bill Gates, rather than the reality that if we try hard enough, chances are all we’ll be able to do is afford a holiday to Spain twice a year instead of once a year, like before the promotion. That’s it. Every so often, a talent is required, like that of Bill Gates, and that person with that talent, is rewarded monstrously. If we lived in a World where we didn’t need Microsoft, in a World where blogging on a site called futiledemocracy.com were heavily rewarded, Bill Gates’ talent would be useless and mine would be incredibly well cashed up…. and Republicans would be shouting about how fair it is that I cash in on my talent. What if a Bill Gates exists in Sudan right now? What if the man with the idea on how to cure Cancer is born in Kenya tomorrow to an Aids ridden family? Are we really relying on the Western World to produce the most intelligent and brave people?

Today, a close friend of mine rang me up to tell me that she’d just been asked to give to charity, and she turned it down. She doesn’t like to give to charity. She then insisted that she doesn’t have the money to give to charity, yet in the next breath told me she’s been shopping in Primark and later in Subway. She vocalises her submission to consumerism; her pointless existence as if it’s perfectly ok. Which, it isn’t. It isn’t fair. It isn’t moral. It’s wrong. And yet, i’m no different. It’s the reason my room is kitted out with an Xbox 360, a TV, this very PC that I use to thunderously smash my confused fist against the keyboard buttons in order to create meaningless blog entries for Republicans and Conservatives to spew their bullshit over. It’s the reason I have books on by Chomsky, John McCain, Franklin Roosevelt. It’s the reason an episode from my series two Lost DVD is on pause. I spent that money on myself, which went to giant companies; which in turn helped to buy a new yaht and a house in Paradise for the Sir Fred Goodwins of the World. It’s wrong, so very wrong. And whilst I’m a horrible hypocrite for buying into it, i’m slowly trying to dig my way out of it. I don’t want to live a life based on the turd of consumerism. And whilst I have fully bought into the Capitalist system, i’m not somebody who will suggest it’s fair and right; I recognise the harshness and the lies hidden behind the system.

We’re lost Spiritually, because we’re found Materialistically.

My very Philosophy on life is that the less you have, the happier you are. The more you give, the more satisfying the result. Work should be undertaken for the community; everyone should be fed, sheltered, educated, and have a minimal standard of health care across the Planet. The moment anyone dies of extreme poverty, is the moment we all drop the chase for profit, and make sure nobody else can possibly die of extreme poverty. Once the Planet is free from poverty. Once Pharmaceutical companies allow their much needed drugs to be widely available in Countries like Mozambique at the same price as they are available in countries that do not need them like Norway; the moment essential resources of poor nations are not snapped up by European and American businessmen at the expense of the native people; the moment the plundering of resources does not harm any one in the way that Coca Cola harmed the water supply of India; the moment the deaths of 60,000,000 people over the space of five years from nothing more than lack of food is recognised as THE most important and inhumane issue facing civilisation instead of just being completely ignored because it’s more important to make sure a crook controlling AIG keeps his obscene pension – when all this is achieved, and only then, should we be allowed to focus on individual profit. We’re all people, we’re all from the same place, and we’re all going to end up in the same place. Why is it such a taboo to suggest we should work together and help each other?

The very same people who insist that Socialism, the redistribution of wealth, giving “free money” to those who haven’t worked for it, is wrong; then go on to tell me how inheritance tax is despicable. Isn’t inherited wealth just a form of inter-family Socialism? The children haven’t worked for that money. They could potentially inherit millions of dollars and not have to work a day in their lives, whilst the child who was born in the hospital bed next to him, has a family who are unable to leave him much at all. The rich only tend to insult the ideals of Socialism, when it threatens their wealth. Otherwise, they’re all for it. The moment we all realise how hypocritical and dreadfully ignorant we are, the better the chance we have at creating a much more equal and just society.

According to Commondreams.org , the average CEO takes home wages 300 times heavier than their workers. Are those CEOs 300 times more important? Do they work 300 times harder? Now i’m not sure where in the doctrine of fairness, it was written that the wealth created by those workers, was fairly distributed when it went to pay the CEO 300 times more money than themselves but where ever it was, it was wrong. I’d go further, and suggest that this isn’t Capitalism, this is Corporate Communism. It’s a bunch of small Communist companies, in which the bottom of the pit are exploited to feed the extravagances of the top few. It’s the reason that 40% of the World’s wealth is owned by 1% of the population. What if we took 30% of that away from them, and gave it feed the hungry? Why should we wait for people to be charitable? Is 1% of the population earning almost half the wealth of the World, the trickle down affect that Thatcher and Reagan promoted? When is that 40% going to trickle down? Because there’s an entire Continent over the sea called Africa that seems to have been forgotten.

Do I believe my life would be much worse, if I “Manifest plainness, Embrace simplicity, Reduce selfishness, and had few desires“…. no. I don’t believe that humanity is inherently selfish and addicted to the very core of consumerist sentiment so much so that we can’t let go. Nor do I believe that once that consumerist sentiment has burrowed deep within you, is it simple to let go. I’d be the first to admit that i’d struggle with TV, my Wii Fit, a bike, my books, and my PC. I’d struggle hugely. But that doesn’t mean I need all those things. It certainly doesn’t mean I should be free to have those things whilst others die unnecessarily. My greed and my selfishness embodies that of Western society as a whole. We all know consumerism is detremental, we all know that climate change is down to our excessive consumption of green house gases due to the fact that we take the car the short journey down the road because we cannot be arsed to walk; we all know that the food we waste is nothing short of criminal given that millions are dying every year for lack of that food; we all know that whilst we sit in relative luxury we are happy to blindly defend a system that is inherently unfair, unjust, corrupt and murderous by nature….. because to do otherwise, would be hypocritical of us at best, and threaten our luxurious lifestyles at worst.

I believe we’ve all had it drummed into our minds for far too long, generation after generation, told that free market capitalism, exploitation is fair and just. That we should just ignore those less fortunate because it’s probably their fault. We should just turn our heads to the African child dying in the street, because his or her government, who the child has never heard of or seen before is corrupt, that we should embrace it, because the alternative would mean we can’t have that Xbox game we want as the money would go to someone who actually needs it, and for some reason, that would be inexcusably wrong and immoral. It is, in short, utter bullshit, and we all know it, we just don’t all admit it.

Am I embracing my own Philosophy? Practising what I preach? No. Would I complain if a man came to my house, took my Xbox and sold it, then showed by a photo of a child who can now eat because the money he made went to feeding that child? No. I’d nominate that man for a Knighthood. He’s a better man than me.

Special Olympicsgate

I called one of my friends retarded, two days ago. I’m wondering if the new found moral compass of the Republican blog-o-sphere are now shaking their heads in utter disapproval and outrage. I suppose I should make up for it by invading a Nation, torturing and killing it’s people and then lying about why I did it. They seem to respond well to that.

Torture, dead soldiers, over 1,000,000 dead innocent Iraqis, the Worst economic disaster in American history, the death of the World economy, spitting in the face of the Geneva convention, making the World twice as unsafe as ever before, making America the laughing stock of the World, the destruction of the planet purely to enrich oil buddies, the lies such as “Mission Accomplished” whilst more troops died, and not forgetting shooting a man in the face without a hunting licence….. And Republicans have decided now’s the time to take the moral high ground and cry over Obama’s “Special Olympics” joke which he made about himself (which, I found quite funny)? They appear to have spent the last eight years in a dark room, and missed everything. The death, the destruction, the torture; all ignored. Well done guys!

The War Crimes Act of 1996, makes it a Federal crime to inflict “killing, torture or inhuman treatment” on a detainee. In a leaked memo to Bush, written by Alberto Gonzales before the invasion of Iraq in which over a million people have died, he says that the President should try to get round the Geneva convention, because it would “substantially reduces the likelihood of prosecution under the War Crimes Act.” So it became easy to torture a new set of prisoners who were not covered by the Geneva Convention, because they were not called “Prisoners of War“; Bush’s team created the term “enemy combatants” and shipped them off to Guantanamo…. which meant they suddenly had no rights – whether they were guilty or not.

I mean, Obama could invite a Special Olympian to defeat him at a game of bowling, or he could just run the Country better than the retarded fellow and his “Special Administration” that fucked up the Country……..nay………. the World, for the past eight years.
If Haliburton could profit from “offensive” jokes, Republicans would have set the bar incredibly high a decade ago, and this Obama gaffe wouldn’t have even made Fox News. But then, if the joke were aimed at Iraqi Civilians, it wouldn’t have even made Fox News.

If anything, Sean Hannity is going to have something meaningless to talk about for the next week. And it gives Republican bloggers another reason to yell “IMPEACHMENT!!” for no good reason. But then again, if 100,000,000 dead innocents can be killed; thousands tortured; the Geneva convention ignored; a war started on the basis of a lie leading to the deaths of thousands of U.S soldiers; doing nothing as an entire city sinks under a tsunami; the economy plunged into darkness; if all that can happen without being impeached, then calling yourself retarded at bowling live on TV, isn’t going to be a problem…… unless you’re Sean Hannity obviously.

Obama shouldn’t have said what he said. He should be Politically Correct in public. He is, and should be held to a higher standard. He apologised immediately (which is refreshing; i’m sure the families of the dead Iraqis would appreciate a “sorry” from Republicans; I fear that wont be happening any time soon). The entire Leno interview showed Obama as a person rather than a mythical robotic leader. It quite obviously wasn’t made with malice, it wasn’t intended offensively, it was poking fun at himself. However, he should have known better. End of story. But for all the Republican hysteria over this, one has to wonder; if this was the only thing George Bush had fucked up on over the past eight years, millions of people would still be alive and with their families, the economy wouldn’t be a mess, and people like Benyam Mohammed wouldn’t have spent seven years being tortured for a crime he didn’t commit, whilst the Bush administration now sits in relative comfort enjoying retirement. Republicans everywhere appear to have grew halos in the past three months. It’s an amazing advancement….. or maybe not….. given that Rush “Magic Negro….. Michael J Fox is playing up with his Parkinsons” Limbaugh is running the show and the GOP never feels the need to take the moral high ground against him (when they do, they immediately apologise to him). The only advice I can offer Republican bloggers on here…. never EVER watch Family Guy. Your head will explode. Now shut the fuck up, and let him try and fix the World that you people destroyed.

Tao Te Ching: Violence

When I was 19, I first came across Tao Te Ching and it’s teachings. I didn’t read it as a guide to my own life, simply as a work of literature; a beautiful work of literature. At around this time, I read the Old Testament and a part of the Koran. As works of art go, the Old Testament and the Koran, are genius. Fantastic stories that transcend time. It amazed me that I was reading words that have been read by great scholars and kings for generations. What the Bible and the Koran didn’t do, was provide me with answers. Nor did they act as a moral guide. I consider them to be war manuals, intolerant hate filled nonsense that may have applied to a time long past, but has no room in society today.

Tao Te Ching is different. It fits my liberal way of thinking, whilst also providing a beautiful moral guide that has more relevance today than it ever has before. I cannot possibly live by it’s guide, because i’m far too materialistic and Western, engrossed in Capitalism and things that do not matter, to be able to forget it all and live a Taoist lifestyle, but as ethical systems go, Taoism is mine. One of the passages I come to read over and over, is the passage on violence.

“Whoever relies on the Tao in governing men
doesn’t try to force issues
or defeat enemies by force of arms.
For every force there is a counterforce.
Violence, even well intentioned,
always rebounds upon oneself.”
- Tao Te Ching

I’ve always been aware of street gangs around the City that I live. I never associated with anyone in them, because it seemed their lives were meaningless and irreconcilable with my philosophy on life. Whenever i’d hear stories about fights that my friends had got into, i’d think “why?” …… “He called me a cunt, so I smacked him!“…… well i’m sure that did the trick! I’m sure he doesn’t think you’re a cunt any more!…….. and more often than not, it backfired, and they’d end up getting the living shit kicked out of them. Violence for me, was for weak minded, insecure idiots. It did nothing for me, and I hate associating with people who live like that. “I’m going to knock him ooout!”….. shut up you moron.
The term “governing men” to me, refers to anyone in any group considered the leader. I always felt great respect for those who could fight with their minds and their words.

Violence used always comes back to haunt those who use it. America use force across the globe to further their business empire. Be it Shell or Exxon in the oil fields of Iraq, or Coca Cola draining the water supplies of the third world for financial gain; eventually people start getting a little bit annoyed, and half the planet starts to plot revenge in the most sinister and deadly of ways. And then, terrorism strikes Western cities, the most evil of men think they can use violence to stop violence against the lands they were born. And so America uses violence to try to stop the violence that tried to stop the violence used against them, and a vicious, unbreakable circle is born. It doesn’t work. It never worked. It didn’t work in Iraq, it wont work with Iran.

Similarly, my fellow left wingers appear to be unable to fathom that although Israel in both Lebanon and now in Gaza have committed acts of what can only be described as genocide…….. Palestinians have also caused despicable suffering and heartache in Israel. Road side bombs or in 2004, Hamas launched a rocket that fell within feet from a school in Sderot, killing a four year old child and an Israeli man. Also in 2004, a female suicide bomber killed four and wounded twenty at the Erez Crossing in Gaza in which Hamas claimed responsibility. The list goes on. Where were the protesters when Hamas were wreaking chaos across the World? Is the death of one or two innocents, not worth talking about?

Violence makes the World more unsafe; violence breeds violence; violence breeds ignorance.
Suddenly Americans are seen as evil Imperialists hell bent on killing anyone who stands in their way of an unrivalled business empire. Muslims are considered inherently violent, wishing death upon anyone who says a bad word against their Prophet. It’s as if different species of human have been man made. It is forgotten that a Muslim came from nothing, much like an American came from nothing. The Pakistani came from nothing. The white Brit came from nothing. We’re all the same. We’re all human. It doesn’t matter if we chose to walk around naked, or covered in Muslim attire, we’re all from the same void.
The Muslim in Iraq is just trying to protect his home against that foreign invasion force whom he didn’t invite; the American man is just trying to make money to feed his family. Neither can be blamed for the circumstances in which he or she is born. And so it isn’t difficult to come to the conclusion that one man’s terrorist, is another man’s freedom fighter. One man’s hero, is another man’s villain. The World is built on contradiction, and whilst we’re all from the same place, we’re all so very different. Those differences should always be respected.

“
His enemies are not demons,
but human beings like himself.
He doesn’t wish them personal harm.
Nor does he rejoice in victory.
How could he rejoice in victory
and delight in the slaughter of men?

He enters a battle gravely,
with sorrow and with great compassion,
as if he were attending a funeral.“
- Tao Te Ching

The sound of my World

Have you ever sat on a lifeless beach at midnight watching the star light vibrate through the ripples of the waves? I rate my year as a bad one, if it doesn’t include doing just that at least once.

The most sensual and soothing sound in my World, is the sound of the sea. It has no design, no will, an aimless existence dancing wildly through time; it is simply chaotic and yet there appears a beautiful sense of order. From that order, comes the mellifluous sound that exists to relax me on such deep levels. It is the reason I sit alone on the rocks just before dawn, and get photos like this…

I suppose it isn’t just the sound, it’s the scene too. It’s essence is almost indescribable, because we all know what a coast scene looks like, but it looks so much more to me. The sparkle of the ocean, the effortless beauty, the freedom, the emptiness. The scene never changes, an eternal picture that exists exactly the same in my mind as it does in reality. I look out over nothing at all, but everything to me. The euphonious chaos and order of the sound of the coast, is matched only by the aesthetic quality of it’s indescribable essence.

As a kid, travelling down south in the back of my mum and dad’s car, i’d become addicted to trying to spot the sea. A kid from the chaotic city cannot help but be incensed with febrile curiosity the moment a glimour of water comes into view; regardless of the fact that for the entire five hour journey, i’d be pointing to the rivers and lakes of England in the vain hope that one of them might be the ocean.

The manic nature of the City, of Leicester, of London; the packing into tight spaces on the Tube, because no one can be arsed to walk half a mile down the road from Trafalgar to Westminster, or from Oxford Circus to Marble Arch and so our faces end up in the chests of other people tightly jammed into an airless carriage. The business men constantly sweating, on their mobile phones discussing the best way to maximise profits during this Global economic downturn, the stress of shop workers trying to cope with mountains of tourists who do not understand English, crying babies sat next to me on the tube or the train – and although I have no problem with any of that, it opens the gates of stress in my unusually calm mind. And so I lose myself in meditation; my mind is suddenly sitting back on those rocks with nobody around, with no sound except the harmony in the sound of the natural.

During the summer, i’m accustomed to sitting in my garden, and doing nothing in particular. It’s the sounds that intrigue me. The sound of distant cars, the sound of somebody somewhere mowing their lawn, the sound of the birds, the sound of a small aircraft maybe a glider low overhead in an otherwise featureless blue sky, the sound of running water in our cheap fountain at the bottom of our small garden. It makes me feel alive and during those moments, I do not have any worry. I’m least stressed when nature is somehow involved. Be it my cat, or the sound of someone mowing their lawn, it all exists to relax me, and it’s why I love life.

During the winter and early spring, my bedroom window stays open. I rather unsuccessfully wrap myself up to stay warm at night, whilst leaning out of my bedroom window listening to the sounds of nothing. The stars are feint dots on a black canvas, that you have to narrow your eyes to see clearly because the illumination of the street by electric light washes the beauty of the night sky away like an evil man made etch-a-sketch. So if you haven’t sat on a lifeless beach at midnight watching the star light vibrate through the ripples of the waves; you do not know peace.

The weakness in me

As masculinity goes, i’m no Charles Bronson. I don’t like violence; I’m a pacifist; I like imaginative language such as that of Jack Kerouac and John Keats; I read a lot; I don’t particular like any Sport (even though I used to adore football and boxing); i’m horribly clean; any talk of animal cruelty annoys the life out of me, angers me, frustrates me more than most; my World philosophy is based on love; i’m overly protective of people I think seem naive or easily manipulated; and i’m constantly in search of that hidden entity that brings me such deep inner peace; which at the moment exists for me, only in the indefinably mellifluous sound of the ocean waves at dawn, in the small town of Dawlish Warren, South Devon.

Despite this apparent mutated masculinity, I do have certain traits that one could refer to as “manly!”…. The Sopranos is my favourite TV show; I wont back off from a debate even if i’m being threatened; and my one monumental, incessant weakness is my inability to resist the charms of attractive and intelligent women. By those standards, i’m slightly more masculine than previously suggested.

However, that slight glimour of masculinity; that light of manliness in a forest free from it, was soon reduced to darkness again when Stacy (my girlfriend) and I went to the cinema this weekend, to see the film “Marley and Me”. We’d originally planned to go for a meal, and then to a bar, in celebration of our three years of being together. A meal and the bar had to do; I peaked in the arena of amazing boyfriends when I took her to Rome for our first year anniversary. So anything after that, was going to be difficult to top. I failed at topping it this year, but was a lovely evening nonetheless.

We finished the meal – which by the way was lovely – at the new Chinese Buffet Restaurant in Leicester’s High Cross Shopping Mall (new, in that it’s a bit bigger…. it still has the same crap shops you find in every other city in the Western World… other than Camden), and decided to go to the brand new Cinema. We chose Marley and Me because neither of us knew too much about what it actually was about.

The film is based around a family and their dog. It’s that simple. But within two hours of knowing this dog – Marley – you cannot help but fall in love with it. And suddenly, you’re almost a part of this fictitious family, watching it grow from the side lines. By the end of the film, most of the audience was in tears. I myself never cry at films, and I had to really concentrate on those damn deceivingly lugubrious eyes of mine, to make sure that although I thought I was in control of them, they wouldn’t just explode in a fountain of Jamie tears at any given second. Luckily I managed to keep them dry, but that was purely down to being able to think about something else, rather than the incredibly emotional scene being shown on the big screen. I fought those tear ducts, they wanted to burst open, but I was having none of it! The film finished just in time, because another five minutes, and i’d have been an emotional wreck on the floor of the cinema.

If you’re male, and you’re goal in life is to be seen to be masculine and strong; an Adonis of the human race; Zeus of post-modernity…… it’s probably best that you don’t go to see Marley and Me.

Jon Stewart vs CNBC

It’s safe to say that Jim Cramer, the financial expert for CNBC, got absolutely destroyed by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show this past week. I’ve had serious problems with “reporters” like Cramer for a long time. They knew what has been happening. They knew that the scrupulous rats feeding off public pensions have been making quick money with incredible risk for years. They knew it was happening. They knew the sub prime market was a disaster waiting to happen, i’d put all my money on people like Cramer knowing that there are hundreds more Madoff’s in the World. But it worked for them for so long. They didn’t do any “reporting” they didn’t expose the intense risk. They let it go on. They then suddenly take the moral high ground, when the shit hits the fan. If we weren’t in financial meltdown, CNBC would still be letting these financial criminals get away with it.
Not only that, but Republicans now appear to have lapped it up, and are blaming mortgage holders. It’s ridiculous.
And someone needed to tell them just how unforgivable their actions have been. And that’s where Jon Stewart comes into play. As a comedian, he appears to be a better reporter, than the “experts”. Jim Cramer, needed taking down. And Jon Stewart took him down. Good for him.

A new World

Here’s to Warren Buffet, the Richest man on the Planet, who once said, when asked about the inequalities of the tax system….
“It’s class warfare, my class is winning, but they shouldn’t be.“

The World has entered a new chapter, full of blank pages. What used to be market truth, has become greedy nonsense. The noise made by the laissez faire wealth jamboree embraced by the rich as “true freedom” is slowly dying down. There are still those who insist that tax hikes and Social transfers kill productivity (despite that fact that Sweden spends around 30% of it’s GDP on Social projects compared to 13% in the USA – and the growth rate of GDP per person in Sweden was as high through the mid-2000s as that of the USA – according to Jonas Pontusson) and insist on screaming about how big Government is part of the problem rather than the driving force behind emancipation, civil rights and other aspects of life that the market has literally no control over. Between 1948 and 1970 social spending shot through the roof – Medicaid, the war on poverty, added investment in schools etc. In fact, it rose from 16.5% to 27.5% and with that, GDP and Productivity grew more than any other time (even during Reagan’s years…. although he cut income tax and shifted the burden to payroll tax like an increase in Social Security and Medicare taxes), the next time huge advances in productivity appeared, was in 1996….. after the Clinton tax increases. Big government isn’t the problem at all. Selfishness is the problem. Lack of compassion is the problem.

Big government in the USA, extended social security to ten million more workers during President Eisenhower’s term. It spread to farmers, teachers and dentists among others. Under Eisenhower, the government financed the National highways system. Before that, under Truman, the government passed the G.I Bill of Rights, to provide aid to War veterans for homes and college. It benefited 8 million returning Soldiers, who now went to college and had their mortgages guaranteed; and America benefited economically over the next sixty five years. Anti-polio vaccines, National Institutes of Health and it’s Research and Development, National Defence Education Act, the Internet with it’s origins in the Defence Department, Medicare, integrated school system, Civil rights, and food Administration – none of that is the result of a wondrous market system. Government provides the framework for a market to run successfully; Government works to cope with the change in the mentality of the people and nothing Obama does, is going to kill the superiority of the American market system. Even Churchill, the most famous Tory in British History, supported a strong Welfare system, having remarked years before his eventually primacy “It seems clumsy to let people starve…” he then went on to support the Beveridge report on much needed Welfare action.

I appear to have digressed. Back to Sweden for a second. As suggested earlier, Sweden spends around 30% of it’s GDP on Social products. Significantly higher than the USA (Whose Conservatives seem to believe any public spending, is a big evil). Not only that, but Sweden is listed as sixth in the Human Development Index whereas the USA, is a measly fifteenth. For all the attacks on Europe I hear from Conservative Americans, when it comes to the Human Development Index, ten European countries rank above the USA. This of course, is without mentioning that Sweden ranks top of the Economist Democracy Index whilst the USA ranks at 17th, below thirteen European Nations. All this from a Nation that has been run by Social Democrats from 1994 to 2007. Much closer to Socialists than President Obama could ever be. Don’t seem to be doing too badly for themselves. Big Government is not the problem. Small government is not the problem. Inefficient government whether large or small, is the problem.

A study by Sven Steinmo met up with a Swedish Volvo Executive, who was asked…
“Why don’t you leave (Sweden)? Certainly, you would pay a lot lower taxes and probably also have a higher salary in the U.S.”
His response……..
“Yes, of course, I would have a lot more money in my pocket. But I would also almost never get home before 7 o’clock and I certainly would not have the vacations everyone has a right to here… and you know what else, I would have to spend a lot more money on insurance, college for my kids, and travel back home to my family. In the end, I’m not really sure I would be any better off.“

That way of thinking, is the way those of us who do not have a deep fetish for money, and who do not have a deep resentment for those less fortunate think. Unfortunately, the Thatcher years over here in England provided us with a new breed of young Conservatives who take the opposite view, coupled with the Republicans in America who profess to be strongly “Pro-life” unless that life needs urgent healthcare and can’t afford it; the Swedish state of mind was slowly losing ground since the Thatcher/Reagan days. Now however, it’s finding itself again.

For decades we’ve been told that the Government cannot afford the extra million pounds to give our public servants, like the Police force, the pay rise they were promised. Or that we could only afford to pay our fire fighters an extra 11% pay, to protect us from burning to death. Or that the coal mines needed closing because they weren’t profitable, meaning thousands of people lost their jobs and weren’t retrained; whilst the UK now imports more coal than we have in years. Cuts to the NHS, because it was “wasteful spending” and produced a “dependency culture” emerged. We were all told that smaller government is better. We were all told that we didn’t have the money to pay the firemen, the NHS, the police, to fund better public education and make sure the poverty rate fell rapidly. For years we’ve been told that buying your house is the best investment you’ll ever make. When did a house cease being a home and become a money making venture?

But then, all of a sudden, we have £400bn to bail out the rich. Not only do they take that £400bn of public money, the bosses take six figure pensions whilst their employees lose their jobs and face losing their houses, the same houses that Conservatives get touchy about saving with tax payers money. I cannot help but echo John Stewart’s sentiments to the Conservative brigade who have no problem funding an illegal war, who have no problem funding the plight of the rich, who have no problem with corporate tax loopholes but who have severe issues with helping those less fortunate – “fuck you“.

Here’s to Warren Buffett, the richest man on the planet, who once said when asked about inequality in society…….
“If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.“

The conflict returns

It may be a bit too soon to assume that Northern Ireland is on a downward spiral toward the dark days of the IRA fuelled terror. It must not however be forgotten, that two Soldiers based at the Massereene army base in Antrim, were executed by terrorists, for no real reason. Mark Quinsey, 23, from Birmingham and Patrick Azimkar, 21 from London were killed, because a group of Republican dissidents would like to see Northern Ireland free from British Rule brought about through violence. It didn’t work when they bombed Brighton in 1984, it didn’t work when they bombed Omagh in 1998. It wont work now. Their short sighted ambitions only include slaughter rather than the political ends that Sinn Fein hope to achieve peacefully. They thrive on conflict. If Northern Ireland were freed from British rule today, these people would find something else to kill for. I’m all for giving Ireland back to the Irish, but that should never be achieved through violence.

On Monday, Constable Stephen Paul Carroll was shot and killed by Republican dissidents. There is no “because…”. They simply want to inflict terror. Their excuse is freedom for Northern Ireland. They are simply thugs who thrive on violence. Over 500 British soldiers have died in Northern Ireland, and yet Northern Ireland is still British. The majority of it’s residents are non violent, peaceful people; evident when 5000 people took to the streets in peace rallies in Northern Ireland, eerily similar to the sombre peace rallies of the past thirty years. There is a genuine yearning for the success of the peace process. No one supports these dissidents. They do not command the support and respect of the population of Northern Ireland. Patrick Corrigan in hisAmnesty International blog remarks “My generation have been there, done that and we don’t want our kids wearing the hand-me-down t-shirt.”. And he’s right. His generation brought about the Good Friday Agreement, the strengthening of the police force and the withdrawal of troops on an unprecedented scale. They did not achieve all of that, purely so that their children could live in a new age of fear.

Peace is flimsy, when Patrick Magee, the IRA’s Chief Explosives Officer, responsible for the 1984 Brighton Bombing in which five people died, was released from prison just fourteen years after being found guilty, only to come out and say “I stick by what I did“. I’m not quite sure how that sends the right message out. Kill, and you’ll be free in no time? End a life, and you’ll get a slap on the wrist? Become a terrorist….. you’ve got nothing to worry about?

Northern Ireland is struggling again. The Guardian reports today, that Intelligence services have discovered a bomb plot, but have not located the bomb now thought to be in Northern Ireland. The security forces now have a task of extreme proportions on their hands, because this isn’t just an easy situation, even if they find a bomb before it explodes; there will be another. We now know that those dissident groups are still at large, still very much armed, and still very willing to kill. And so one wonders when the Northern Ireland conflict will ever end.

The Britain in “Tate Britain”

It isn’t a feel, it isn’t a tantalising smell, it isn’t a mellifluous sound, it isn’t a piercing glance. The truly underlying concept of what Britain is to me is that there is not a static concept of “Britishness”. It is not a finger print that never changes. Britain is forever changing to meet different challenges and expectations. We are black, we are white, we are gay, we are straight, we are rich and we are poor, we are business minded, we are family orientated, we are liberal, we are conservative, we are moody, we are loving. Britain is constantly changing, updating, and moving with the times. We are a dynamic nation, and whilst we hold slight conservative principles we are essentially a liberal nation. That which may be “British” to me, may not be a wholly “British” ideal to the next person, and so the true concept of “Britishness”, as a static concept, just doesn’t exist. I set out to investigate this with regard to the “Tate Britain”.

Strikingly, the exterior of Tate Britain; the stairs leading up to the pillars that heroically support the entrance of the building, had a profound affect on me, that is to say that I felt that for a building named “Tate Britain” there was very little “British” influence. As ones eyes start scrupulously scanning the building from the bottom upwards, there is an air of Roman-esque influence and so consequentially, Greek influence. I was reminded of The “Temple of Saturn” in the Roman Forum. A broken building with merely the supporting pillars remaining. “Tate Britain” is like looking into the past and experiencing the power of an empire, a fully functioning ‘Temple of Saturn’ with its history and it’s power. And so this led me to consider the concept of power and the past.

Britain itself has deep Roman roots, dating back to the Emperor Claudius invasion of Britain in 43AD. And so British Ancestry is drowning in Roman influence. Furthermore, the pillars themselves are a universal symbol of grandeur and power. Suddenly, I was linking a Roman-esque style building, the the power and influence of the British Empire. Perhaps the exterior of “Tate Britain” was much more “British” than previously considered. The multiplicity of influences on the building itself stands as a beautiful metaphorical reminder that our culture is actually a multiplicity of cultures, from Roman, to Anglo-Saxon, from Catholic to Protestant in the 16th and 17th Centuries, to the influx of Islam, Hinduism and other influences we see today.

On entering “Tate Britain”, and noting the boring lackluster interior, I wanted to see some real British artwork.
I took myself immediately to the Turner Prize exhibition. I felt that I had failed immediately in recognising the significance of the work of, for example, Turner Prize Nominee Cathy Wilkes. Her mannequins and shopping conveyor belts did little but confuse me. I turned to the description on the wall, which dubiously read ……
“Wilkes’s installations apprehend an end point in our understanding. A point in which words become insufficient and the naming of objects is disconnected from our experience of them.”
With this, I realised that I wasn’t at all confused; I was merely outside of the circle of modern artists whose very consumerist essence acted not to show me the brilliance of British contemporary art, but more like a used cars salesman pretentiously trying to sell me a heap of junk as something of profound beauty. The “deeper meaning” for me, was nothing but the artist asking “I wonder what I can get away with calling art.”

However, considering my deep disapproval at the Turner Exhibition, it further cemented my belief of Britain as a Liberal, ever changing culture. What one may see as art and beauty, someone else will see as nonsense. And seemingly vice versa. Everyone, although in essence we have similar traits, is different entirely with regard to our preferences in life, and nothing sums this general feeling up as perfectly as “Tate Britain” it is the very essence of liberal Britain. Nothing is guaranteed. It doesn’t promise masterpiece, it doesn’t promise grandeur. It isn’t the National Gallery in that respect.

Contrasted with art work in the Vatican Galleries, which one expects to be strictly religious and Catholic in origin. “Tate Britain” one would expect to find British flags, portraits of Henry VIII and Churchill, the National Anthem constantly on loop throughout, football fans everywhere, Shakespearian actors quoting lines from Hamlet, cups of tea laying around the place, senior citizens complaining about the youth of today, and the French. I expected anything stereotypically British. But what “Tate Britain” manages to do, is break convention, break stereotypes, to say “Britain isn’t a static concept, it’s progressive and free” and it succeeds masterfully.

The Francis Bacon exhibition shows an art form trying to advance with the times. Portraiture that doesn’t act in the same way that Photography acts now; Francis’ portraiture is different and very unique. And so the argument that Britain is not a mere static concept grows ever thicker. Francis seems to want to connect to the essence of his subject rather than just what he sees on the outside. Something as different and unexplored as perhaps the Renaissance artists of old attempted to depict Saints and holy figures as mere mortals. Breaking convention and charging down limits. Slashing the very essence of what “Portraiture” means. And in doing so, adding to the notion that Britain is ever changing and updating, nothing is ‘absolute’.
At worst “Tate Britain” represents the idea that art “superiors” are aware of something within a specific art work that the rest of us aren’t, which gives them ample opportunity to condescend those of us outside of their circle, the same can be said for Government, for business, for the media, and so certainly represents Britain in that way. At best, “Tate Britain” through the essence of the building itself, to the surreal and unexplainable works (unexplainable to me) exhibited for the Turner prize, to the seemingly progressive nature of portraiture from the 2006 “Tate Britain” exhibition of the works of “Holbein” such as the infamous piece “Henry VIII” through to the 2007-2008 exhibition of Francis Bacon and his surreal, progressive, and unique “Portrait of Henrietta Moraes”.

As suggested previously, “Tate Britain” does not promise you works of art that you will find incredibly masterful. In most cases, I found the works in the Tate to be contrary to that. They appeared nothing more to me, than a waste of perfectly good canvas. The Tate doesn’t promise any different. It promises differences in opinion and values. Differences in attitudes toward art works. And above all, differences in that which each individual person, whether a British national or otherwise, considers in their own unique way, to be an idea of “Britain”.

Sliming Mandelson

We all know that Lord Mandelson is the slimiest of all slimeballs working for Number 10. We know that he never goes away, having resigned twice for inappropriate use of his power within Government. And we all know that he wasn’t elected to any position of Power when Brown appointed him Business Secretary. Not that elections matter to Mr Brown, given that no one actually voted for him to be our Prime Minister.

We all know that when he claims to be sticking up for the Green Lobby, and then he goes and approves a third runway at Heathrow, whilst simultaneously claiming it wont harm the environment, all this a couple of years after he requested an £80,000 Maserati as his official EU Car, that he’s a horrible little liar.

We all know that Mandelson bullied his peers into accepting his horrid acquiescence to the Business lobby over Heathrow, choosing quite blatantly to ignore the Green lobby entirely. His decision to sign off on a new runway, will cause an entire village to be shut down, houses bulldozed, schools destroyed, livelihoods forgotten, because a few business men want easier and quicker flights. It pissed a lot of people off. It pissed both opposition parties off. It pissed an entire village up for destruction off, it pissed off most of the Country. It pleased BAA.

So it’s no surprise that it got to the point where this happens…

Some may call it wreckless. Some may say immature. Others (like myself) would say, no worse than the metaphorical crap the Government have been throwing around for the past two years at the public.
Leila Deen, the lady who threw the green custard at Mandelson is gaining a reputation for taking on quite obvious corruption through direct action. She works for The World Development Movement They stand firm against unfair World Trade, Third World Debt, World Poverty, the privatisation of water supplies, and global warming. She seems like a person who actually cares for the World rather than for quick profit. She’s a maverick! Let’s get behind her! Seriously, I think i’m developing quite the crush.
After the attack, she quite rightly stated…
“Peter Mandelson is the same person who effectively bullied Ed Miliband and other members of the cabinet to accept a third runway that nobody wants, a third runway that no one was consulted on and no one is able to say no to.
It’s not right that someone like Peter Mandelson can stand up and talk about being green.”
She’s right. Why do we just let politicians get away with the kind of thing we’re allowing the Government to get away with?

Mandelson on the other hand, said after the “attack”…
“I suppose in a democracy people are entitled to have their say but I would rather people said it to my face rather than throw it ” ……
In a Democracy, Mr Mandelson, you wouldn’t now have the position of power you have. In a Democracy, Mr Mandelson, you’d notice that the entire Country (except the Aviation industry) could not be more opposed to your plans if we tried. Don’t talk to us about Democracy, you condescending, patronising idiot.

The Gopfather

For the past couple of weeks i’ve had a pain in my lower back. I let the angel on my shoulder cry out with shame, when I listened to the devil on the opposite shoulder telling me that picking up a box twice as heavy as the planet Jupiter, about half as heavy as Rush Limbaugh, was a clever idea. Since then, my back just gave way. I didn’t take any pain killers. I let it fester. Holding me back. My lackadaisical approach to fixing the source of the problem has merely served as a foundation for further problems.

Speaking of a pain that wont go away, festering, revelling in causing more problems than were originally there, pointless, useless, masochistically rigorous in destroying any chance at recovery; why are the Republican Party bending over backwards to accommodate Rush Limbaugh? The man has never said anything of worth. He exists on the far right on the political spectrum, expressing his ill advised melodramatic opinions seeped in unfounded hysteria to an audience of equally pointless red necks.

Every time he says something so overly offensive, even Fox News start condemning him, he feels the need to go on TV and twist his original comment to sound less like foul mouthed moronic sentiments. He tries to twist when he should be apologising. The moment he referred to Obama as “the magic negro” he should have been sacked, fined, the Republicans should have condemned him and refused him any stage. Instead, he explains that it’s the Networks fault, and suddenly everything is all right.

The moment he suggested there wasn’t a link between CFCs and the breaking of the Ozone layer, despite mountains of evidence (yet he’s a Christian, go figure), he should have sat on his radio show with leading experts on Climate Change, and asked to prove them wrong, to show his evidence, and offer his own conclusions based on facts he’s picked up along the path of research, rather than taking the typical Republican “I don’t believe it, so it must be false” route. As Best of Maui so rightly puts it, Limbaugh is……

“……in opposition to the views of the most eminent scientific experts, as reflected in the conclusions of such esteemed bodies as the National Academy of Sciences and the World Meteorological Organization. Though Limbaugh likes to frame the debate as a contest between him and the “environmental wackos“, it is really Limbaugh’s word against the overwhelming tide of scientific knowledge.“

The moment he accused Michael J Fox of playing up his Parkinson’s Disease to appeal to Stem Cell research, Limbaugh should have been sacked. Limbaugh, Using his clearly extensive research on the subject, and talent for medical science said of Fox “He’s moving all around and shaking and it’s purely an act”…. because you and I both know that Parkinson’s Disease involves and I quote the Limbaugh’s official sensitive medical term … “moving all around and shaking” is obviously just an EVIL LEFT WING CONSPIRACY!!!

Recently, Rahm Emmanuel referred to Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican Party. This statement has caused a hell of a lot of controversy. Firstly, Limbaugh is under the entirely misguided assumption that by saying what Emmanuel said, he’s promoting Limbaugh’s cause. Limbaugh told Politico…

“They are expanding my profile, expanding my audience and expanding my influence. An ever larger number of people are now being exposed to the antidote to Obamaism: conservatism, as articulated by me”

I don’t know what makes anybody assume that just because they’re heard louder, they’re somehow less of a cunt. Hitler is still talked about vehemently, it doesn’t mean we all support Nazism as a credible opposition to the World we live in. All it’s doing for Limbaugh, is that for every new person who agrees with him, another thousand think he’s a moron. And given that he’s now clearly the voice of the mentally disabled wing of Conservative America, it’s like a dream come true for Democrats.

And so what do the Republicans do to combat this? The leader, Michael Steele takes the initiative by suggesting that Limbaugh is not the leader of the RNC, and that Steele himself is the leader of the RNC. That alone should have put the matter to bed. But no, of course it didn’t. Some ingenious strategist who MUST have been secretly working for The White House, told Michael Steele, the leader of the RNC, the big man on campus, the king of the Republican Castle, to apologise to Limbaugh, to grovel, to bow, to kiss his feet. As if it isn’t bad enough that Reagan once referred to Limbaugh as “The voice of the Conservatives in America”, but for the leader of the RNC to bow down to a racist, lying, misinformed, bigot is beyond brilliant. So how does Limbaugh respond to Republicans not knowing what to do, whilst their ship sinks deeper into the Political abyss? Whilst his stupidity gets worse and worse every time he opens his mouth? Does he accept responsibility this time, instead of refusing to do over the magic negro comments, or the Michael J Fox incident, or the “I want Obama to fail” comments? No of course not, he does what Limbaugh does best….. makes a ridiculous statement…. and then blames someone else. Limbaugh has blamed the recent problems he’s causing, on the Obama White House, stating on his website “…they need a demon to distract and divert from what their agenda is.” Judging by what Limbaugh says and does publicly, the Obama White House doesn’t need to do any distracting, Limbaugh is doing a good enough job of that himself. According to page 16 of a poll conducted by Democracycorps.com, 58% of all those polled dislike Limbaugh, whilst only 21% have warm feelings towards him. Even though only a scout hut full of people actually like Limbaugh, his ridiculous arrogance (some arrogance is a beautiful thing, but when you’re hated, let it go..) forced him to say that Obama (a man with, to this day, a 61% job approval rating), was…. “obviously more frightened of me than he is Mitch McConnell.” I’m guessing that with his measly powerful and commanding 21% fan base, Obama wakes up in cold sweats because of the evident Limbaugh threat.

Limbaugh has this one wrong. Democrats aren’t scared of him. Democrats find him fantastically entertaining. The GOP are clearly more scared of Rush Limbaugh than anyone else. The rest of us don’t give a shit. We just sit back whilst the GOP stands in line to apologise to him, like Don Corleone and those in his debt.
For example, we’ve already discussed Michael Steele unable to lead without having to apologise to Limbaugh, but then of course there’s Republican Congressman Phil Gingrey, who suggested that it’s easy for Limbaugh to “throw bricks” around, because he doesn’t have to represent anybody. A few days later, Gringrey said “I just wanted to tell you, Rush, that I regret those stupid comments.” Obviously Rush doesn’t need to apologise for his entire book of stupid comments though. Next we move on to Republican Governor Mark Sanford who said that “anybody who wants President Obama to fail, is an idiot“, just before saying that he …. “… wasn’t referring to anyone in particular“, except that this was just after Limbaugh stated he wanted Obama to fail.. but you know, i’m just a crazy liberal, of course it’s just coincidence that Sanford happened to say what he said.

If you do feel the need to apologise to Limbaugh for anything you’ve said that may cast a negative light on him (as i will be doing later today, in shame), please go to this beautifully created “I’m Sorry Rush” website for full details.

I hear now that Limbaugh offered to debate with Obama on his show. Obviously Obama has more pressing matters than to accept a debate between a well educated Harvard law graduate and Constitutional Scholar, with political experience and the Presidency under his wing, against a racist three-time divorced, failed Sports Commentator, whose mother once said … “flunked everything, even a modern ballroom dancing class“, who most of his own party and 21% of the American Public can’t even stand.

Limbaugh once referred to Obama, not as African, but as Arab, because he’s from Arab parts of Africa, in Kenya. With some basic research techniques (i.e – Google) anyone is able to pull up the simple fact that Kenya is less than 2% Arab . In fact, only 33,714 Arabs exist in Kenya, of the 30,000,000 population. I think we can safely assume that Obama is not Arabian. According to the 2001 Census England, is 2% Indian. If we stick by Limbaugh’s logic, he’d consider me to be Indian. I make a fucking awesome Curry. He might be on to something. Or, he’s just unequivocally moronic. Even if Obama’s dad was considered Arab African by Kenyan Authorities, that doesn’t make Obama Arabian in the slightly. And even if it did, anything is better than another nut case from Texas.

If those Republicans who actually support Limbaugh think that there future success lies with a man who once said of slavery… “I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.” I’d have to say that those Republicans are the best advert for voting Democrat I think there has ever been.

The more the problem persists, the more the Democrats have never been so lucky. Like my back problem, Limbaugh just wont go away, but for us Liberals, unlike my back problem, that can only be a fantastic thing.

The Nightmare before Parliament

Prime Minister’s Questions has always been a bit of a nightmare. It’s much more like a Reality TV show now, with MPs playing up for the cameras, failing to answer simple questions and squirming miserably through the entire process.

It has become accustomed now for the leaders of all Parties to stand up at the start of PMQs and offer condolences to the families of the latest War casualties. That they “will never be forgotten”, as they read the names of said soldiers from a list placed in front of them. They were never remembered, least of all having the chance to forget them.

Today, leader of the House, Harriet Harman stood in for Gordon Brown as the most unpopular person in the Country. Brown is acting like some sort of God over in America for a few days, so whilst he’s gone, Harman takes the reigns. Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague stands in for David Cameron, whose son very tragically died recently.
Hague very cleverly asked Harman why the “working capital scheme” that was announced in January, to begin on March 1st, hadn’t been initiated yet, on March 4th. Harman then told Hague that whilst the provisions of the scheme were being finalised, it’s unfair of him to pick up on one scheme that has a slight delay whilst plenty more are offering real help to businesses across the Country. Hague then ingeniously said “Well it’s not just one scheme” and proceeded to reel off a list of about a dozen schemes that have not taken shape yet. Harman couldn’t answer. She looked out of her depth. Hague looked very much in control of the House today. The Daily Politics show on BBC2 implied that Harman had commanded the respect of the house, but watching it was quite disturbing. She was all but destroyed by Hague.

After listing off a bunch of schemes that haven’t been implemented yet, Hague amusingly said that whilst Brown was across the Pond and Harman was vying for leadership of the Party sooner rather than later, that this could be her moment! That when the Chamberlain lost the confidence of the Nation, Churchill stepped in. When Eden fell, Supermac (Macmillan) flew to the rescue. That this was her moment to shine. The Commons erupted in laughter. Harman looked like the little unpopular child sulking in the corner. She did however manage to get the claw into a Tories on one more occasion. Whilst the Tories were complaining about the sad handling of the Sir Fred Goodwin pension row, in which he’s receiving a tidy £700,00+ sum for fucking up the banking system whilst those below him lose their jobs and their livelihoods, Harman pointed out that whilst on the subject of the Tories new found moral high ground when it comes to financial excesses, two of their members had recently accepted £30,000 to give two speeches. £30,000!!!! For two speeches!!! Same old Tory party.

Despite Hague’s clear oratorical brilliance, all he did in essence was a PR stunt. He didn’t answer any allegation thrown at him. He didn’t admit mistakes that the Tories have made. He didn’t offer anything different. He was merely an entertainer. He failed to employ his own rhetoric that Brown and the Government does not answer questions. Irony struck Hague, by the fact that he did not answer a very probing and important accusation Harman was to throw at him………. The Tories have been complaining about the lack of proper regulation that has lead to the crises we’re in now. Harman struck back quite impressively by revealing that the Tories had in fact called for complete deregulation of the mortgage markets, and that William Hague himself whilst leader of the Conservative Party had said he would promote people to the front bench by how committed to deregulation they were. Hague may have had his moment of entertaining the Commons, but when faced with that little gem of his past, refused to acknowledge that she made a good point, and instead just moved on to attacking the Government some more.

Prime Minister’s Questions is a waste of time. They do not hold the Government to account because the Government do not answer any question that might upset their polling numbers. They do not answer any question unless a question planted with a Labour MP which is always “Would the right honourable gentleman agree that this Government is absolutely amazing in every way possible?” is asked, in that case, the Government is quick to agree and answer profoundly.

The Tories wont complain vehemently that the Government aren’t actually answering any of the questions put to them, because the Tories are only a year away from being in the position where they need to hide from every question put to them.

It’s a waste of time. Our politicians are a waste of time. However, the British Public still have confidence that Parliament is not a lame duck, that it isn’t an elected dictator wildly out of control, wrapped in bureaucratic bulletproof glass. When Clare Short resigned her cabinet position over Iraq, it ended months of speculation. She referred to Blair as “Reckless” plenty of times leading up to her resignation, which leads me to suspect she didn’t jump, more than she was pushed. Before she resigned the Blair Government referred to her as the person who could best help to reconstruct post war Iraq. Which of course meant that Iraq would first have to be destroyed, in order to be reconstructed. So the plan wasn’t to be swift about it, the plan was to absolutely obliterate Iraq.
Clare Short knew Blair had lied. Robin Cook knew Blair had lied. On February 15th 2003, well in excess of 750,000 people (the largest political demonstration in the history of London) knew Blair lied. In fact, most of the Country knew Blair lied. We’re now certain Blair lied. So why did Parliament not take the fiercest of oppositional positions? Why has Parliament let the Government get away with it? Why did Parliament not fight to the death for a cause that has to date seen the deaths of over 200 Service men and women, whose families still do not know why their loved ones had to die?

The simple and most horrendous fact is because Prime Ministers Questions, and Parliament in general, the lifeline of British Democracy, the Representative of the will of the people, is horribly corrupt, weak, a PR stunt, useless and full of self interest rather than Public and National interest. We don’t need a new Government. We need a completely new system.

Still, it’s entertaining though…..