The Right to Love

August 27th 2009 will mark the one year anniversary of the death of Dorothy Martin. Mrs Martin was a pioneer for lesbian rights, and the decriminalisation of homosexuality throughout the 1960s and 1970s across America. Dorothy Martin died two months after fulfilling the dream of her fifty year relationship with girlfriend Phyllis Lyon, by marrying in June 2008, in California. They should be commended for their work. Anti-discrimination laws, the right for a gay lady or gentleman to visit a loved one in hospital, work place regulations in support of gay rights, society as a whole owes both Lyon and Martin a great debt for their courage and their relentless fighting.
I cannot think of a more pro-marriage fight, than that put up by Dorothy Martin and Phyllis Lyon.

Currently, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa all allow same sex marriage. Vermont is soon to follow on September 1st 2009, and Maine will join that list of States on September 14th 2009. And whilst I welcome the right of the State to provide it’s own definition of marriage ahead of the Federal Government, I’d suggest further that it is the individual’s right to decide what is and isn’t acceptable. It is not the State’s legislature who decide the arrangement of love. If you do not think homosexual couples should be allowed to be married, then simply don’t attend a gay wedding. Legally consenting couples, whether straight or gay have a right to express their love for each other via a ceremony of vows and commitment. It has the business of no one else. It does not impact your daily life. It does not undermine “traditional marriage” (a subject I shall come on to later).

The Defence Of Marriage Act is quite clearly anti-homosexual. I’m not entirely sure what Marriage needs defending from? It’s a thriving business as far as i’m aware. The Defence of Marriage Act, is simply a bigoted few, denying the rights of a section of society, that simply doesn’t conform to the narrow minded Republican view of what is decent and correct. It is indefensible that Congress simply assumes it has the moral authority to decide who should and shouldn’t be recognised as “married”. I’m unsure why same sex marriage is even a question any more, why it’s even debated. It is surely for the two people in any relationship, to decide if they want to take a vow of devotion or not? It is the jurisdiction of politicians on any side of the political divide to decide. As “rights” and as “freedom” goes, the freedom to fall in love and to commit to whomever you so wish, is one of the most basic rights any of us is entitled to, without being punished or alienated.

A rather vicious little group, ironically named “Alliance for Marriage” in 2001 announced it’s intention to create an Amendment to the Constitution that would have ultimately destroyed the right of homosexual couples to be married, whilst alienating them further, as they were sub human. The Amendment was referred to as “The Federal Marriage Amendment“. It would have meant that every State would be forced to recognise, the description of the FMA, which happened to be “SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.” A nasty little piece of discriminatory legislation.

In short, the Amendment would have been a step backward, for diversity, tolerance, acceptance and difference. The homosexual community is not an alien race hell bent on destroying America. The homosexual community is no different to the heterosexual community, other than possessing a different preference when it comes to love. They are the Police officials who keep you safe, doctors who keep you alive, fire fighters who save you from burning to death, teachers who prepare your children for the future, they are the Oscar Wilde’s, and the Leonardo Da Vinci’s. It is simply a case of personal preference when it comes to love. Banning same sex marriage is as ridiculous a notion to me, as banning marriage between those with different coloured eyes or hair. It makes no sense. The Federal Marriage Act was a disgusting piece of legislation. The Federal Bigotry Act would have certainly been a more apt name. The Constitution is not a tool for discrimination.

Shockingly, Gallup reports that 40% of people asked, believe Homosexuality itself (not gay marriage) should not be legal. 40% of people asked would like to criminalise people, purely for being gay.

In order to pass into law, and become a Constitutional Amendment, the proposal had to attract the votes of two thirds of each House, and ratification by three fourths of the States. On July 18th 2006, a vote took place in the U.S House of Representatives, and failed by 236 yea to 187 nay votes. It needed 290 votes to pass the House. Whilst I welcome it’s failure, 236 yeas is slightly worrying, for perhaps the World’s most powerful and apparently “free” nation. The deeply held bigoted attitudes still in force.

The Constitution of the United States thankfully possesses the clause, Article IV, Section 1, which states quite unequivocally “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” States are required, by the Constitution, to recognise the marriage rights of those who were married in other States. George Bush, said at the time “A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society in the hands of the American people“. A statement that is quite frankly regressive, and a product of the eight years of the Presidency of Bush – fear. Why is it “critical to American families and American society” that same sex marriage be banned? Given the past eight years, i’d suggest that letting Texans run for President is critical not just to American society, but Global society as a whole. George Bush would have decided that because he doesn’t approve of the relationship between Dorothy Martin and Phyllis Lyon, that it is therefore “un-American” by the standards of the Constitutional Amendment, he shamefully backed. For the 21st Century, I cannot believe an Amendment was even discussed.

Ex Republican Congressman, Richard Curtis voted against banning discrimination against Homosexuals, he also voted against domestic partnerships for Homosexual couples. In 2007, Curtis (who is married and has two daughters, and is very very anti-gay rights) was forced to resign his position, because he was found to have dressed in women’s clothes, and had sex with a male gay porn model named Cody Castagna, in a hotel room, in Washington. A smile was brought to my face when I read this story.

It seems the American Right is unwilling to move forward. Although, that’s nothing new.

In 1924, the Virginia Legislature passed a law entitled “The Racial Integrity Act” which made interracial marriage illegal. The idea, was to kill off any It was not until 1967, in the case of Loving V Virginia, that the United States Supreme Court overturned the ruling, when interracial couple Mildred and Richard Loving were sentenced to a year in Jail, simply for marrying. They worked tirelessly to overturn the Racial Integrity Act and were successful in 1967. To us here in 2009, the entire idea of blocking interracial marriage, is abhorrent. The Judge presiding over the case of the Loving’s, which sentenced them to a year in Prison, is quoted as saying:
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

Religion. Of course it’s Religion. Whenever someone feels the need to discriminate, or impose bigoted judgements on others, they tend to use the Bible to help justify the unjustifiable. As with the Lovings case, the fundamental argument against same-sex marriage, comes from the frankly ridiculous religious notion that traditional marriage is between a man and a woman, and nothing more. It sounds as if the Bible is strict and straight forward in it’s proposals on marriage. It simply isn’t. It is therefore perplexing as to why those with such deeply held Christian principles of the Religious Right, are wasting their time focusing on same sex marriage, when they should also be focusing on Biblical insistances they otherwise tend to pretend don’t exist?
1 Corinthians 11:8-9, which states “For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” is pretty straight forward in suggesting that women should exist simple to serve men. Can I expect a “Role Of Women in Society Act“?
David is admired, by Christendom, and so perhaps those with such strong opinions against Gay marriage from a Religious stand point, could help introduce legislation to allow polygamy, because as 2 Samuel 5:13 quite clearly states, the role model that is David “…took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.“
I’m guessing it’s only a matter of time before those guardians of all that is moral and decent in the World, over at “Alliance for Marriage” really do themselves proud by truly sticking to what the Bible says of family life, especially in relation to Genesis 19:31-32, which says:
“One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
Only recently has marriage started to become more about love, than strengthening family ties. Nobles throughout 16th Century Europe would almost invoke Exodus 21:7, by “selling” their daughters into prominent Catholic families, to strengthen relations. A great example of this, would be of Catherine of Aragon, the daughter of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, who was set aside to marry Arthur Tudor, the son of Henry VII of England, purely to strengthen the claim of the Tudor’s to the throne of England due to Isabella’s Royal English ancestry. This wasn’t a match made out of love. Neither was Catherine’s subsequent marriage to Arthur’s brother Henry, who of course became the tyrant, Henry VIII. Love and marriage (whilst a fantastic Sinatra song) did not go together like “a horse and carriage“, until very very recently. “Tradition” is irrelevant.

Opponents of same-sex marriage suggest that homosexuality is unnatural and damaging to society. No it isn’t. Religious intolerance though, now that’s damaging to society. Wars, death, torture, inability to accept the diversity of humanity, is so disastrously detrimental to the future of society, to blame homosexuality is pathetic at best and shockingly ignorant at worst. And surely it is not unnatural to disagree in principle with Aquinas’ teachings on the theory of Natural Law. It is surely unnatural though, to repress your desires and your very human needs, just to suit the narrow minded, homophobic views of a few bigoted individuals and their pretty damn evil God. Religion, is far more unnatural.

I’m not entirely sure that dogmatic Religious nonsense is to blame though. I’d suggest that homophobia comes is simply an illogical prejudice, and that the Bible is purely used to apply justification for such ridiculous prejudices. The Bible is nothing more than a tool to advance individual bigotry.

If the opponents of same-sex marriage could give me legitimate reasons why homosexual couples, in loving relationships, should not be allowed to marry, i’m more than willing to debate this with you.

The Climate Change Debate

I have always been sceptical about the suggested terror that Global Climate Change is likely to inflict on the Planet. I do not take seriously predictions of Armageddon, without real evidence to back it up. However, I do not believe for a second that the rise of 0.75 Degrees Centigrade over the past Century is simply the result of “natural occurrences“. For a Century which has seen the use of fossil fuels increase a great amount, whilst deforestation has never been so high; it would be naive to think that humanity has absolutely no affect on our climate, and that it’s all just one big coincidence. Of course humanity has had an affect on the climate. Of course humanity has to act to prevent catastrophe in the future. Of course humanity has a duty to protect endangered species such as the polar bear, and endangered habitats such as the Rain Forest. Responsible capitalism has to be the future. Not a capitalism based on the old “take whatever you can from whomever you wish” system. The system that told us in 2008 that losses through sub-prime mortgage-back securities would only tally up to around $170bn, when in fact the IMF estimated that it was closer to $4,100bn. The forces working for the Capitalist system, aren’t always right. And when they’re wrong, they’re very very wrong.

Whether Humanity has a small affect on global climate change, or a ridiculously large affect on global climate change, it should not matter. It will eventually become an issue that threatens a generation, and whilst Conservatives seem to be overly panicked about National debts being left to our kids, they do not seem to have a problem with a destroyed rain forest, oil drilling in the middle of national reserves and deadly droughts that seem ever so more widespread.

The Telegraph, itself a conservative newspaper reported in 2005 that “The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new research has revealed.“. The evidence from the cited study, is so compelling, it’s difficult to find anyone willing to argue against it.

As stated in my previous blog entry, The Conservative Party, on their local election leaflet stated that they “played a key role in making new laws to cut carbon emissions and promote renewable energy” clearly trying to suggest that they have a commitment to help tackle Global climate change. However, our Conservative MEP Roger Helmer (pictured on the leaflet) on his own private blog, states “The science of global warming: Why I believe that the Great Carbon Myth is not only unproven, but disproven“. The leaflet is a a clear case of Conservative propaganda. On the one hand, they’re committed to fighting climate change, on the other, they’re not. Of course, it is no different to the fact that the Labour Party are apparently committed to fighting Global Climate Change…….. whilst they install a third runway at Heathrow. Parliament has no hope of gaining back it’s respectability.

Whilst it is quite clearly true that nature itself plays a role in the changing of the climate over time, nature cannot account for three quarters of a degree centigrade higher temperatures since 1906. The only way to describe why global temperature has increased so dramatically, is by suggesting that there has been a sharp increase in greenhouse gases found in the Earth’s atmosphere. When polar ice is examined, gas found trapped in the core of the polar ice is analysed, it has been found have a 35% greater amount of Carbon Dioxide than in the last 650,000 years.

As I am naturally sceptical of the media attention global climate change receives, I am even more sceptical of the small amount of scientists who disagree with the widely accepted consensus, and the Conservatives who latch onto their objections. Why are they in the minority? Are they the climate change version of Creationists? It isn’t like the consensus is one big group of related scientists hell bent on World domination and fear mongering. They are respected experts in their field.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called “the gold standard of objective scientific assessment,” issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying “the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.“
Here, see for yourself: http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.

A press release from the National Academy of Sciences (you’d expect them to know their stuff, right?):
“We urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC principles, to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant national and international strategies.”
This statement was signed by:
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Royal Society, United Kingdom
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
Royal Society of Canada, Canada
Academié des Sciences, France
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany
Indian National Science Academy, India
Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
Science Council of Japan, Japan

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC):
“Even the minimum predicted shifts in climate for the 21st century are likely to be significant and disruptive.”

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS):
“The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society [snip]The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus“

National Research Council:
“Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. “

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS):
“CMOS endorses the process of periodic climate science assessment carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and supports the conclusion, in its Third Assessment Report, which states that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.“

Geological Society of America:
“The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries.”

I swear, short of New York turning into an icy Narnia, Conservatives are never going to listen to the facts, sticking instead to the very very few “experts” and Sean Hannity, and the rest of those who refute the evidence. It appears to be Conservatives and those with big oil agendas who refute the claims of the large amount of respected Scientists, sort of like tobacco companies refuting the idea in decades past, that smoking is linked to lung cancer. I am far more weary and lacking in trust of big oil and big business making it’s case against global climate change. Me, i’m going to put my trust in the experts assessments. I do not have a great deal of evidence to the contrary, which hasn’t been disputed by global warming experts, and so the evidence is so great, and the research so vast in favour of man made global climate change, and knowing as little as I do on the subject, I’m going to go with the experts on this one.

The Tory Pledge

With the local and European elections slowly creeping up on us, it would be naive to think that extreme parties like the BNP wont make steps toward powerful positions they shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near. We’ve had their bullshit leaflet through the post, we’ve had the Liberal Democrat leaflet, we’ve had the UKip leaflet, we’ve even had a Green leaflet. We haven’t though had a Labour leaflet.

Today, we received the Tory leaflet. Worryingly, it is addressed to me. Not to my parents, or my sister, or the household; it’s addressed to me. When one opens the leaflet, on the right hand side, we have a map of the U.K, and the East Midlands labelled and colour coded, just incase we in the East Midlands are at all wondering, where we live.

We then see on the left hand side, newspaper cut outs reminding us of Labour’s failings under Gordon Brown. Fair enough. There have been many.
It would help the Tories case though, if of the eight newspaper clippings, six of them were not from typical Right Winged Tory supporting Newspapers (three from The Express, two from the Daily Mail, and one from the Telegraph…the other two were from tabloids), but then I fully expect a Labour leaflet to produce clippings from…….actually, nowhere, not even the Guardian is throwing it’s lot in with Gordon Brown. I expect the Labour leaflet will merely read “We don’t have a fucking clue, seriously, no idea any more“.

Given the dodgy dealings of the owners of the Telegraph (Sir David and Sir Fred Barclay pulled their investment from the Island of Sark after voters decided not to support the candidates the brothers were backing, and so the economic stability of the island was rocked, and 100 people lost their jobs); and the positions that The Daily Mail has taken in the past (their unquestioning support for the British Union of Fascists comes to mind), they’re not the greatest of sources to be quoting. But we’ll let the Tories off, because the only other choice for them would be The Guardian, which is my paper of choice, and if it were a Tory paper, i’d have put it down long ago.

One of the cuttings, is from the Daily Mail, on the 2nd February 2009, which reads “Absurdity of Gordon Brown’s British Jobs for British workers pledge“. Indeed, it is an absurd statement for Mr Brown to have made. It was a vote winning pledge. Nothing more. It was, in short, a catastrophic mistake. The Tories are right to point out how ridiculous a statement it was. British Jobs for British Workers sounds like a BNP quote, and has no place in the global marketplace. The Tories used this in their leaflet to reminds us just how ridiculous it was. They certainly couldn’t be accused of hypocrisy, nope, not the Tories!

“Fighting for British jobs” – appears on the Conservative’s list of pledges on the right hand side of the leaflet. Along side “Working for British business” and “Defending British traditions“. I don’t think I need to say much more on this one. Certainly no hypocrisy though!!!!!

The leaflet gives no policy initiatives, no ideas on how to deal with the global recession, no green initiatives, no public service initiatives, nothing other than “We’ll stand up for Britain!!” and “Change“. The back of the leaflet reads “Conservatives have a clear plan for bringing down Labour’s debt and re-building a balanced economy“… it’d be nice if we knew what that plan was.
It’s nice to see that spin isn’t far from the Tories list of priorities, despite their “clear mission to mend our broken society” and their Obama-esque slogan “vote for change” (if you type “Vote for change” into Google, the top result is Barack Obama’s website – which is interesting, given how ideologically different the Tories are compared to Obama).

The leaflet then speaks about “tackling climate change”. It says “Conservatives played a key role in making new laws to cut carbon emissions and promote renewable energy“. The Tory MEP, is Roger Helmer. Roger Helmer MEP is a member of The “Freedom Association“. One look at their website, takes you to a blog entry, entitled “Why the European Union’s climate alarmism is both mistaken and dangerous”. In the article, it is reported that “Evidence is quite clearly emerging that man is not having the impact on the climate that the EU climate alarmists claim.“
Hypocrisy, nah not the Tories!

On the final page of the leaflet, they tell me just how they’ve been defending British Traditions (I had no idea British traditions were under such violent attacks… but apparently so, by those evil progressives)…. “You can still buy your fruit and vegetables in pounds and ounces thanks to Conservative MEPs“……. Oh thank god!!!! No more sleepless nights for me.

All that I’ve managed to salvage from this Conservative Party leaflet, is that The Daily Mail; The Telegraph and The Express don’t really like the Labour Party; they are committed to Climate Change, but are not committed to Climate Change; I can buy bananas in pounds still; and that the Tories are one step behind catchy slogans from their left wing counterparts over the Atlantic.
They certainly haven’t convinced me to switch to the dark side.

Justice Sotomayor

Regardless of whom the President nominated for Supreme Court, there was going to be sections of the Republican Party (For those of you who have no idea who the Republicans are, they’re an insignificant regressive party from the old days) that complained. Short of the President nominating a fat, grey haired, slightly racist, anti-gay white man famed for singing the National Anthem before bed, Republicans were always going to complain.

As it happens, the President positively confused Republican opinion, provoking even more right winged nonsense that we’re all becoming used to from people like Cheney and Limbaugh; by nominating Federal Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court, to replace the retiring Justice David Souter.
Of course the conservative wing of America isn’t happy. Former Republican Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney’s statement of opposition to Sotomayor’s nomination, is just more bitter ramblings of a dying Party. Romney states “The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is troubling.” He goes on to say “Her public statements make it clear she has an expansive view of the role of the judiciary.” He is in fact referring to the harmless remarks Sotomayor made in 2005, in which she stated that that the Court’s, are “where policy is made“. And so Romney, like other Republicans, is attempting to portray Sotomayor as a radical, as wanting to expand the limits of the Judiciary. As wanting to destroy the foundations of the Republic! Julius Caesar Sotomayor! Probably socialist and gay too.

It’s funny that Republicans should get all worked up about this, for two reasons. Firstly, because Sotomayor was right. Whilst the House and the Senate may make the rules, the Courts have to fill in the fine detail, when the rules are simply too ambiguous. The rulings of the Court, influence policy to a high degree. Hofstra University’s Professor of Law, Eric Freedman says “She was saying something which is the absolute judicial equivalent of saying the sun rises each morning. It is not a controversial proposition at all that the overwhelming quantity of law making work in the federal system is done by the court of appeals… It is thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone other than a determined demagogue.“
And of course, precedent is set by the Judiciary, it is a product of it’s time, and by that account, is policy making.
Secondly, it’s funny Romney should bring this apparent talk of expansion of the Judiciary into the spotlight now, given that he didn’t seem to have a problem when the Supreme Court dubiously gave the 2000 Presidential Election to George W Bush, despite the fact that Gore had over 500,000 more popular votes. Which of course, led to George Bush quite ironically “spreading Democracy” across the World. Isn’t that the greatest influence on policy the Supreme Court has ever applied to America? Apparently Romney had no issue with the Supreme Court handing elections to those who don’t actually win the vote. Romney also doesn’t appear to be at all bothered that Justice Scalia, the conservative crusader, appears to have a deeply conservative agenda of his own going on, an activist in all but name. But Sotomayor making a comment four years ago, he has a problem with.

Fat idiot Rush Limbaugh also had something to say on this, but his comments, as always, are even more irrelevant but equally as pathetic, as Romney’s, so I wont get into it.

Meanwhile, in the World of the sane, Sotomayor is likely to be confirmed without problem. Whilst Democrats do not hold a filibuster-free majority, 59 Senators is more than enough to secure confirmation. It is unlikely that Congressional Republicans will attempt to block her nomination, because from a Party that is about as popular as cancer right now, attempting to block an Hispanic female candidate for Supreme Court. Research shows that the Republicans gained 31% of the Hispanic vote in the 2008 Presidential election. Traditionally, the Hispanic vote has been overwhelmingly in favour of the Democrat candidate. In 2000 Bush managed took 35% of the Hispanic Vote. In 2004, he managed to attract a 10 point rise to 45%, of the Hispanic vote. In both 2000, and 2004, the Hispanic vote was crucial for the Presidential race. Judging by 2008 standards, the Republicans cannot afford to lose the confidence of the Hispanic voters any more than they already have. And so attempting to block the confirmation of the first ever Hispanic Supreme Court Judge Nominee, would be a disaster. Paradoxically for Republicans, if they do not try to block the nomination, the fact that Democrats have even nominated a Hispanic, will be a huge boost to their mid-term campaigns, and 2012 Presidential race.

The fact remains that the President could have nominated Moses for Supreme Court, and Republicans would have said he held deeply racist views over Egyptians and that his nomination is “worrying“. What Romney meant to say, was “Sotomayor isn’t white, or male, or middle aged, and she might even believe that gays aren’t the spawn of satan, which is worrying.“

To sum up, great choice for Supreme Court.

The Church of Me

“I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.” – Thomas Jefferson

I’ve always wondered where the line between inventive cult nonsense, and respectful religion is crossed. If I were to say I believed in a talking prophetic snake that lives in a cave on Saturn, i’d be told i’m crazy. Yet, a story in which a man is born to a woman who has never even so much as had sex, lives a miracle filled life, dies, raises from the dead like a zombie messiah, walks around for a while, and then ascends into Heaven, is highly respected, and actually has political influence, purely because billions of people believe in it? A factitious God of an old Testament that appears to resemble tyrannical dictators throughout history, filled with gratuitous hate, than a loving God; but it must be respected? Why? It is illogical to be disrespectful to another human being based on their sexuality or their race or their gender, something they have no control over, however their religious belief is simply a concept, an idea, ideas do not demand respect inherently.

Religious indoctrination, is somewhat unnerving and in my humble opinion, impossibly detrimental to the workings of society and the relationships we form. Homosexuality is looked down upon for no justifiable reason; kids are made to say prayer in school without actually given the choice of what they want to believe; non-believers are condemned to hell regardless of great humanitarian works they may undertake; candidates for President have their religious beliefs tested before facing election; Gospels that contradict each other, leave out important parts of the Story (Jesus virgin birth is only mentioned in two gospels); the wars it causes, the lies it thrives on, the terrible acts people have taken in it’s name. It’s all so wrong.

It amazes me that the line between absolute nonsense and respectful religion is not crossed because there is any sort of empirical evidence, but crossed simply because more people chose to believe it. Some of those, will regard anyone who dares to question them, impertinent heathens destined for hell. The restrictions the system of what it’s followers deem to be universal God-given facts, places on the World have not improved the World. It hasn’t made the World a safe haven. We’re not peaceful, we’re not safe, we’re at the most dangerous point in history. Religious dogma and the intolerance it lives off to feed it’s outdated traditions, is living in the middle ages.

For me, spirituality is an inward manifestation of insecurities, imperfections and a deep desire for guidance. I myself, rely on the Tao Te Ching when my own personal insecurities demand guidance and reassurance that my philosophical and sociological thoughts and opinions are both logical and respectful. Spirituality is not something to be forced onto society as a whole. I would not dream of telling people that they either conform to my way, or be damned. I do not condemn Christians, they are entitled to believe as they wish. I merely condemn the need to force religion onto others, through political process and the education system.

I cannot prove that there is no God. Nobody has that authority. But similarly, I cannot prove that there is a God. I am simply against mass indoctrination based on superstition and out dated tradition. You and I have equally unknowing minds, whether you’re a preacher or an expert in Biblical studies or an Atheist. You have no deeper understanding of the workings of the Universe than I do. You are not an expert.

It is my general belief, my own deeply held Philosophy that you should act always according to the maxim, that you do to others that which you have problem having done to you. If you wish to sleep around, fine. If you wish to be straight or gay or a transsexual, fine. If you wish to do drugs, fine. If you wish to drink, fine. It is your decision. As long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else, there is no problem. As long as you’re friendly, polite, and well intentioned, then nothing else matters. A bigoted, supremely prejudice myth based God certainly doesn’t matter.

Of course the Story of Jesus, and what he wants and expects, has been hijacked by the Right Wing, for it’s “freedom” agenda, which apparently doesn’t take into account the fact that the wealthy preachers, Popes and ministers are as unlikely to get into their heaven as an agnostic such as myself is. I may be a bit controversial here, but judging by Jesus’ standards, i’d say he’d be condemned as a Socialist by today’s standards. Otherwise those lepers would have had to produced their insurance documents before being cured. The bread and the fish would have been distributed to the hardest working, or those who were the sons of the hardest working. Acts 2:44-45 reads like a section of a Socialist manifesto: “All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.” He certainly didn’t preach the message of ruthless competition and winner takes all wealth. I’d go one step further, and say that by Biblical accounts, Jesus was executed, because he supported the less fortunate and so threatened the wealth of the rich.

It amazes me that Christianity (especially American Christianity) has developed almost an entirely separate sect, to the teachings of Jesus. They some how manage to combine the teachings of Jesus, with Nationalism, with Capitalism, and with the odd skewed understanding of “traditional marriage“, despite all three of those, going against everything Jesus ever taught. If you’re going to insist that gays shouldn’t be allowed to be married on religious grounds, then perhaps I could count on your support when I try to marry six wives, like King David. Or when I try to pass a law requiring all the brothers of dead men, to marry their dead brother’s widow and have children, as sanctioned in Matthew 22:24. (“Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him“). Why just go after homosexuals? Why not the brothers of dead men, who haven’t married their brother’s widow? Surely they’re sinning too? Christianity itself was a product of it’s time. It has no relevance today. The only basis it has, it to allow those with deeply held prejudice and intolerant views, to cite the Bible for justification. Much of the time (as is the case with the entire Catholic Church), they are so far off the mark of Biblical teachings, i’m almost inclined to believe i’m more of a Christian than the Catholic Church could ever be.

If it is true, that hell is going to be packed with Atheists, sexually promiscuous women, scientists, those who undertook great acts of kindness but weren’t Christian, Democrat Presidents, anyone who has ever touched pigskin, among others – then Hell is the fun and happy place to be! If the option is “Become a gay hating Republican, or go to Hell“, then i’m afraid it’s Hell every time. If my mother, my father, my grandparents, me, and all of my friends who do not subscribe to Christian doctrine are damned to an eternity in a torturous Hell, then the God that created these ridiculous rules, is a God I want nothing to do with.

And so with all of that in mind, I have decided to formulate my own religious system of beliefs, based on the following points.

Thou shall treat others, regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality, religious belief, as equal to yourself.

Wednesday is to be the day of sex. This is important to my new Religion because sex is the binding essence of all life. And let’s face it, we’d all quite like to have sexual freedom.

A man can lie with another man as he would a woman, if he so wishes. To ignore your true feelings and to oppress your sexuality, for this is unnatural. (Leviticus 18:22)

Anyone who offers their daughters up to be raped by towns people (even if it is to save angels) is not the good guy! (Genesis 19:8)

No one shall ever say “My country is a Christian country“. Especially when (as is the case with the U.S.A), it isn’t, and never was.

There will be no list that says “Thou shalt not murder“, because it’s common sense, it didn’t need writing down, it isn’t morality based on Religious beliefs. Instead, we shall replace pointless Jealous-God Commandments like “Do not have any other gods before me“, and replace with much more principled and practical moral codes (which the Catholic Church could really benefit from) like “Thou shalt not rape, molest, slaughter, torture, or intentionally hurt another“.

If you’re a Politician, your belief in this religion, shall not interfere with your duties to the public. You shall not try to influence policy in the direction of religious dogma.

My birth will be determined, three hundred years after i’ve died, by Roman dictators.

Touching pig skin is not dirty, any God who says it is, is just being pedantic.

Two thousand year old scribblings, do not constitute “absolute truth“.

Creating light, after the Earth and Heavens, is just ridiculous. God (me) created light first. I’ll create the sun first. Because there would be no way to distinguish day from night otherwise, and that’d be a ridiculous way to spend, let’s say, the first three days. (Genesis 1:16)

When I die, please Gospel of Jamie writers, let’s agree what my last words were. I don’t want three different versions, like with Matthew, Luke and John.

Homosexuals can marry. Why should they be excluded from the misery of marriage?

Just so you know, I probably wont spend more than an hour a day, blessing America.

Good deeds will get you into my heaven!

Believing, by blind faith, rejecting all evidence to the contrary, is the great catastrophe of mankind.

If something good happens to you, you will not be required to say “God blessed me, thank you Lord“, whilst ignoring the plight of millions in extreme poverty. I’d be a shit God to bless Britney Spears with the ability to get rich and win awards, and yet ignore millions of others. If good things happen to you, I really don’t need you to thank me on National Television.

Money is not the driving force of life. Less is more.

You cannot charge money for anything with my name on it. There will be no huge Vatican like building. Any money donated will go on community projects (Communist God?).

You may wear clothing woven from two different types of material. It would be a most ridiculous and pointless rule ever suggested (Leviticus 19:19).

Women are not created for the servitude of men. To suggest otherwise, is just more prejudice, bigoted nonsense (I Corinthians 11:8-9).

Women may be in a position of power (1 Tim 2:12).

You may not sell your daughter, nor any person, into slavery. (Exodus 21:7).

You may lust after whomever you wish, because it’s perfectly natural, everyone does it (Matthew 5:28).

You may associate with Atheists (2 Corinthians 6:14-16).

Let’s please not celebrate the traditional marriage. Between man and woman. And between the man and his concubines (II Sam 5:13). And that marriage between a believer and non-believer is forbidden(Gen 24:3). And that if there is no decent man, single women should get their father’s drunk, and sleep with their dads (Genesis 19:31-36). Biblical marriage is just a nightmare.

It is not acceptable to pick and choose passages, just to attempt to justify your own hatreds.

Please understand, that Evolution doesn’t mean your great grandfather once slept with a monkey. That’s not how it works.

It is okay if you do not take the Bible seriously. You are a free, rational thinking, entity. You are free to believe whatever you so wish, you are free to think, without fear of punishment for those beliefs.

Join the Church of Jamie today!

The North Korean Threat

The most frightening sight in the World is the cold robotic-like facial expressions of the North Korean Military Honour Guard. The N.Korean military is believed to be the fifth largest in the World. And since the Korean war ended in a ceasefire, rather than a peace treaty in 1953, the war between the North and South, is still technically, not over. Both sides view the other with intense suspicion. The Soviet North, and the American South. The situation isn’t helped by the fact that the U.S has troops stationed in South Korea. The situation is helped less by the North’s nuclear intentions.

Two months after the increasingly isolated N.Korea tested a ballistic long range missile, furiously antagonising the rest of the planet, Pyongyang today announced it has successfully carried out a Nuclear Weapons test, as powerful as the American attack on Hiroshima at the end of World War II. Not only have the U.S, U.N and the entire international community condemned the test; N.Korea’s closest allies China and Russia, condemned the tests also. China is of course worried that further sanctions will push hundreds of thousands of poverty stricken Koreans over the border, into China. N.Korea responded recently to this worry, not by helping people to escape poverty, but by building a barbed wire fence, on Korea-China border, to keep people in.

When an isolated, Marxist State, dedicates it’s resources to creating weapons that threaten the security of the whole of Asia, rather than elevating it’s growing poverty levels, the motivation moves from one of simply wanting to deter potential invaders, to absolute provocation of all international bodies.

There is suggestion that the tests carried out, could be the result of two issues. Firstly, that Pyongyang is attempting to reach out to President Obama, in order to prioritise the relationship between the two nations. In essence, a “look at what we can do” statement. If the tests continue, and improve as they seem to be doing, it would give Korea much more control of international diplomacy, and from a rogue State that doesn’t take too kindly to international Law, that is a worrying scenario. Former South Korean Foreign Minister Han Seung Joo has said of the North Korean Nuclear Weapons program “They want to change the game“. He is adamant the tests are to pull the attention of the new Obama Administration, toward N.Korean. “It’s one way of breaking in the new US administration to the North Korean way of doing things.“

Whether the U.N calls emergency meetings or not, and whether the Security Council issues strongly worded statements or not, it isn’t going to change anything. The U.N is a powerless body in essence, and even more so with such a dangerously isolated Nation such as N.Korea. The U.S is unlikely to change it’s position on N.Korea, and so the tests could continue.

The second potential reason for such tests, is the growing instability centred around a potential succession struggle, within N.Korea following the erratic Leader, Kim Jong Il’s stroke in August 2008 (the same time the six-party talks were abandoned). For the past few months, following the stroke, N.Korea has stepped up it’s show of secrecy, in a number of ways. Firstly, in March, twoU.S Journalists were arrested on suspicion of spying, and will face trial in a couple of weeks time, which could see them imprisoned for up to 10 years in a N.Korean jail; Stephen Bosworth, the chief Envoy of President Obama, to N.Korea has not been granted the right to visit Pyongyang; N.Korean recently dropped out of six-party talks to end it’s nuclear program in exchange for aid and stronger diplomatic ties and expelled international Atomic Energy Agency inspectors from the Country. The fear being that N.Korea, desperate for aid, may develop Nuclear arms that it could potentially sell on to terrorist organisations or Nations like Iran, especially if further sanctions are placed on the Country by a U.N Security Council resolution, following this latest Nuclear test.
It is suggested that there is internal strife over the succession, with various figures within the regime fighting for the succession, when Kim Jong-Il passes on. With no definite leader, and Kim’s sons all vying for power, the internal struggle could explain increasingly erratic behaviour within the Country. Although it is widely believed that Kim’s son Kim Jong-un will be named as likely successor to his father, Jong-un is diabetic, and so this lessens his chances, but doesn’t deter from his ambitions for power.

Another name is making a bid for power. The husband of Kim Jong-Il’s sister, Jang Seong Taek took up an important role on the North Korean National Defence Commission, the most powerful institution in N.Korea, which Kim Jong-Il himself is Chairman of. Taek is already Vice Director of the Worker’s Party, and has supreme oversight of the Police and Judiciary within N.Korea. It is suggested that if the Leader’s health continues to deteriorate, Taek may emerge as Chairman of the National Defence Commission, and that leaves him with a huge amount of power. It has been suggested that Mr Taek is already making key decisions within the Country. Taek may well be the key player, and apparent successor. Which, may not please too many family members of Kim Jong-Il, specifically, his power hungry sons. A peaceful transition of power is unlikely, given that there are indeed far too many ruthless players in search of extreme power within the World’s most secretive, and dangerous state. What is apparent, is that an isolated State under a ruthless Communist dictator is deadly enough, but an isolated State with no obvious Leader and multiple parties playing for control, is so very much more dangerous.

Perhaps the tests, and the arrests and the further secrecy is to keep a veil of privacy around the failing health of the ailing leader, and a likely fight for supremacy. Asia is all about honour, dignity, saving face, and so these provocations from N.Korea, may exist to show that the Country is not weak, to show strength. Of course, all N.Korea is achieving is further isolation, which is worrying on a number of levels.
The next year or two, for the international community will be interesting but for all the wrong reasons.

Hope not hate

Unite Against Fascism

Hope Not Hate

Searchlight

Love Music Hate Racism

I’m sick of bigoted Hitler-esque BNP rhetoric. Aimed at making the white British people feel as if we’re the victims of some vast foreign conspiracy, an us VS them mentality, an exclusion philosophy that has no place in the inclusive modern World. A World built on difference, celebrated for that individuality, regardless of ethnicity. We do not need a fundamentally backward and vicious organisation polluting minds. Let the BNP bitch about their rights being suppressed, and the “liberal” media just because the BBC doesn’t spew white supremacy bullshit.

I’m sick of anti-Islam fanatics joining with Hitler sympathisers and football hooligans in a Nationalist Party, whilst claiming to be “non-racist“. Are we going to make Muslims, England’s version of the Jews in 1930s Germany? Nationalism is just as deadly as Religious bigotry and intolerance.

I’m sick of the BNP hijacking the British flag, creating a racist aura around the Union Jack. The flag should be a symbol of diversity, culture, innovation and unity, not of “you’re not white? Get the fuck out“. Nationality and colour are the superficial, man made obsession with segregation, competition and superiority.

I’m sick of the slow rise of the far right. Of evil; hatred, intolerance, separation, suspicion and violence. Infecting the minds of the easily influenced and manipulated. The belief that you’re not racist if you support the BNP, whilst their leader is free to say “we affirm that non-whites have no place here at all, and will not rest until every last one has left our land“. Not racist? Seriously?

I’m sick of feeling like being White and British is an achievement, above any other, rather than out of sheer luck. Cooperation, and a mutual respect with all religions and colours is the way the World should work. If you choose to hate because others hate you, you’re no better.

I’m sick of how many people are buying into it.

I’m sick of being told that I hate my Country if I have no problem with a Pakistani gentleman getting a job ahead of me. Britain helped to defeat psychotic Nationalism in the 1940s. I wont stand by whilst the legacy of hope and unity left by our grandparents is destroyed by a bunch of bigoted idiots.

I’m sick of this “ indigenous white race” bullshit. Didn’t we defeat Nazism? Aren’t we past that regressive phase of human existence? You aren’t telling me what it means to be British, i’m British, i’ll come to my own conclusion.

I’m sick of hearing every year, “They’re banning St Georges day!“…. i’ve never seen anyone arrested for celebrating St Georges Day. Put on a party, go celebrate it. Who’s stopping you? Perhaps you could go find an article in the Daily MFail, but not in the real World. And here’s the shocker….. St George was Palestinian. An immigrant!

I’m sick of hearing them tell me that they are not racist……. the fact their party does not allow black people in, is contrary to that claim. The fact that Mark Collett of the BNP, is on record as saying that Nazism was the best solution for Germany in the 1930s (you know, the regime that killed 6 million Jews including children), suggests otherwise. The fact that Stewart Williams, a BNP candidate in the local elections is seen on film saying “All I want to do is shoot Pakis” suggests that claiming to be non-racist, is a little misleading. No matter how many times they say “We’re not racist, we’re not fascist“, it doesn’t deviate from the fact that they are racist, and they are fascist.

I’m sick of being told that the BNP are “sticking up for British people“…… I don’t need far right racists sticking up for me, nor do the largely liberal and tolerant population of Britain, fuck off. Stick up for the thugs who line the streets on a Saturday night demanding fights, don’t stick up for me. I’m better than that.

I’m sick of the underhanded racist attitudes hidden under a web of deceitful claims coated with pictures of Churchill, as if he’d ever be part of a Party whose leader once called interracial children “tragic“.

I’m sick of the fact that decades of struggle, war and peaceful demonstration aimed at gaining liberation and rights for those less fortunate, for different cultures, for homosexuality, is threatened by a bunch of hate filled thugs.

I’m sick of hearing the suggestion that Muslims are trying to turn England into an Islamic State. Where the fuck is the evidence? An article from the Daily Mail highlighting one Muslim Lady’s concerns that Christmas decorations might offend her children, is not an indication that the entire Muslim population of Britain is trying to replace the Queen with a Sultan.

I’m sick of the BNP telling me that by “sending them home” they will be able to put all British people back into work ending unemployment. What sort of pathetically ridiculous claim is that? What about the businesses owned and run by foreigners? What about McDonalds, Starbucks, and American owned franchises? Surely by the BNP logic, those places will be shut down? So where do those workers go? BNPDonalds? The pool of unskilled, semi skilled, skilled, and highly skilled workers out of work would be huge.

I’m sick of hearing BNP supporters spout “i’m not racist but….“, usually a pretext for an indescribably ignorant and racist statement to follow.

I’m sick of hearing “they take all our jobs” – the laws of supply and demand suggest otherwise, you neo-nazi moron.
I’m sick of the BNP lurching on to discontented voters in working class communities, promising them the World, sparking up hatred, as if immigration is to blame for the problems we all find ourselves in.

I’m sick of BNP supporters demanding their right to free speech, moaning constantly that the Liberal media tries to oppress their right to free speech, and yet paradoxically the BNP do not believe in freedom of speech for anyone other than White Brits.

I’m sick of the people suggesting that calling someone a “paki” is fine, that it’s like calling someone a “brit”. No it fucking isn’t. You use paki in an abusive way, and so it’s connotations are not friendly and tolerant. It isn’t a term of endearment. It’s ignorance at it’s best.

I’m sick of Nick Griffin trying to defend his views, whilst the BBC filmed him saying of Muslims, to BNP members “do something for the BNP because otherwise they will do someone in your family” … suggesting all Muslims are plotting some form of attack against the white families of Britain. Where’s your evidence? Where’s your proof? Why doesn’t he talk to my Muslim friends about that? Instead of providing evidence for his pathetic views, or apologising for his parties violent past, he says that the documentary was from the “institutionally anti-white and Islamophile BBC“. Anti White? Why is anyone who isn’t a bit of a Nazi, anti-white? The utter utter cunt.

I’m sick of their website, it’s “news” page, which at the top shows a billboard advertisement and tells me that muslim gangs have threatened to destroy it. Where’s the news that BNP’s Tony Lecomber, their Group Development Officer had been convicted for possessing home made hand grenades, and attacking a Jewish man for peeling off a BNP sticker. Or Mick Treacy, The Oldham organiser who has five convictions for violence, theft, and handling stolen goods. Or Robert Bennett, A BNP activist in Oldham, Bennett has served five years in prison for the gang rape of a woman, served seven years for armed robbery and has over 30 convictions in total. Where’s that in their news? When have they ever acknowledged any of that? Why mention the banning of one white man from the UK (Geert Wilders) and suggest it’s disgusting because it goes against freedom of speech, yet not complain about the banning of Wadgy Abd El Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim, Abdullah Qadri Al Ahdal, Safwat Hijazi and Amir Siddique, Muslim activist Abdul Ali Musa, Hezbollah terrorist Samir Al Quntar and Kashmiri terror group leader Nasr Javed? Racism cuts both way right? Of course those muslims should have been banned, but so should Wilders. We don’t want him here.

I’m sick of hearing from white ignorant British people, who can barely speak English themselves, whose lives consist of drinking, fighting and a bit of racism on the side, insult others for “destroying our culture“; logic would that these thugs must know all about our culture, and the history surrounding it. Logic is wrong on this one.
Let’s stop pretending you’re sticking up for British people, and start admitting you’re deeply prejudice, deeply disgusting, deeply pathetic, deeply ignorant, and so anti-British you couldn’t be more so if you tried.

Unity, tolerance, togetherness, respect, education, love and a feeling that no matter what you’re colour, no matter what you choose to believe in, no matter where you were born – we’re all people.

Watch this video. If you agree with what Griffin says on here, it’s probably best you never talk to me again.

Hope not hate

The Middle man exposed

The Daily Telegraph yesterday, revealed the mediator between a commons leak and the Telegraph, as EX-SAS Officer, John Wick. Wick reveals his reasons for exposing the shroud of secrecy and lies that the Telegraph has published over the past two weeks, that has shook Parliament to it’s core:
“We’ve all had concerns about the expenses and how they’ve managed it, purely because of how they’ve handled our requests for information.
We’ve reached a stage in society where they want to know everything about us – I think we’re entitled to know about them.“
Can’t argue with that.

Whilst the Speaker and the Government itself worked tirelessly to amend the Freedom of Information Act in order to suppress the availability of the documents detailing MPs expenses, conniving their way out of the absolute fraud they’ve been inflicting on the public of the United Kingdom for over twenty years, the Commons leak, John Wick and the Telegraph had the guts to stand up and feed us all the information we deserve to know. From Hazel Blears claiming for three different homes in less than a year, to Tory MP Douglas Hogg (also known as Viscount Lord Baron King Knight Sir Hailsham esquire III, within Tory circles) claiming for his moat to be cleaned, whilst the majority of the British Public struggle through life; the Telegraph revelations have shocked the Nation. I have heard from Tory supporters comments such as “The media are overhyping the situation“…..clearly still not understanding why certain sections of the public are so outraged by this scandal, and “if you were in their situation, you’d milk the system too“…. No I fucking wouldn’t. I promise you that.

Mr Wick said “Parliament will be a better place, society will be a better place, Sometimes a marker has to be put down. The public’s put a marker down. It’s good.”
I couldn’t agree more.
Top bloke. Despite the fact that Wick is a strong Tory supporter, he put aside Party Politics, knowing it would supremely damage his side of the aisle, for the good of politics on the whole. And given a bunch of the scrounging MPs (and bankers) seem to have titles like Sir, and Lord, and Viscount, why not give one to the Commons leak and to John Wick for outstanding service to the British public? They deserves it far more than those disgraced few caught up in this mess.

Let’s not forget however, that not all MPs had their noses buried deep in the troth. Labour backbencher, and certainly nowhere near a millionaire, having worked as a lorry driver, a coordinator helping the unemployed, and a scaffolder, Martin Salter, claimed nothing in second home allowances between 2005 and 2009. He hasn’t spent a fortune making a mansion look better.

It’s a different mentality. The average person mentality. It isn’t the materialistic mentality that drives society nowadays, that tells you if you stop the chase for more more more, you’re scum. It requires a different level of thinking.
Salter has said: “Simply forcing the early resignation of the Speaker of the House of Commons and belatedly tightening up the rules is not enough. Afterall the Speaker did not force MPs to submit claims ridiculous and outlandish claims for taxpayer funded luxuries.”
Exactly! More Martin Salters in the Labour Party, and I’m voting Labour again.

Meanwhile, in out-of-touch land, soon to be ex-Speaker of the House Michael Martin has met leaders of the major Parties to discuss new outlines for Parliamentary expenses, designed to quell public anger at the current scandal, and bring an ounce of dignity back to a disgraced Parliament. The proposals are as follows:

a £1,250-a-month cap on mortgage interest payments.
- Great. £15,000 a year. So whilst the public struggle more so than ever to pay their mortgage interest, MPs, who are in fact paid twice the national average, can use the money of those who are struggling, claim over £15000 a year’s worth?

Bills and rent claims allowed. Including Council Tax
- People are losing their homes, falling behind on payments, fuel poverty is rampant, and yet the most grand of MPs are still allowed to claim for bills, on their million-pound estates? We’re paying MPs Council tax, as well as our own? Wonderful! Tough new rules I see! Can’t upset the millionaires! They really are all children of Thatcherism.

Speaking of which, I can’t end this blog without mentioning the wondrous millionaire Tory MP Anthony Steen, who claimed £87,729 in expenses, to protect his shrubs, to overhaul his private sewage system, and for tree surgery. He went on to blame the public for interfering in his private life, and the “wretched” government for introducing the freedom of information act, that exposed him for the scum that he is. Why not watch his most spectacular defence here……..

For the first thirty seconds of that video, he appears to be trying to sell me his house. It’s spacious, it’s got room to park within the trees, it’s 19th Century, ideal for spending tax payers money doing up!
I love that the fact he’s quit, was a decision “taken by me and me alone“….. sure it was. And then, as if he hadn’t spent an entire minute sucking up all the available “cuntiness” on the Planet, he blames the Freedom of Information Act, and then, quite amusingly……… his Constituents!!!! He then talks about Coronation Street, for some odd reason. Sheen, is like a comedy character… but real…. and responsible for a part of the Country. It’s a scary thought.
Poor Sheen. He has a vewy vewy large house you know! Like Balmo-wal!!! It needs protecting!!!! You’re all just jealous!!! You wish you could be a conniving scheming fraudulent out of touch Tory arse who can’t pronounce his R’s!!! I feel for the poor fella……. yeah, that’s a lie.
If these are the type of people David Cameron is bringing into Government next year, and if the type of person who supports the Tories will say things like “it’s over hyped“, then God help David Cameron.

The reform of Expenses doesn’t go far enough. It isn’t just expenses that is in desperate need of reform, it’s the entire system. From the moment a vote is cast to the moment the Prime Minister calls an election.

But what do I know, i’m just an evil leftie liberal non-greedy hippy.

Democracy in Art

For some odd reason Jonathan Jones, writing in The Guardian assumes that the public cannot be trusted to make their own mind up about what constitutes great art. We must leave it to the professionals, he suggests. Art is not a democracy, apparently we need to be told what we should like.

The Professionals are exactly what I despise about the art World. It’s why I gave up Photography. I despise being judged by art critics and professionals, as if they have a monopoly on ideas and creativity. I want to be judged by everyone. Some may like my stuff, some may hate it. That’s fine. But to be told “everyone else is wrong, i’m right, and you’re shit” (or words to that affect) is just too much for me.

I remember being told, that for my disastrous Digital Photography Degree attempt (of which I gave up half way through the first year, to my utter relief) to show three of my pictures, that reflected my personality. And so I did. I was told by the pretentious “Professionals” that the photos I chose did not represent me in any way, less than one week after they’d met me. How they could judge my photos against my personality, having only met me once, is beyond me, but they did, and for the subsequent nine weeks, moronic ideals expressed in that very same way, from the “Professionals” only got deeper and more pretentious. Art snobbery is something I never want to experience again. You live and you learn.

Nobody is free to tell me what I should and should not like. But incase you’re in any doubt, when it comes to my taste, this is great art; subtle, warm, and serene simply because you can picture Van Gogh sat observing this scene whilst depicting it. To me, it represents a far off tranquility…..

This Rothko work, titled “White Centre“, well I’m not quite sure what this is supposed to be, it provokes no feelings for me whatsoever, despite Rothko himself referring to his works as expressing “basic human emotions“. In any event, to me, this is simply nonsense………

The Rothko work, is simply a concept for me. A confusing concept at that. One that does not appeal to me. For a work of art to appeal to me, it must show talent in it’s creation along with it’s concept. Vision and talent, should not be replaced by simply a concept, a statement – which seemingly depends on the explanation on the wall next to it.
Of course, it is just my opinion. And for me to suggest that everyone should find this work terrible, would be just as ignorant as a panel of judges telling me just how wonderful it is.

A great many would disagree with me, and that is exactly why the public are much more entitled to judge what our generation considers to be great art, rather than a panel of judges.

I do not doubt that everyone should be free to embrace artistic freedom, to be different, to offer something new, to be as unique as you can possibly be (although it could be argued that modern conceptual art is simply a modification of Marcel Duchamp’s “Fountain”); but if the vast majority of our generation do not like what you produce, you shouldn’t be protected by a bunch of pretentious judges who insist you’re actually very talented. Similarly, if many people like your work, then you should not be held back by pretentious judges. If some like your work, then great, if they don’t, either keep at it until they do, or move on. It’s quite simple. In fact, i’m not quite sure there should be awards for a subject that is so subjective.

Jones, in his column tells me that Rachel Whiteread’s “House” constitutes good art. He fails to tell me that it’s just his opinion. Because personally, I thought that Rachel Whiteread’s “house” was absolutely nothing special, like everything the Turner Prize has ever produced. But i’m becoming increasingly aware that these so-called Professionals have the final say on what constitutes “good art“, and the stupid, drooling-on-themselves, throwing-faeces-at-the-wall, general public are just not good enough, we must abide by what the Professionals tell us is good. Seemingly forgetting that Turner himself would cringe at fact that an award in his name is handed out, yearly, to absolute trash.

Why does this just apply to Art? The public shouldn’t be allowed to decide what constitutes good music any more either? I shouldn’t be able to decide for myself, I need a professional to tell me.

The indefinably magnificent voice of Andrea Bocelli; his ability, his talent, is spectacular. Most mornings, whilst getting ready for the day ahead, Bocelli will be singing in my background. He is the Leonardo of the music World in my estimation. What if I were to get on stage and attempt a rendition of Con te partirò, knowing that I cannot sing? In fact, regardless of whether I thought I could sing or not, I’d be laughed off the stage at best, and beaten to death by the librettist at worst. Can I count on these professionals to defend me for being unique, and making a statement? Post-post-modernism?

If the snobs win the day though, we could all be potential Bocelli’s, given that we express ourselves in an unfamiliar and unique style (even though it wouldn’t be unique, because Bocelli has already done it, much like it isn’t unique when Duchamp has already done it). And whilst you all cover your ears in pain at my horrendous singing voice, i’ll have judges like Jonathan Jones of The Guardian to back me up. So fuck you!

We all need somebody

It is relatively easy to see someone struggling, and to say “we all have problems, deal with it“, to dismiss them as lazy. And yet, we all need somebody. Whether we find it difficult to express ourselves with words, or whether we just need a hug and to be told everything will be all right, or whether we need someone to turn to for emotional support, or whether we carry a knife on the street because we’re afraid of the night, or whether we have built up anger, or whether we just don’t have the detailed and incessant aspirations that those destined for success and great wealth seem to have. We appear to ignore those less fortunate, and to spew Western economic theory at them, as if it were binding to all mankind, when it isn’t. We are all different.

It is easy to view humanity as a great money making machine, spirituality is replaced by materialism, the passion of want, striking down the abundance of Community, to pursue our own individualistic goals regardless of the negative affect it may have on somebody somewhere. We work in jobs we hate, we judge people on the expense of their living , we look down at those who are trapped in a meticulous cycle of nothingness. And yet, in reality even those who deal drugs, are the same as all of us. Stuck in grip of Materialism, we are all looking to satisfy our own “wants” regardless of who it hurts. For the majority of us though, we are not directly involved in the exploitation of others, or the degrading of others, we simply wear the Primark clothes, we are not involved in the process, and so we just turn our heads and pretend it’s all happening in the distance, far from us.

It is assumed that the fetish for profit, is simply a force of human nature. But i’m inclined to believe otherwise. I think avarice and self importance and the proponents of this damaging way of thinking, are simply stuck in four walls of the society they we’re born into. We are taught to believe that we’re in life specifically for ourselves, that we’re self promoting monstrous beings, motivated by self interest, whose mind is geared toward the accumulation of as much material wealth as we can possibly get our hands on. If someone appears to be fighting against the flawed notion of individualism, they are merely attacked as being hippy, out of touch, socialist, they want to enslave you, they want to take away your property and give it to the lazy. It’s right winged hysteria at it’s worst. Hedonism is intrinsically woven together with the pursuit of individual wealth rather than the pursuit of the greater good for all. The Right have crafted a society which suits them, in which people must either conform or be labelled Communist, bleeding heart, or hippy. If we start to question why we are plainly dissatisfied with life, society tells us it’s because we don’t have enough materially. Perhaps a new bed will help, perhaps a new TV, perhaps a new car. And yet, when the happiness derived from “more” finally subsides, we’re back to feeling dissatisfied and disillusioned, shouldn’t we be questioning whether society’s notions of extreme wealth linked to happiness and righteousness, are perhaps misplaced?

Shouldn’t the very essence of “want” come after the entire species has the essential elements of “need” fulfilled? Why is liberty considered the right to extreme profit, whilst those who literally die of hunger are collateral; considered a necessary evil for the advancement of “want“? Why isn’t the fulfillment of essential “need” the building blocks of Liberty, the first post that cannot be past until all are equal. The cultivation of an individual’s “wants” should never infringe on the basics “needs” of anyone. The advancement of the culture of “want” is based primarily on playing games with the human characteristics of insecurity and inadequacy. Peace and compassion are not compatible with the World view that human nature is based solely and inherently on self importance and greed. When the World isn’t at war, it cannot be called Peace, whilst millions of people are left to die because the rest of us have an extreme abundance of “need” that we aren’t prepared to share, because sharing would lead to Communist sympathies?

I am inclined to believe that Humanity is not the personification of certain principles, based on greed. The prevailing message through history, whilst each culture has tried to prevent itself from imploding by insisting it is the height of human nature, is compassion.

Scientist Stephan Gould once said:
“History is made by warfare, lust for power, hatred, and xenophobia (with some other, more admirable motives thrown in here and there). We therefore assume that these obviously human traits define our essential nature. How often have we been told that ‘man’ is, by nature, aggressive and selfishly acquisitive?“
And he is correct. This is what we’re told. And yet, it just doesn’t add up. Would society be a detrimental mess, if we were to insist the contrary, that human nature is compassionate and cooperative? It would of course threaten great wealth, but why is that a problem? It is a problem only for those who have acquired great wealth, and who have succumb to the notion that we’re all ruthless monsters. If society truly were about the individual rather than the community, if a helping hand once in a while, a shoulder to lean on, a push in the right direction, were indeed detrimental, then the pillars of society would crumble. Whilst Humanity has the natural tendency to be horribly greedy and uncaring, it also has the overwhelmingly magnificent ability to be compassionate and genial. So why are we focusing on merely one aspect, the killer aspect? We have been conditioned to believe that cooperation, is simply illogical. We perpetuate the myth that human nature is greedy and that any attempt to block that greed, to promote cooperation, is a shot through the heart of our individual Liberties. And yet, we humans have the unique ability to sympathise, to support, and to empathise. We are all genetically connected, and so we are all part of one big family. We are not at odds with each other, adversaries in the great race for profit. We’re family.

I would argue that whilst greed and intense self reliance certainly pushes some to a position of unrivalled power (and thus gives them the power to push their way of thinking onto us all), you cannot force an entire populace to think the same way. When you try to ingrain into the minds of the compassionate, a sense of “me me me” you are the part of the problem, rather than the solution. You are the reason that it is cheaper to make a pill that works to give a middle aged white businessman an erection, than it is to make a pill to treat an African child with AIDs. We are not all greedy, the levels of difference between the extreme of pure selfishness to the extreme of pure altruism is so great from person to person, it is unfair to suggest that humanity on the whole is inherently greedy, whilst punishing and demonising those who do not possess the greedy gene. Charity merely exists in the World of the greedy; why can’t greed exist in the World of the Charity?
Greed is not human nature. Greed is merely a weapon in the search for power and acknowledgement. What if material greed were replaced, and power and acknowledgement were earned through the help given to those who cannot adequately help themselves? Is that some evil Communist notion? If it is, I’d be proud to wear the Communist label.

Human nature is not a choice. You cannot chose to have a specific nature, it just is. And so, if for example, a lady chooses to dedicate her live to helping others; resenting greed, rejecting the notion of incessant “want“; she is not rejecting human nature as such, she is merely acting on a personal trait of compassion and coexistence that is not based on “me me me“. We’d all say that lady is incredibly admirable. Yet, if tomorrow, we were all told by her, that society would now be based around that very same ideal of cooperation and compassion, we’d call her a Socialist. Evil. Trampling on our Rights. Rights that by the way, we invented, to act within the society…. that we created. Those economic rights are not universal and binding, enacted by nature. They are rights enacted by the wealthy few to protect themselves. I’m willing to believe there is more good in the World, more cooperation and compassion, than there is greed and selfishness. Greed is a choice, as is selflessness and cooperation. Neither, is human nature. Satisfying unnecessary “wants” becomes deleterious to satisfying the very necessary “needs” of those less fortunate.

Herman Kumara, head of the National Fisheries Solidarity Movement in a fishing town hit by the tsunami in Sri Lanka wrote “The funds received for the benefit of the victims are directed to the benefit of the privileged few, not to the real victims……… We see this as a plan of action amidst the tsunami crisis to hand over the sea and the coast to foreign corporations and tourism, with military assistance from the US Marines“. To the majority of us, capitalisation on a disaster area seems so horribly immoral, to even suggest it is a trait of human nature, is an insult. It is therefore comforting to know that thousands of charities like Paddle4relief and Unitingtheworld are doing the real work, getting the help to the people who need it, and not thinking about profit to be made in the future.

Greed led to the economic crises we face today. Banks did not care about the obscene debts they were encouraging us all to live on. Greed led to the U.S supporting General Pinochet when it suited them, regardless of his disrespect for human life. Greed has lead to street gangs at war over turf and wealth. Greed has led to illegal wars. Greed has led to the biggest scandal in my estimation the World has ever known – extreme yet unnecessary poverty. Greed led to the MPs expense scandal currently gripping the UK. Greed is so incredibly puerile and useless, it has not had the effect promised to us by successive Governments over the past twenty five years. It has merely created a generation who know no different, and so presume that it’s the only way through life. I reject wholeheartedly that particular notion.

We lose our spiritual connection to those around us, we lose our compassion for each other, we become a line on a map, or a skin colour, or a race, rather than an entire species who certainly need each other regardless of how much money we may have. We lose our philosophical ideas, our freedom to think above and beyond the realm of profit, because our only philosophy now is based solely on greed, and if you disagree, you’re an out of date Socialist with mental issues. We are led to believe that those who are not successful home owners are just lazy, and so don’t deserve our help. We are led to believe that the World is one big resource to be exploited by those who can afford it, regardless of the out come.

In the land of the “free”, The United States would not be the powerhouse it is today if it had relied solely on rugged individualism from it’s conception. The Preemption Act of 1841 and the Homestead Act of 1862 gave away much of the land brought by the California, Texas, Louisianna and Alaska purchases, which is the cornerstone of American success. Community was established when the Government took over lands that were filled with duelling and crime. Historian John Mack Farragher described the American frontiers as “a community experience…“. Big government in the USA then went on, extending 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.
The point being that the strength of a Nation is not solely based on individualism, but on collective responsibility, cooperation, and sympathy. Where the markets fail to provide security and a sense of love and respect, the collectively elected Government, should step in. If it means they raise the highest rate on tax, by a little over 3%, to cope with the unbelievably disastrous equality gap, then all I have to say to the rich few is, tough.

How things change.

We consider those who become homeless to be lazy and primitive, rather than real people with real flaws that need an incredible amount of help to put right. Our hearts become stone and we see everyone else as mechanical money making stepping stones, to reach a goal of “more“. And yet, through it all, regardless of how ruthless we are, how greedy we are, the myth of individualism is so much so that we could not make it through life alone; and so in that sense, we are all that homeless man, we all need somebody.

The Lie Machine

When I started researching this story, I had a short blog planned. But the more I researched, the deeper the story goes, it’s a story of huge proportions, with back stories, and secrecy, lies and propaganda that drives the veins, right to the heart of the war in Iraq, acting more like the plot of a Ludlum novel, than the core of realty. It’s a ridiculously deep story. Usually I do not give conspiracy theories much of a second thought, but when it is brought to my attention by a Pulitzer Prize winning Journalist with a Columbia University Masters, my curiosity is demanding to be fed.

In December 2003, six months after the Invasion of Iraq, and with the World coming to terms with the notion that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and had no ties to Al Qaeda; a document was released, dated July 2001, apparently showing a connection between the head of Saddam’s Iraqi Intelligence, General Tahir Jalil Habbush and one of the terrorists behind 9/11 (Mohammed Atta). The document was supposedly found by the coalition Government in Iraq, and verified as authentic by interim Iraqi President (and long time CIA asset) Ayad Allawi shortly after the invasion. It suggests that Atta was trained as a terrorist by Abu Nidal, known at that time as the most dangerous terrorist on the planet, and who was based in Iraq. Despite the fact that Nidal was a long time critic of Saddam and was supposedly killed by the Hussain regime, after the Iraqi’s became convinced Nidal was spying for Egyptian and Kuwaiti intelligence, with the knowledge of the Americans. Nidal then, was not able to defend himself from these claims suggested in the uncovered documents.

The document, Addressed to: “To the President of the Ba’ath Revolution Party and President of the Republic, may God protect you.”
reads:
“Mohammed Atta, an Egyptian national, came with Abu Ammer [the real name behind this Arabic alias remains a mystery] and we hosted him in Abu Nidal’s house at al-Dora under our direct supervision.
We arranged a work program for him for three days with a team dedicated to working with him…He displayed extraordinary effort and showed a firm commitment to lead the team which will be responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy.”

Pulitzer Prize winning Journalist and Author Ron Suskind, has suggested that the Bush White House along with the CIA had forged the document to suggest a pre-war link between Iraq and Al Qaeda to back up their authority for war. He suggests that the biggest threat facing the America, and the World is a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of terrorists, and so with America losing it’s moral leadership in the World, the rise of Anti-Americanism becomes an ever increasing threat, which America fights with it’s own brand of semi truths, secrecy, and terrorism.

Suskind suggests that Habbush was an informer for the Bush Administration on Iraq. He started sending reports to both the White House and Downing Street in 2003, and confirmed that there were no WMDs in Iraq. The reports were kept secret, and during the invasion, Habbush was paid $5,000,000 in hush money and relocated to Jordan, by American intelligence. Later that year, the White House ordered the CIA to forge a document back dated to 2001, from Habbush, to Saddam, stating that Mohammed Atta had trained in Iraq, and so weaving a direct link between 9/11 and Iraq, simply because the WMD claim had failed miserably. The document was thus released to the media whom took it at face value, unquestioning, severely lacking in the journalistic qualities that earned Suskind the Pulitzer. Ayad Allawi, the interim President of Iraqi in 2003, and long time CIA associate, was of course quick to verify that the document was indeed genuine, refusing to answer the question of why Nidal would be colluding with Hussain, given weapons, a training camp, and a band of terrorists given that Nidal and Saddam were not exactly the best of friends, and that Nidal was more of a hired gun, than a trusted friend of Iraq.

Suskind goes on to suggest that CIA officers Robert Richer and John Maguire supervised to creation of the document, the order coming through from the Office of Dick Cheney. Richer and Maguire have categorically denied the claims, and so it is of course possible that the CIA did not produce the document. The CIA are under 1991 guidelines that prevent them from feeding false information in the U.S. Not that they can’t get round that. They do however know that their testament, could lead to the President being impeached. It’s quite the pressure. But, if Suskind is wrong about the source of the document, then who’s the likely culprit? Who would Cheney turn to? He was afterall, manic about finding a link, regardless of how the link was found and how credible the information was, between Al Qaeda and Iraq, despite intelligence suggesting absolutely no link between the two.

My guess, and of course this is just speculation, is the Pentagon’s top policy official at the time, Douglas Feith. Feith was the head of the Officeof Strategic Influence, which until it became public was a secretive arm of the defence in the United States. It existed for a very short period and was uncovered in 2002. The Office was set up to produce false documents and propaganda to mislead the enemy. The media started to ask questions about the Office, and it’s secretive operations. Defence Secretary Rumsfeld shut it down in February 2002. However, all he did in essence, was change it’s name. Rumsfeld stated in 2002, in regard to the closing of the Office ” You can have the name, but I’m going to keep doing every single thing that needs to be done.” Whether or not Rumsfeld would have closed it down, had it not been uncovered, is something one must think about when assessing this case. In any event, the newly created Information Operations Task Force (IOTF) took up much of the work where the Office of Strategic Influence left off. The IOTF has dealings with John Rendon of the Rendon Group. A PR group dedicated to supporting U.S military interventions all over the Globe, through propaganda aimed at the population of the victim nation. The field of work is known as “perception management,“, they have been accused of feeding foreign media fabricated articles in order to bring the citizens round to their clients way of thinking. Rendon’s work includes anti-Saddam covert PR campaigns in 1991, aimed at attempting to over throw the Hussain regime. Rendon has been involved in covert pro-American propaganda in Iraq, Kuwait, Kosovo, and Zimbabwe amongst others. Rendon is even supposedly the father of the Iraqi National Congress, a group of anti-Saddam Militants and Oil tycoons put together to oppose the Saddam regime and gain support for his eventual removal. Lead by Ahmed Abdel Hadi Chalabi, and funded by the Americans, the INC was responsible for passing on false information regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction to the Bush Administration. The evidence they provided was flimsy at best, but lead to the invasion of Iraq. Chalabi had his eyes set on power after the toppling of Saddam. Any official claim that his information was flimsy, would not have been taken lightly, and was a threat to Chalabi, Blair, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or Rendon itself. The apparent suicide of David Kelly, comes to mind.

Rendon had been awarded a $6,400,000 contract to create pro-war, and pro-American propaganda and target Iraqi civilians with it.
This information, and much like it (search Google for Rendon Group, it’s all there) leads me to conclude that if Cheney was indeed adamant that he needed a link, regardless of it’s credibility, between Al Qaeda and Iraq, then the most likely source of the forged Habbush document, was not the CIA, it would have been the Office dedicated to creating this type of propaganda, and given the nature of the document, and it’s obvious importance to the Administration, it must have been the responsibility of the most senior members of the IOTF and the Rendon Group. I’d put all of this at the door of Cheney, and the Rendon Group.

Like I said, this story goes so very deep. It proves much more efficiently than any other story that I’ve come across connected to the Iraq war, that the indelibly secretive Bush Administration worked tirelessly to prove a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, in order to justify a War that seems more and more likely to have been based on profit from defence and oil contracts, and that didn’t stand up to scrutiny the moment the Weapons of Mass Destruction Argument failed. All the time, hammering the American public into a sense of false Patriotism, you’re either pro-war, or you’re against us. It’s why they forged the Habbush document. It’s why they tortured. It had very little to do with Cheney’s dire need to protect America, and much much more to do with Cheney’s need to cover up the fact that his war, the death toll, the families lives destroyed, was based on such an ugly lie.
Why did we invade Iraq?

I wonder what Doctor David Kelly knew.

The blame game

I cannot help but find it magnificently shameful that MPs such as David Davis, who claimed £5,700 for a portico and £658 to decorate his kitchen, and who certainly didn’t stand up against the system before hand, have the nerve to support Douglas Carswell’s vote of no confidence motion in the Speaker of the House, Michael Martin.

The anger of the Nation is not aimed at Michael Martin alone. It’s aimed at people like David Davis. We do not have confidence in people like David Davis. For him then to stand up and have the nerve to suggest that Michael Martin is the problem, is nothing more than playing politics. He should have stayed sat down, with his head hanging in damned shame. Why don’t MPs like David Davis force a by-election in their constituency to take place? Why doesn’t he call for immediate prosecutions of those who have made fraudulent claims? And where is Harriet Harman in all of this? The Leader of the House has an incredible amount of blame on her shoulders, having tried to amend the Freedom of Information Act to exclude the publication of MPs expenses. Apparently the Speaker is the sacrifice that a corrupt Parliament demands.

So far, MPs have blamed the fees office for not blocking their claims; they’ve blamed the media for being paid for than they are; they’ve blamed the system itself despite the fact that the system does not force them to make extravagant claims, and in fact the rules state that expenses must not be that “which could be seen as extravagant or luxurious” – the rules are pretty straight forward, the rules are not to blame; they’ve blamed the leak for releasing the information to the Telegraph. And now, they’re blaming Speaker Michael Martin. All of this, whilst they rather unashamedly insist their claims were “within the rules” (David Cameron told Radio 5live today, that his claims were within the rules), or quite beautifully “I recognise that the clearing of the moat was not positively excluded from the claim.“, or the wondrous explanation (which acts more like a description of the problems in his house, rather than a reason to claim expenses) by Shadow Schools Secretary David Willets, for claiming to have 25 lightbulbs replaced – “We had problems with our lighting system which had caused many lights to fuse and needed the attention of an electrician.”

They have, like vultures, descended on the speaker, and left his battered remains for the media. Whilst the Speaker did not put reforms in place sooner, neither did any MP motion for expense reforms. They all sat quietly whilst either stealing, or watching others steal. The public demand a hell of a lot more than just the Speaker stepping down.

If Michael Martin is to go before a general election is called, then half the Commons should have the whip removed, until a general election is called. And right now, a general election would be a nightmare for the main parties, but a saving grace for parties such as the BNP.

Whilst Michael Martin is indeed a Parliamentary liability, and does not command the respect of MPs at all, I support his decision to meet Party Leaders to discuss reforming the expenses system. Yes it should have happened sooner. If Michael Martin should indeed stand down over his misjudgement of public anger over the expenses scandal and his lack of initiative in solving it sooner, then perhaps we should investigate expense claims made pre-2000, pre-Michael Martin.

The pomposity, the “honourable gentleman“, the regal robes, the “withdraw that statement” when an MP accuses another of lying, the State opening of Parliament cloaked in out of date extravagance, the conventions of Parliament – all need to change. We are living in the 21st Century, we are not living in the 18th Century. Michael Martin indeed, represents the past. If I had my rebellious, revolutionary way, there would be no Monarchy, powers would be split between the executive and the legislative branches of government in much the same way that the President is split from Congress. Proportional Representation and a written Constitution would be at the very heart of our currently misshapen and out of date democracy. An entire overhaul of our political system is long overdue.

Martin’s attempt to block expenses being made public, is the reason he should go. Parliament being raided by police over Damien Green, is the reason he should go. Martin’s own expenses claims, is the reason he should go. It is true, that Parliament cannot begin to rebuild it’s reputation with the public whilst Michael Martin is speaker. However, Parliament cannot begin to rebuild it’s reputation until those Tory MPs like David Davis have gone. Until those Labour whips like Nick Brown who claimed £18,000 for food without receipts, have gone. Those MPs ousting Michael Martin, are simply banding together and passing the blame on. The motion of No Confidence, lies in the hands of the Prime Minister, only he can decide whether the debate will go ahead. And although, I think perhaps it should go ahead, i’m a little unnerved, that the crooks will be deciding the fate of the crook.

We do not torture (except when we torture)

The despicably teleological former U.S President George Bush once told the American people, “We do not torture“. Now, we know that America under Bush, did torture. Whether you mask the word “torture” behind “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” or not, torture is torture. It is a step too far. For example, according to an official memo a man named “Abu Kenami“, died whilst in an American detention facility in Iraq.
The memo states:

“on the day he died, Kenami had been punished with ups and downs several times . . . and had his hands flex cuffed behind his back (1285). He was also hooded, with a sandbag placed over [his] head. (1284).Ups and downs are apparently a correctional technique of having a detainee stand up and then sit-down rapidly, always keeping them in constant motion(1284). He was found dead in the morning after having been placed in his bed cuffed and hooded.”

If that had been the description of how an American soldier had died in the hands of a nation such as Iran, wouldn’t the American public be outraged, rather than a useless GOP keeping quiet and playing politics by choosing to shift the spot light onto Pelosi?

Torture does not combat terrorism, in fact, it pretty much does the opposite. It encourages negative feeling toward America to sweep the Planet. In the same way that destroying a Middle Eastern Country, displacing millions of people, creating thousands of orphans and killing thousands more, whilst shouting “Mission Complete” does not endear an entire destroyed culture to your cause. Combating Terrorism, by using Terrorism, will never work. Bypassing international laws and human rights laws, will never keep a country safe.
It does not matter how many times Dick Cheney insists that torture has helped to keep America safe, because as it turns out, the worst terror attack in American history took place on his watch, along with the deaths of thousands of troops. His tactics didn’t save American lives, it ended American lives. Dick Cheney is not Jack Bauer.

It’s quite obvious that these techniques amount to torture. For those who suggest that it isn’t torture, then hopefully I can count on your support when I try to suggest it be used in schools to deal with uncontrollable children? What if these techniques were used against American soldiers? I’m guessing the American Right would be insisting how terrible it is. But these people are Arabs, and so whether or not they’re terrorist, is usually beyond the point, they’re Arab, and so they’re not Christian! Or American! (See: BritishRepublican)

Philip Zelikow, advisor to Condoleeza Rice, sent a memo to his boss setting out his objections to the legal backing for torture “Enhanced interrogation techniques” way back in 2002. The use of these techniques is quite clearly cruel and unusual, which exists as a bullet in the brain of the Eigth Amendment of the U.S Constitution (Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted). Zelikow tried to point this out to the Secretary of State, having himself studied Constitutional Law. The memos he claims, were rounded up and destroyed by the Bush administration who were at the time trying to inflate the importance of strict interrogation techniques against high valued prisoners such as Abu Zubaydah, who happens to have been waterboarded 83 times without any further information being extracted from him. They did not want Zelikow’s memo gaining too much support or influencing the minds of too many people.

Retired United States Army Colonel and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell Lawrence Wilkerson, who was in charge of reviewing the information and evidence for War, in preparation of Colin Powell’s speech to the U.N in 2003, was not told the evidence was obtained via interrogation. Wilkerson has since stated that the use of torture for intelligence “was not aimed at preempting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al Qaeda“. Suddenly, what Pelosi knew and when she knew it, seems irrelevant.

U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, investigators in 2006, that interrogators at Guantanamo were under pressure to produce a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Burney is quoted as saying “While we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq,” Burney told staff of the Army Inspector General. “The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results.” And yet the GOP want to focus on what Pelosi might have been told?

Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi could very well be lying (as could the CIA) to some extent, as to how informed she was over the Bush Administration’s use of torture. Last month she claimed that in a 2002 briefing with intelligence experts, whilst she was the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, that she had not been informed of waterboarding, stating “In that or any other briefing…we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used”. However this month, a report from the Director of National Intelligence’s office, appears to suggest otherwise. The same 2002 meeting was described as a “Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of particular EITs that had been employed.” Clearly contradicting Pelosi.
The Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, DemocratBob Graham was among many other leading Democrats to be briefed on Waterboarding and various other techniques, according to ABC. President Obama was right to release the memos, and he was right to refer to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques as torture. Regardless of the political problems it may cause the Democrats, they only have themselves to blame. Obama was right.

And so whilst it seems obvious that the Democrats in Congress who appear to be taking he moral high ground, are actually nothing more than pawns in the Bush Administrations ruthless oil game, it should detract from the fact that the three who actually plotted and authorised such criminal and anti-Constitutional acts of barbarism and terrorism, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, are just being left to live a happy quiet life, whilst their crimes and the cover ups taking place behind close door, go largely unpunished. The suggestion appears to be that the Bush Administration effectively legalised torture, to gain “confessions” and “evidence” linking Iraq to Al Qaeda and 9/11, in preparation for war. And so if it becomes clear that war was waged, lives were lost, countries destroyed, and billions of dollars wasted, on the basis of dodgy evidence obtained via torture, then Republicans should really back off Pelosi (The Democrats answer to Sarah Palin?), because she’s going to be the least of their worries if all out investigation is to take place. It’s a little odd that the GOP appears to be attacking the morality of Pelosi for what she knew….. about what they were doing. They appear to be more concerned about whether a Democrat was briefed on torture, rather than who actually ordered torture, effectively pissing on the Geneva Convention.

Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner (whose tan is just wonderful!), stated that Pelosi should either provide evidence that the CIA had lied to her over use of waterboarding, or apologise to the CIA for accusing them of lying. Firstly, as if we’re all under an illusion that the CIA has never lied to the World. Of course they have. Secondly, If that’s what Boehner wants, then I want Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Rove to publicly apologise for a war based on lies, four thousands U.S deaths, thousands of Iraqi deaths, and a destroyed economy.
Boehner also claimed stated this weekend that “Lying to the Congress of the United States is a crime“. Clearly lying to the American people, leading to thousands of deaths, isn’t. Otherwise the claims made by George Bush, that “We do not torture” and the claim that “The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.” or the claim to the UN in 2002 that “Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.” would have been punished, long ago.

Nothing short of a full, de-ontological investigation into the actions of the Bush Administration over the past eight years, the decisions and intelligence gained leading up to the war, who ordered the use of torture, who knew and did not object to the use of torture, and whether or not the Geneva Convention and/or Constitutional Law was broken, will do.

Cambridge Universitism

I fear the general public is in danger today of ignoring an incredibly vital issue that was set to be debated in the Commons this afternoon (but has in effect, been defeated and thrown out). The Employment Opportunities Bill, introduced to the House by Tory MP for Christchurch Christopher Chope. It raises the issue of Minimum wage, and suggests that, with the consent of the employee, employers should be able to opt out of paying minimum wage. It is, in essence, an abolition of the minimum wage bill.

Now, ignoring the fact that whilst Mr Chope doesn’t much care for those of us who could not afford to live on less than minimum wage, let alone hope to one day get a foot on the housing ladder, he didn’t appear to have a problem claiming £136,992 last year in expenses. Perhaps that money could go to helping those who would so severely be hit economically by his disastrous bill, buy food? We already can’t afford gas and electric since his party privatised it all during the ’80s.
Are the Tories really that naive as to think any employee is going to agree to opt out of minimum wage, without the employer saying “Sign this agreement to opt out, or fuck off”? It would encourage businesses that are not struggling, to pay beneath minimum wage. Prices would deflate hugely as a result. And all companies would start to opt out on a grand scale, because minimum wage does not work unless it’s universally applied. It would, in truth, be a disaster.

Chope said “Our government make it illegal for an employer and an employee freely to negotiate the level of remuneration if it is less than £5.73 an hour for an adult, unless, of course, the work involved is unpaid voluntary work.” That damn Government, trying to help those who were quite routinely exploited during the Tory reign of terror, live a better life. How dare they. I particularly dislike his use of the term “negotiate”. If an employer says “you either accept a pay decrease to £1 an hour, or i’ll employ someone who will”, that isn’t a negotiation, that’s exploitation. It is not a bill to help people surf the tide of recession by having access to more jobs albeit with slightly lower pay, it’s a bill to increase productivity of workers whilst paying as little as possible, it’s a bill to help employ at the lowest costs possible, whilst be able to pay just enough to keep employees alive to actually do the work. For example, one of the Tory MPs who backs this bill, is Peter Bone, famous for once paying a 17 year old trainee 87p for work in his Travel Company. The old face of exploitative Toryism just refuses to die.

It is no surprise that it is Mr Chope promoting this bill. He is responsible for selling off Council Houses in the 1980s, which lead to Mrs Thatcher’s re-election, gaining support from those who would typically vote Labour given that they could now afford to own their own home. In the process, it completely screwed over my generation, who will find it almost impossible, short of becoming a Lawyer (or an MP), of owning my own home. The Government of the 1980s made it easier for those wanting to buy multiple homes to do so, which in turn pushed the average house price up by 225% between 1983 and 1990, which meant sea side home were bought up and used once or twice a year, which meant villages like Beadnell in Northumberland are forced to close schools and businesses local to the area, because 256 out of the 500 homes, are holiday homes! Thanks Chope! You’re a genius! Chope went on to say that being FORCED to work for minimum wage, was against our “human rights”. Note, that this is from a party opposed to the Human Rights Act.

The idiots Geniuses over at Cambridge University Conservative Association (as if you’d expect them to understand the point of the minimum wage in the first place) say “ the minimum wage causes unemployment (a surplus of labour)“. No it doesn’t. It’s regressive, especially during a recession, to suggest that employers should be able to pay those who are already struggling to pay their bills, a lot less. It’s inexcusably immoral at best. They’ve decided upon the conclusion that minimum wage causes unemployment, due to their dedication to Thatcherite Neoliberalism. Not to concrete evidence. Surely if every firm is paying minimum wage, then equilibrium is achieved? Market forces cannot work against a universal principle. It creates a level playing field for all firms, whilst protecting the most vulnerable, from what i’m now going to refer to as “Cambridge Universitism“. The only conceivable way that markets will fail, is by introducing an Opt Out system, where by some firms stick in principle to minimum wage, whilst their competitors see an opportunity to capitalise on paying their employees, 35p an hour. In which case, those employees will want to go elsewhere, to companies that pay minimum wage, and the exploiting Company based on “Cambrigde Universitism” fails anyway?

The minimum wage was introduced in the UK in 1999, the pay was set at £3.30. Since then it has rose to £5.73 an hour, and comes with strict penalties for firms caught not abiding by their responsibilities. It benefits huge numbers of the lowest paid workers in the Country, which in turn, provides a higher rate of disposable income (some were paid as little as 80p an hour during the Thatcher years), and so benefits the economy on the whole. There is little argument that minimum wage is one of New Labour’s greatest achievements, and has helped improve the living conditions of millions since it’s introduction in 1999. Except, if you’re an expenses cheating Tory MP, or you’re in your own haven from the rich at Cambridge, obviously.

Cambridge go on to say “Indeed, now that we are in a recession, it is surely responsible for even more unemployment.” Followed by “Unemployment will never be minimised as long as minimum wage legislation remains in force.“…… Again, no evidence, merely sticking to Neoliberalist principles that says minimum wages prices people out of jobs. Unemployment (which spiked during the Thatcher era, despite the lack of minimum wage) was falling steadily year on year when minimum wage was introduced. Two years later, unemployment was at it’s lowest in decades. This is true for both full time and part time workers. In fact, by 2000, unemployment was at it’s lowest in 25 years. You’d surely expect, a year after minimum wage has been introduced, by Cambridge Univertism 19th Century Factory exploitation logic, and Peter Bone MP, who said in 1998 that a “A minimum wage would condemn hundreds of thousands to the dole queue.” that unemployment would have rose dramatically, almost inconceivably so, by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, but no, it fell, and continued to fall, pretty much until recession hit.

Recession of cause, had absolutely nothing to do with minimum wage, and everything to do with the greed of banking Neoliberalists, which in turn lead to suspicion in the banking sector and reluctance to lend. Minimum wage was not the cause, and minimum wage did not make the situation worse. In fact, having a minimum wage can help, given that mortgage lenders lend on the strength of income. If you’re being paid 80p an hour, you aren’t in a better position to be claiming a mortgage. Regardless of what these toffs say, Minimum Wage has provided security for millions of workers, who in turn have lead a healthier , more secure and happier life. It doesn’t cause mass unemployment, no more so than before minimum wage legislation was introduced. It prevents the greed of certain employers driving down wages as much as possible.

It is worrying that such a senior Conservative, advocates such regressive nonsense, at a time when Conservatives are almost inevitably set to become the next Government of the United Kingdom. Chope seems to be attacking Labour on the introduction of the minimum wage, appearing to be concerned with rising unemployment and yet didn’t have a problem when 3,000,000 people were left unemployed, and untrained, the homeless rate shot up, and the poll tax that he helped usher in creating mass unemployment, the deaths of thousands of businesses (including ours), and unprecedented rioting, due to the policies he endorsed in the eighties. The only difference now is, we at least have some protection for our lowest paid…. which he doesn’t seem to like. He appears to be in denial that deregulation of the labour market, would be a disaster during recession.

The same Tories were telling us all, a few months back, that you had to pay bankers high to provide incentive for them to work hard. Now they’re telling me that same logic doesn’t apply to those who are paid least? Why is Chope not proposing legislation to cut down on tax loopholes for the super rich? Why is he proposing to hit the lowest paid workers the hardest? Simple answer, he’s a Tory, and he’s supported by Cambridge Universitism.

Chope, who opposed the introduction of the minimum wage ten years ago, and seemingly still carries a grudge, speaking on behalf of Conservatives who oppose Minimum Wage, said, quite comically: “We are talking about the marketplace and people should be free to compete in the marketplace without restriction“. Well in that case, I cannot wait to see Chope introduce a bill to abolish or “opt out” of the Factory Acts and all anti-discrimination laws, so that people are “free without restriction” to hire whomever they wish, for as long as they wish, for as much as they wish. Let’s have no restrictions on employment. Let’s be fully regressive!

The Tories are starting to show themselves for what they really are. Stuck in the 1980s.

Leicestershire County Council to the rescue!

Our friends over at the deeply Orwellian Conservative controlled Leicestershire County Council have decided to take it upon themselves to waste an unfortunate amount of time, paper and money on the single most ridiculous questionnaire in the history of the World ever. (Perhaps a slight exaggeration, but it’s still a questionnaire of disturbingly shit proportions).

The cover letter reads “YOUR HELP IS REQUESTED TO IMPROVE TRAVEL IN LEICESTERSHIRE“. My instant reaction was, ahhh good! This will give me the chance to air my annoyance at the road “improvements” taking place at the bottom of my road, signposted to take place for eight weeks, but actually taking place for most of my life.

The letter cotinues:
“This information will be used to help reduce travel problems, by reducing traffic delays, improving bus services, making roads safer, reducing the impact of traffic on residents and improving walking and cycling.”
Sounds wonderful. Perhaps they’ll start understanding that the bus stop they placed, about 5 metres from the bus stop that was already there, meaning that our bus comes to halt, twice in the space of fifteen seconds, is quite possibly the most ridiculous idea any Councillor has ever conceived. Perhaps they’ll understand that the bus lane that remains empty for most of the day, could be used to ease the enormous amount of traffic in the adjacent lanes during the week.
It’s a much needed survey, and so my mind lit up with joy the moment I read the letter. Perhaps they’ll note that the train station, which holds only ten car parking spaces, the same as it did in 1950, which forces people to park in spots labelled “for private use only“, leading to a mass of fines, is simply lazy and primitive. But I thought, perhaps this survey will allow me to address these issues? The cover letter, afterall, does state “By taking part in this survey you will be playing a vital role in helping to influence transport planning“… A vital role! My answers to this survey are THAT important, I must conclude that the survey i’m about to open is full of questions that will provide councillors with immense insight into my issues with transport in Leicestershire. The drunk chavs on the bus, the two bus stops metres apart from each other, the cycle lanes, the empty bus lanes, it’ll ask me for a detailed opinion on all of those, surely?

And then I opened the survey.

Allow me to relay some of the questions to you, and i’d appreciate if someone could decipher how any of this is intended to improve bus service, reduce traffic, and help cyclists. It came in the package of a “Personal Travel Diary”:

Your Destination Address, please give full postcode if known:

Activity, purpose of visit:

What time did you arrive at your destination:

Cost:

Name of location where parked vehicle:

Okay, you might be able to conclude that they will collaborate all information gained, and if some roads are used more than others, the buses might be more wisely distributed. However, why they need to know my “activity” and the time I arrived, is beyond me. But still, it might, if very slightly, and vaguely be used to a productive end. Although, I wont hold my breath.

The cover letter states that they have specifically asked a sample of Leicestershire residents to answer the survey, to help them to understand the travel concerns of residents and the “problems they experience“, well as of yet, they haven’t once asked for about any problems i’ve experienced. Perhaps pages 10-13 will cover that?

Page 10-13:

What type of accommodation does your household occupy?

How many rooms do you have?

How long have you lived at this address?

If you have lived at this address for more than five years, where did you move from?

How likely is it that your (yep, your, not you, but your) will move within the next twelve months?

For each person in the household who is working or has ever worked, please indicate how long they have worked at their present address or how long it is since they last worked:

Please indicate the type of job the person is doing.

Thinking about all the sources of income such as salary/wages, benefits, pensions etc, please tick which of the following best represents income of your household before taxes and other deductions.

I have to wonder, how does knowing how many rooms my house has, help to provide a more efficient bus service? Will the cycle lanes be improved now that my faceless Tory councillors know i’m not likely to move within the next twelve months? If I stopped people in the street and said……. “It’s completely anonymous because I don’t want to know your full name, but how much do you earn? Where do you work? Are you going to move house any time soon? How many rooms do you have?” ……..I’m likely to be told to fuck off at best, and shot, at worst. Why is any of what they asked, their business whatsoever? There are more questions requesting my private information, than there are dedicated to travel issues. And not once does it ask me for any problems i’ve experienced. They merely gave me a three page travel diary to fill out, which, as far as I can tell, is so deeply irrelevant and useless, it may as well be called “Personal life, with a bit of travel on the side for no particular useful reason Questionnaire”.

The disclaimer, quite reassuringly (and when I say reassuringly, I mean, not at all reassuringly) states: “Your responses will be treated in confidence. This question is asked only so we can group together responses from households with similar levels of income”. Why is that important? Are we playing the Class game again? The rich pile and the pool pile? And who is going to “treat it in confidence“, it’s not like a doctor, who actually knows his patient. None of us know these people, we’ve never seen these people, and they’re telling us we can be sure our private information is safe with them?
The cover letter ends rather comically, with “We’d like to reassure you that the information that you provide will be completely anonymous...”….. well yes, in the sense that you don’t know my name, but you know now my wages, my age, if I hold a driving licence, whether i’m disabled, my gender, my employment status, when I moved in, how many rooms my house has, where I travelled to and from every day, and the activities I undertook – such as school journeys and where I work, so “completely anonymous” is not an entirely truthful assessment.
I’m tempted to email the Conservative Council a survey of my own, entitled “Wildlife Protection Questionnaire”
My questions would start with…”I don’t want to know your name but...”:

Have you ever seen a bird? Where was it? At what time?
After answering those naturally irrelevant questions, i’d get to the important Animal protection questions.

When did you last go for a poo? How long did it take, including wiping?

If you have boobs, what is your breast size? (Are they real?)

When you woke up this morning, what were the exact words you used to greet the person lying next to you?

Can I come and camp in your moat?

How often do you touch yourself, you dirty bastard?

Do you/have you ever had homosexual thoughts?

What are you wearing

The Conservativeblogs page of our head Councillor, David Parsons, in between blaming Labour for everything that is wrong with the World, states that because of Labour, “we are one of the lowest funded local authorities in the country”. In the next paragraph, he claims one of his biggest achievements is “Delivered over £28 million in efficiency savings without affecting performance” ….. It begs the question, how underfunded are you, if you’re able to save £28,000,000? It’s almost as laughable as the Tory MP for Rutland, Alan Duncan claiming Rutland Council is underfunded. Rutland, poor? Really? They’re a funny bunch, so this survey isn’t all that surprising.

I think they’d appreciate my efforts to conserve and protect the Wildlife in the City of Leicestershire. Perhaps I should run for Council, I would fit right in!